Page 1320 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 12 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
industrial power are women and young workers. The movement has been working very hard to increase wages and working conditions for women and youngsters and to provide jobs for young people, but by weakening the trade union movement, which Mr Moore sets out to do very deliberately, the fight for women's wages and working conditions will be more difficult and for youngsters there will be more exploitation. That is the effect of what Mr Moore is on about.
Mr Humphries: This is scaremongering, to me.
MR BERRY: You might say that, Mr Humphries, but we know the Liberals' track record. They have always hated the increase of influence of unions in the industrial relations area. They hate the fact that there is strong representation of workers and an equal bargaining position. You do not want that. You want the bosses to be in charge. We will see occupational health and safety conditions - - -
Mr Humphries: We hate compulsion. We favour free choice.
MR BERRY: Every time you hear the words "choice" and "flexibility", you know that it is the workers that are going to get it in the neck. When the Liberals use "choice" and "flexibility", they mean that they want fewer people involved in the unions, they want to be able to force workers into lower wages and working conditions, and they want to give flexibility to the bosses to do the workers over. That is what the Liberals mean and, in effect, that is what Mr Moore means because that is the effect of his legislation.
It has been reported to me that Mr Moore has said that if all of this happens he might consider reversing his attitude. I am afraid that it is a little like Pandora's box, Mr Moore. Once you open the lid and let it all out, you cannot get it back in. You cannot reverse the process. Once you have lost control of it, once wages and working conditions are lost, you do not recover the lost ground. You have to understand the implications of what you are doing here, and I do not think you do. I do not think you do, Ms Szuty. This is very serious, and unions throughout the ACT are extremely concerned about it. The Liberals, on the other hand, and Mr Stevenson are overjoyed. It achieves the aim of the Liberals to weaken the ability of workers to negotiate and hold on to their wages and working conditions. The Liberals support the weakening of the trade union movement in so far as the legislation will weaken its ability to protect occupational health and safety in the workplace. As unions are weakened by this legislation, and that is what it sets out to do, these things will occur.
In relation to ACT legislation and Federal legislation, where they conflict, pursuant to the self-government legislation, the ACT legislation will be void. That will include awards of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. That means that, wherever there is a preference clause in an award, it will take precedence over the ACT legislation. I have heard it said that people ought not to be given preference if they are members of a union. If the employer and the union agree that they ought to be given preference, they should be, if it is in the award.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .