❓ Mr. Buswell questions the Premier about paid leave for union representatives attending a rally, while other public servants must use annual or unpaid leave. The Premier defends the agreements with the workforce and accuses Mr. Buswell of undermining collective rights.
AnsweredQoN 705Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
Given that today’s stop-work meeting is not an industrial dispute, why are the Premier’s union mates, the shop stewards and organisers, being allowed to take sanctioned and paid leave to attend the industrial relations rally whilst other public servants who are not accredited union workplace representatives have to take a day of annual leave or unpaid leave to attend? Dr G.I. GALLOP
AnswerView source ↗
What a surprise! The Australian Labor Party, when it is in government, has agreements with its work force that allow that work force to be represented by trade unions. That has been in our platform since the Labor Party was formed. The very fact that the member asked that question indicates that he wants to undermine the rights of people to act collectively. In order for people to act collectively, they need a process by which they can select some people to act on their behalf in their workplaces. Many members of this Parliament on this side of the house have gone from the shop floor, through the trade unions, to this state Parliament. I am proud of those people who are in this Parliament, because they have spent their working lives defending the interests of their colleagues at work. The member for Vasse does not understand that. In the hearts of everyone on this side of the house there is a belief in the right to be represented collectively, but in his heart - or what remains of it - is a belief that trade unions should be destroyed. That is what the member believes in. Let us look at the background to this literature. Let us start off with all the literature that has come from the various theological leaders throughout the history of modern industrial society. The churches have made it clear on many occasions that the right of the individual to act collectively is a fundamental human right. Secondly, a look at all the democratic rights that have been built into industrial and human rights legislation in similar countries to Australia shows that the right to be represented and to act collectively is a fundamental human right. What we saw under the leadership of Richard Court, backed up of course by Graham Kierath, was an attempt to undermine that right. They did not understand it, and the member for Vasse does not understand it. I repeat: we have agreements with our work force, which we have entered into freely, because we believe in the concept of allowing representatives of the work force to act on behalf of their fellow workers and to defend their interests. Sometimes that occurs to our embarrassment, because we are an employer, and sometimes we cannot deliver everything those representatives want on behalf of their workers and we occasionally have conflict. However, on one issue we will never have conflict, and that is the belief on this side of the house that an individual right will never exist in reality unless it is backed up by the ability to act collectively. If employees are sent naked into society without the ability to act collectively, it will create the foundations for an authoritarian society in which the rights of people will be trampled on. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! I call to order the member for Roe and the member for Murray.
Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: What a surprise! The Australian Labor Party, when it is in government, has agreements with its work force that allow that work force to be represented by trade unions. That has been in our platform since the Labor Party was formed. The very fact that the member asked that question indicates that he wants to undermine the rights of people to act collectively. In order for people to act collectively, they need a process by which they can select some people to act on their behalf in their workplaces. Many members of this Parliament on this side of the house have gone from the shop floor, through the trade unions, to this state Parliament. I am proud of those people who are in this Parliament, because they have spent their working lives defending the interests of their colleagues at work. The member for Vasse does not understand that. In the hearts of everyone on this side of the house there is a belief in the right to be represented collectively, but in his heart - or what remains of it - is a belief that trade unions should be destroyed. That is what the member believes in. Let us look at the background to this literature. Let us start off with all the literature that has come from the various theological leaders throughout the history of modern industrial society. The churches have made it clear on many occasions that the right of the individual to act collectively is a fundamental human right. Secondly, a look at all the democratic rights that have been built into industrial and human rights legislation in similar countries to Australia shows that the right to be represented and to act collectively is a fundamental human right. What we saw under the leadership of Richard Court, backed up of course by Graham Kierath, was an attempt to undermine that right. They did not understand it, and the member for Vasse does not understand it. I repeat: we have agreements with our work force, which we have entered into freely, because we believe in the concept of allowing representatives of the work force to act on behalf of their fellow workers and to defend their interests. Sometimes that occurs to our embarrassment, because we are an employer, and sometimes we cannot deliver everything those representatives want on behalf of their workers and we occasionally have conflict. However, on one issue we will never have conflict, and that is the belief on this side of the house that an individual right will never exist in reality unless it is backed up by the ability to act collectively. If employees are sent naked into society without the ability to act collectively, it will create the foundations for an authoritarian society in which the rights of people will be trampled on. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! I call to order the member for Roe and the member for Murray.
What a surprise! The Australian Labor Party, when it is in government, has agreements with its work force that allow that work force to be represented by trade unions. That has been in our platform since the Labor Party was formed. The very fact that the member asked that question indicates that he wants to undermine the rights of people to act collectively. In order for people to act collectively, they need a process by which they can select some people to act on their behalf in their workplaces. Many members of this Parliament on this side of the house have gone from the shop floor, through the trade unions, to this state Parliament. I am proud of those people who are in this Parliament, because they have spent their working lives defending the interests of their colleagues at work. The member for Vasse does not understand that. In the hearts of everyone on this side of the house there is a belief in the right to be represented collectively, but in his heart - or what remains of it - is a belief that trade unions should be destroyed. That is what the member believes in. Let us look at the background to this literature. Let us start off with all the literature that has come from the various theological leaders throughout the history of modern industrial society. The churches have made it clear on many occasions that the right of the individual to act collectively is a fundamental human right. Secondly, a look at all the democratic rights that have been built into industrial and human rights legislation in similar countries to Australia shows that the right to be represented and to act collectively is a fundamental human right. What we saw under the leadership of Richard Court, backed up of course by Graham Kierath, was an attempt to undermine that right. They did not understand it, and the member for Vasse does not understand it. I repeat: we have agreements with our work force, which we have entered into freely, because we believe in the concept of allowing representatives of the work force to act on behalf of their fellow workers and to defend their interests. Sometimes that occurs to our embarrassment, because we are an employer, and sometimes we cannot deliver everything those representatives want on behalf of their workers and we occasionally have conflict. However, on one issue we will never have conflict, and that is the belief on this side of the house that an individual right will never exist in reality unless it is backed up by the ability to act collectively. If employees are sent naked into society without the ability to act collectively, it will create the foundations for an authoritarian society in which the rights of people will be trampled on. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! I call to order the member for Roe and the member for Murray.
Let us look at the background to this literature. Let us start off with all the literature that has come from the various theological leaders throughout the history of modern industrial society. The churches have made it clear on many occasions that the right of the individual to act collectively is a fundamental human right. Secondly, a look at all the democratic rights that have been built into industrial and human rights legislation in similar countries to Australia shows that the right to be represented and to act collectively is a fundamental human right. What we saw under the leadership of Richard Court, backed up of course by Graham Kierath, was an attempt to undermine that right. They did not understand it, and the member for Vasse does not understand it. I repeat: we have agreements with our work force, which we have entered into freely, because we believe in the concept of allowing representatives of the work force to act on behalf of their fellow workers and to defend their interests. Sometimes that occurs to our embarrassment, because we are an employer, and sometimes we cannot deliver everything those representatives want on behalf of their workers and we occasionally have conflict. However, on one issue we will never have conflict, and that is the belief on this side of the house that an individual right will never exist in reality unless it is backed up by the ability to act collectively. If employees are sent naked into society without the ability to act collectively, it will create the foundations for an authoritarian society in which the rights of people will be trampled on. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! I call to order the member for Roe and the member for Murray.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! I call to order the member for Roe and the member for Murray.
The SPEAKER : Order! I call to order the member for Roe and the member for Murray.
Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: What a surprise! The Australian Labor Party, when it is in government, has agreements with its work force that allow that work force to be represented by trade unions. That has been in our platform since the Labor Party was formed. The very fact that the member asked that question indicates that he wants to undermine the rights of people to act collectively. In order for people to act collectively, they need a process by which they can select some people to act on their behalf in their workplaces. Many members of this Parliament on this side of the house have gone from the shop floor, through the trade unions, to this state Parliament. I am proud of those people who are in this Parliament, because they have spent their working lives defending the interests of their colleagues at work. The member for Vasse does not understand that. In the hearts of everyone on this side of the house there is a belief in the right to be represented collectively, but in his heart - or what remains of it - is a belief that trade unions should be destroyed. That is what the member believes in. Let us look at the background to this literature. Let us start off with all the literature that has come from the various theological leaders throughout the history of modern industrial society. The churches have made it clear on many occasions that the right of the individual to act collectively is a fundamental human right. Secondly, a look at all the democratic rights that have been built into industrial and human rights legislation in similar countries to Australia shows that the right to be represented and to act collectively is a fundamental human right. What we saw under the leadership of Richard Court, backed up of course by Graham Kierath, was an attempt to undermine that right. They did not understand it, and the member for Vasse does not understand it. I repeat: we have agreements with our work force, which we have entered into freely, because we believe in the concept of allowing representatives of the work force to act on behalf of their fellow workers and to defend their interests. Sometimes that occurs to our embarrassment, because we are an employer, and sometimes we cannot deliver everything those representatives want on behalf of their workers and we occasionally have conflict. However, on one issue we will never have conflict, and that is the belief on this side of the house that an individual right will never exist in reality unless it is backed up by the ability to act collectively. If employees are sent naked into society without the ability to act collectively, it will create the foundations for an authoritarian society in which the rights of people will be trampled on. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! I call to order the member for Roe and the member for Murray.
What a surprise! The Australian Labor Party, when it is in government, has agreements with its work force that allow that work force to be represented by trade unions. That has been in our platform since the Labor Party was formed. The very fact that the member asked that question indicates that he wants to undermine the rights of people to act collectively. In order for people to act collectively, they need a process by which they can select some people to act on their behalf in their workplaces. Many members of this Parliament on this side of the house have gone from the shop floor, through the trade unions, to this state Parliament. I am proud of those people who are in this Parliament, because they have spent their working lives defending the interests of their colleagues at work. The member for Vasse does not understand that. In the hearts of everyone on this side of the house there is a belief in the right to be represented collectively, but in his heart - or what remains of it - is a belief that trade unions should be destroyed. That is what the member believes in. Let us look at the background to this literature. Let us start off with all the literature that has come from the various theological leaders throughout the history of modern industrial society. The churches have made it clear on many occasions that the right of the individual to act collectively is a fundamental human right. Secondly, a look at all the democratic rights that have been built into industrial and human rights legislation in similar countries to Australia shows that the right to be represented and to act collectively is a fundamental human right. What we saw under the leadership of Richard Court, backed up of course by Graham Kierath, was an attempt to undermine that right. They did not understand it, and the member for Vasse does not understand it. I repeat: we have agreements with our work force, which we have entered into freely, because we believe in the concept of allowing representatives of the work force to act on behalf of their fellow workers and to defend their interests. Sometimes that occurs to our embarrassment, because we are an employer, and sometimes we cannot deliver everything those representatives want on behalf of their workers and we occasionally have conflict. However, on one issue we will never have conflict, and that is the belief on this side of the house that an individual right will never exist in reality unless it is backed up by the ability to act collectively. If employees are sent naked into society without the ability to act collectively, it will create the foundations for an authoritarian society in which the rights of people will be trampled on. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! I call to order the member for Roe and the member for Murray.
Let us look at the background to this literature. Let us start off with all the literature that has come from the various theological leaders throughout the history of modern industrial society. The churches have made it clear on many occasions that the right of the individual to act collectively is a fundamental human right. Secondly, a look at all the democratic rights that have been built into industrial and human rights legislation in similar countries to Australia shows that the right to be represented and to act collectively is a fundamental human right. What we saw under the leadership of Richard Court, backed up of course by Graham Kierath, was an attempt to undermine that right. They did not understand it, and the member for Vasse does not understand it. I repeat: we have agreements with our work force, which we have entered into freely, because we believe in the concept of allowing representatives of the work force to act on behalf of their fellow workers and to defend their interests. Sometimes that occurs to our embarrassment, because we are an employer, and sometimes we cannot deliver everything those representatives want on behalf of their workers and we occasionally have conflict. However, on one issue we will never have conflict, and that is the belief on this side of the house that an individual right will never exist in reality unless it is backed up by the ability to act collectively. If employees are sent naked into society without the ability to act collectively, it will create the foundations for an authoritarian society in which the rights of people will be trampled on. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! I call to order the member for Roe and the member for Murray.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! I call to order the member for Roe and the member for Murray.
The SPEAKER : Order! I call to order the member for Roe and the member for Murray.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.