STATUTES AMENDMENT AND REPEAL (TAFE SA CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL

Conference

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (14:20): I have to report that the managers for the two houses conferred together and that no agreement was reached. I move:

That the Legislative Council do not further insist on its amendments.

The PRESIDENT: As no recommendation from the conference has been made, the council, pursuant to standing order 338, must either resolve not to further insist on its requirements or lay the bill aside.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (14:21): I thank the member for his passionate defence of the Legislative Council's position in the conference of managers. He defended the rights and the position of the Legislative Council. It must have been difficult for him, given his union background, to have adopted that position in the conference of managers. He and the other representatives of the Legislative Council outlined their continuing opposition to the intransigent position being adopted by the House of Assembly in relation to this important matter and it is very pleasing to see the minister supporting the position of the Legislative Council in the conference of managers.

The Liberal Party position as outlined by the shadow minister, the member for Unley, Mr Pisoni, throughout the latter part of last year—I cannot remember now, it is so long ago, when this issue was last debated in the Legislative Council; the conference of managers has been delayed for many months.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: Since November.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It has been delayed since November, my colleague Mr Dawkins indicates. It was scheduled to meet on a number of occasions, but the former minister cancelled a number of meetings of the conference of managers and we eventually met at lunchtime today. The position of the Liberal Party, as I said, as outlined by the member for Unley, remains the same. The reasons for that have been outlined by the member for Unley in the debates in the House of Assembly, and I on his behalf have outlined the position of the Liberal Party in this chamber.

We take the view that all teachers, for example, in relation to those ballots which relate to all teachers, should have the opportunity to be elected and represent teachers, not just those who happen to choose to be a member of a union. We hasten to debunk the view that this in some way prevents union representation, because if, as the union outlines and the House of Assembly outlines, the overwhelming majority of teachers, for example, are members of the union, if they so choose to select a member of the union to represent them, then they are of course entitled to do so.

Ultimately it should be a decision for the workers to elect their representative and if they choose to elect a union representative, good on them. If they choose to represent a worker—or in this case a teacher—who does not happen to be a union member but who is happy to be a representative of the workers and has the support of the majority, well then good luck to them as well.

We support that particular democratic principle. The majority of the Legislative Council has adopted that position previously and I do not intend to repeat ad nauseam that debate. We adopt the position that, if the motion is that we no longer insist, we will be, of course, opposing that and we will be asking that the council insist on maintaining its position.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (14:26): I was also at the deadlock conference and I certainly have not changed my position on the bill. I endorse everything that the Hon. Rob Lucas has mentioned and I will certainly be opposing the Hon. Russell Wortley's motion.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (14:26): Family First's position is unchanged, that is, that we will also be opposing the motion.

The council divided on the motion:

Majority of 3 for the noes.

Motion thus negatived.

Bill laid aside.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! We are usually well behaved in this chamber.