Page 2115 - Week 10 - Thursday, 26 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
from the trade unions - nothing more or less. As Mr Stefaniak ably pointed out, this Bill has been on the back burner for five months because the Labor Party did not like what the select committee did to its favourite piece of legislation.
I would submit that, if Mr Whalan is dead keen about making unions a party to this, he should have a definition in here of involved employer groups as well and he should require the employees to consult with the employer groups if he requires the employers to consult with the unions. If this is truly a question of making sure that people's interests are properly represented, then he would have both provisions in there, not just this one. To suggest that the trade unions are going to go away because they are not formally recognised by definition in the Bill is, of course, an absurdity. The trade unions will still be there, they will still be using their muscle, they will still be putting pressure on small businesses and small employers whether they are recognised in this Bill or not. I think that Mr Collaery's saying that he will watch this and then come up with an amendment later is another absurdity.
We should be making sure as best we can that the trade unions are not leaning on the small employer. This gives them a formal status in the context of this Bill that I do not believe they ought to have and, as I said, they are not going to go away because they are not formally registered here and given that particular and special status and recognition.
I would urge Mr Collaery and the Residents Rally to rethink their position. They should not come back and try to correct the damage after it has been done. Let us try to make sure that there is no damage, or at least keep the damage control mechanism in place and keep the damage to a minimum by not giving these trade unions a special place, a sort of token power over small business employers, by making this provision. I would ask the Rally in particular to rethink its position, support the view put forward by Mr Stefaniak on this issue and take this special provision out.
MR BERRY (Minister for Community Services and Health) (11.25): I think that the Liberal Party has adopted a fairly predictable stance in their approach to the - - -
Mr Kaine: So has the Labor Party.
MR BERRY: Indeed, and that is what separates us, Mr Kaine; that is the difference between the Labor Party and Liberal Party.
Mr Kaine: You are dead right. We do not believe in being "heavied" by the unions. That is the difference.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .