Page 1144 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 6 April 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Other parts of the MOU contain similar statements reiterating existing laws, obligations or statements of existing policy. Rather than questioning whether there is some inappropriate ceding of power to unions, the more appropriate question is really: what real effect do these parts of the MOU even have? What they do is reinforce the government’s commitment and remind the public service that those pieces of legislation exist and should be implemented. They are a recommitment by government to policies that unions strongly support, simply in a different format.
Secondly, I would point out clause 1.3 of the MOU which says:
Nothing in this MOU is intended to oblige the ACT Government to act in any way in breach of any law or trade agreement.
That is there in black and white. Mr Hanson, of course, did not read that bit of it out because that context did not suit the political case he is trying to make. What clause 1.3 does is emphasise that the government still must act appropriately and legally. The MOU does not obligate any inappropriate activity.
Clause 1.4 says the agreement applies subject to the Government Procurement Act 2001. I would like to remind those who are sceptical that officials in government procurement take their job very seriously. They are professionals and they are subject to legal and ethical obligations. They do not just go around saying, “Oh, some union official said we have to award a tender to a particular company, so we will just go and do that.” No. They follow proper processes as our public servants seek to do every single day that they turn up to their jobs.
In any case, there are other clauses reiterating that the MOU does not usurp any laws or obligations of government officials. Clause 6, for example, repeats the right that unions have in terms of organising and in terms of right of entry. Specifically subsection (e) says that a union has access to records and specifies “where permitted by law or industrial agreement”. Again, there are no extra or unusual rights here, just a restatement of those that exist.
Let me turn to the most interesting and relevant clauses of this agreement, clauses 4.2 and 4.3. Clause 4.2 requires the government to provide a list of applicants for pre-qualification to Unions ACT prior to approval. The union has 10 days to provide its view on whether or not the applicant meets its employee or industrial relations obligations. Under 4.3, the same obligation exists to provide Unions ACT with the list of tenderers for contracts.
I can see how these requirements look strange on the face of it. In fact, to the suspicious or mistrustful they might look like government is giving the unions some veto power or a power to make decisions on contracts. The suspicious part of my mind worried about that as well when I first read the reports of this MOU. But I investigated, and those worries are unfounded.
I acknowledge the concerns raised by some groups, such as the Master Builders, the Property Council and the Canberra Business Council. I can say that what they fear
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video