Territory Stories

Parliamentary record : Part I debates (19 November 1985)

Details:

Title

Parliamentary record : Part I debates (19 November 1985)

Collection

Debates for 4th Assembly 1983 - 1987; ParliamentNT; Parliamentary Record; 4th Assembly 1983 - 1987

Date

1985-11-19

Notes

Made available by the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory

Language

English

Subject

Debates

Publisher name

Northern Territory Legislative Assembly

Place of publication

Darwin

File type

application/pdf

Use

Attribution International 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)

Copyright owner

Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory

License

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Parent handle

https://hdl.handle.net/10070/220608

Citation address

https://hdl.handle.net/10070/698925

Page content

DEBATES - Tuesday 19 November 1985 environment as far as traineeships are concerned. Once again, we must always consider the small firm which does not have the resources of Nabalco and BHP. The important thing is that the small firms must be able to operate and have some encouragement to put on more apprentices. The incentive is that they know they will not be tied up by industrial disputes. Philosophically, we disagree. Apart from that, the employer must first get the permission of the Secretary of the Department of Industry and Small Business. That is why I do not support the amendment as proposed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr LEO: The Deputy Chief Minister has arrived at a point where he says it is a matter of philosophy. I also think there will be industrial difficulty involved at some time in the future. Of course, clause 28(2) does require the employer to receive the permission of the secretary of the department before he stands down apprentices. We heard before that this is basically a translation of a provision which presently exists within an award. There is a significant difference: one is an arbitrated decision whereas this is legislation. That is a significant difference. The secretary of a department, albeit for the best reasons, will be involving himself in industrial relations. That is creating a precedent for apprentices which is irrevocable. They will become industrial animals. There is no question about it. There is no way of escaping it. If the minister thinks that it is worth while that that should happen to safeguard a few hours pay, then I am afraid he has his priorities all wrong. In Nhulunbuy, where industrial relations are played do not have a week off or a day off. If they decide to 11 weeks. That is 11 weeks of apprenticeship training will be down. Of course, the employer will still permission of the secretary of the department. Mr Dondas: I can see why you are worried. in the hard lane, they bolt, they do it for that those apprentices have to receive the Mr LEO: Why am I worried? Assume Nabalco applies to the secretary of the department to apply the stand-down provisions in clause 28(1) and the secretary denies the application. The employer will then scream industrial interference. Apprentices need to be protected, yet this legislation will involve them in what has otherwise been handled by arbitration. That is a hell of a precedent. I do not know that the minister is aware of where that will be in 5 years' time. Quite frankly, I do not know and I am not reassured by anything he has told me. Mr DONDAS: As I said earlier, philosophically we disagree. r can only say to the member for Nhulunbuy that this, particular stand-down provision is in more than one award. At the moment, r can only cite the one award but r will provide the member for Nhulunbuy with the name of the other award that contains this stand-down provision. The committee divided: Ayes 5 Mr Bell Mr Ede Mr Lanhupuy Mr Leo Mr Smith Noes 17 Mr D.W. Collins Mr Coulter Mr Dale Mr Dondas Mr Finch 1877


Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are advised that this website may contain the names, voices and images of people who have died, as well as other culturally sensitive content. Please be aware that some collection items may use outdated phrases or words which reflect the attitude of the creator at the time, and are now considered offensive.

We use temporary cookies on this site to provide functionality.
By continuing to use this site without changing your settings, you consent to our use of cookies.