Page 2232 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 31 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the designated work groups had resulted in an occupational health and safety hazard not being removed from the workplace.
So I suggest that, while you might try to make light of what I am saying by suggesting that it is some sort of a story, Mr Collaery, the issue is very clear. The Residents Rally should recognise the fundamental importance of designated work groups in the workplace. I think that the temporary aberration in the Rally that has turned up in relation to the Rally's policy on this issue should be put to rest, and a turnaround on the issue needs to be promoted and discussed amongst your colleagues. I would encourage you to do that.
I am a little disappointed that the building unions were targeted for criticism in this debate, because, after all, the building unions have gone to a lot of trouble and effort to defend their members in relation to occupational health and safety on building sites throughout this Territory for many, many years. I would hope that by the time we have finished debating this very important Bill the building workers will have no need for criticism of the Residents Rally party because of its stand on this particular issue. I also hope that no building workers will be injured and have any reason for bitterness or hatred towards the Residents Rally party because of the absence of designated work groups in their particular workplace to protect them from injury.
MR WOOD (5.07): I would caution the Rally to have a look at the principle that they are establishing today, and that principle, as stated by their leader, is this: we are not going to consider the merits of this Bill - that is what Mr Collaery said, in my words, not his, of course - we are considering another matter, a matter of alleged union misbehaviour. I think Mr Collaery and his colleagues in the Rally ought to consider this and ought to adopt a very clear principle, that every Bill that comes into this house will be considered on its own merits.
I believe this is of the utmost importance. To hold out some sort of threat over a union or a group of unions and say, "We will not provide important legislation for some other reason, whether rightly or wrongly", is a very poor approach to take in what ought to be a most deliberative and sincere chamber. So I do urge that there be no support for that sort of approach. It is not even consistent.
The Rally looked at the matter of involved unions earlier on in this debate, and they supported it. Now, suddenly, we have a shift. I can only surmise that the reason for this is to have the appearance of having an independent stance - not to support the Government on everything - or for some other unknown reason. But it is a very dangerous path to tread. With the next legislation that comes before us, are you going to consider that legislation, or are you going to make some statement that is provisional upon some other entirely unrelated activity?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .