Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard   

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Thursday, 4 October 1984
Page: 1693

Mr McGAURAN(10.07) —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) in his reply at the second reading stage made great play and placed great emphasis on the fact that sections 45D and 45E had failed, in the cases he cited, to resolve industrial disputes. The Minister has portrayed a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of sections 45D and 45E which do not have, as their primary aim, the resolution of industrial disputes. Instead, those two provisions of the Trade Practices Act have as their primary aim protection from and restraint against secondary boycotts. It is for that reason that the Opposition opposes, in the very strongest terms possible, the repeal of these two provisions. To have a member of the Government, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, say that those two provisions have as their primary aim the resolution of the underlying issues of industrial disputes is completely and utterly wrong. The two provisions seek to protect an employer who is not a party to an industrial dispute yet is being harmed by the actions of an employee group against an employer. For that reason the Minister, who cited two cases where the provisions failed to resolve the dispute, is way off course. I have a list of 50 actions by employer groups relying on sections 45D and 45E as protection for their position as innocent parties. Again, I can only reiterate what every other member of the Opposition has said: that is, that it is the unanimous view of every employer group in this country that these provisions are necessary to protect them against harmful employee group actions when they are innocent third parties.

Question put:

That clauses 2 and 3 be agreed to.