• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Extract from Hansard [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 12 September 2000] p977a-979a Hon Bruce Donaldson; Hon Graham Giffard; Hon Ken Travers STATE WORKPLACE AGREEMENTS Motion Resumed from 7 September on the following motion moved by Hon N.F. Moore (Leader of the House) - That this House calls on the Opposition to repudiate demands by the union movement and the federal Australian Labor Party to scrap state workplace agreements and acknowledge that its opposition to state workplace agreements since 1993 has been ideologically driven and dictated by the union movement. HON B.K. DONALDSON (Agricultural) [4.13 pm]: I am pleased to return to this motion. I will refer to an article from The Australian dated 18 August 2000. The headline states “Gallop faces showdown with unions". It is an interesting article because it states - The Labor caucus supported Dr Gallop and his labour relations spokesman John Kobelke on a commitment to repeal the Government's workplace agreements legislation, but replace it with new laws allowing a modified form of individual contracts. It continues - Lay members last week passed a motion backing federal Opposition Leader Kim Beazley in his opposition to individual contracts and called on Dr Gallop to do the same. It continues - The motion is expected to be forwarded to Labor's 17-strong administration committee, which will decide whether it will be put to the next state executive meeting in Kalgoorlie on August 28. I wonder if that meeting was held. To continue - Some senior members want the debate delayed until the next meeting in Perth on September 18, when more delegates will be able to attend. It continues - About 10 union leaders met Dr Gallop in Hobart on August 2 during Labor's national conference to demand he drop plans to retain individual contracts. They threatened to call a special state conference to roll Dr Gallop on the issue. I wonder when they will hold that - November or December? Hon Ken Travers: Is the member just going to read out press articles all afternoon? Hon B.K. DONALDSON: This is relevant to the motion. Hon Ken Travers: The member’s leader did the same last week. Hon B.K. DONALDSON: No, he did not. I continue - But that debate may now take place on the floor of the state executive. Several key unionists forecast yesterday that delegates on the state executive would not let the matter rest, even though a party revolt could damage Dr Gallop's leadership. Hon Derrick Tomlinson: I wonder what the Morgan Gallup poll says about Dr Gallop? Hon B.K. DONALDSON: I also wonder. The article discusses Dr Gallop’s views - He claims the mining industry largely operates under individual contracts and a return to collective bargaining would hurt the sector. Mining groups had forecast an end to workplace agreements would return Western Australia to the "industrial relations dark ages". So that members on the other side of the House can understand, I am trying to draw attention to the fact that a lot of them owe their place in this House to the union movement. I will quote from Hansard dated Wednesday, 12 March 1997, page 147. It is an extract from Hon Ed Dermer’s maiden speech - The strength of the trade union movement is essential to the hope and prospects of working Western Australians and their families. The Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association of Western Australia is a fine example of an effective trade union working to defend its members. I am proud of my association with this union over the past decade and more. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich made her maiden speech on Tuesday, 27 May 1997. She said, in part - [1] Extract from Hansard [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 12 September 2000] p977a-979a Hon Bruce Donaldson; Hon Graham Giffard; Hon Ken Travers My thanks must also go to Mr Kevin Reynolds, Mr Kim Young and Miss Karla Tucker from the Builders Labourers, Painters and Plasterers Union. My thanks also go to Mr Jim McGiveron, Mr Rick Burton and members of the Transport Workers Union. Thanks must also go to Mr Glen Anderton and Mr Don Bartlem of the Australian Workers Union. An opposition member: They are all nice people. Hon B.K. DONALDSON: I do not doubt that they are all nice people. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich will have to pay the price one day - the thirty pieces of silver - to those unionists who supported her election to this House. I think it will be called upon very soon over workplace agreements. On Tuesday, 10 June 1997, Hon Ken Travers said - My first involvement in the labour movement was as a rank and file trade union activist. I would, therefore, like to acknowledge the support of the members and officials of the trade union movement for the Australian Labor Party and myself. I particularly thank my own unions, the Community and Public Sector Union and the Public Transport Union. I also acknowledge the support of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, the Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union and the Maritime Union of Australia, with which I have been closely associated. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: What is the member’s point? Hon B.K. DONALDSON: If the member listened and did not interrupt she would get the point. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Why is the member repeating the speech of Hon Greg Smith? Hon B.K. DONALDSON: I am not. The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon B.K. DONALDSON: I am suffering unruly interruptions. It is unbelievable. I am trying to clearly identify that some members will have to pay a price for their election to this House. Some of them owe a very large debt to people in the union movement, who are their masters. They are like puppets on a string. One wonders how Dr Gallop will explain to the 80 per cent of workers in Western Australia who do not belong to a union how workplace agreements will be ditched if the ALP gets into power. Believe me, that is what will happen. We should not kid ourselves. The Labor Caucus has already agreed to this policy direction. I look forward to hearing Labor Party members try to hide what they intend to do if they are fortunate enough to get into government. I suggest they may have to put those intentions on the backburner for at least another four years. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this issue. I am pleased the Leader of the House has challenged the Opposition to have enough courage to repudiate the notion that the unions will have their way and that Dr Gallop and caucus members will not rule supreme. It would be like saying the tooth fairy exists. I challenge opposition members to say they will not support the repeal of workplace agreements. We are yet to hear it. HON G.T. GIFFARD (South Metropolitan) [4.21 pm]: I oppose the motion. Most of the debate has not been about the Australian Labor Party’s commitment to repeal the Workplace Agreements Act 1993, which the Government introduced, but has been an attempt to get the Labor Party to endorse the legislation and deny it the opportunity to present its own legislative package and policy direction. Hon Peter Foss: It is a bit ambiguous. Hon G.T. GIFFARD: The motion is deliberately ambiguous. The most pertinent remarks government members have made about the motion related to the implementation of workplace agreements in the mining industry. Those members’ speeches read like a briefing paper on the mining industry. On the occasions members applied themselves to the motion, their speeches started and ended with the mining industry. Those opposite said nothing about the erosion of the wages and conditions of people working in the security and cleaning industries or of those in other relatively low-paid industries who have suffered under this legislative regime. Hon Kim Chance: That is because they do not care about those people. Hon G.T. GIFFARD: The Government does not care about those people; that is why it implemented this form of workplace agreement. It does not care about the more vulnerable members of the work force. The fundamental weakness and unfairness of the Workplace Agreements Act must be held up to scrutiny if we are to seriously entertain any of the concepts in the motion. One of the more conspicuous features of the Act is that it prescribes a secretive regime. No-one is able to know the particulars of an agreement negotiated under the Act. They are secret and avoid public scrutiny. The secretive, unreviewable regime set up by this Government contrasts with the collective bargaining regime, which is open and transparent. If workers decide to strike an agreement with their employer through the collective bargaining system, it will be given legal effect and registered as an [2] Extract from Hansard [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 12 September 2000] p977a-979a Hon Bruce Donaldson; Hon Graham Giffard; Hon Ken Travers agreement. Collective bargaining agreements are advertised in the Government Gazette and can be accessed through the Internet. They are easily accessible and people are able to study the agreements that have been struck between employers and the unions representing the workers. That contrasts with the regime this Government put in place for individual workers. Under the Workplace Agreements Act, it is an offence to make public the terms of a workplace agreement. It cannot be accessed on the Internet or advertised in the Government Gazette. We cannot know the deals workers have signed with their employers to keep their jobs. The provision allowing secret, unreviewable contracts of employment constitutes one of the more conspicuous weaknesses of the legislation, although I am sure those opposite consider it a strength.

Load more

  3

Copy Link