FAIR WORK (PROHIBITION AGAINST BARGAINING SERVICES FEE) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 14 February 2008. Page 2085.)

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:25): I wish to make a brief contribution. The measure that seeks to prohibit unions charging a bargaining services fee misses the point somewhat. In my view, the issue is not about prohibiting a bargaining services fee: the issue is that, if one gets a benefit, should one contribute towards the cost and effort that has gone into obtaining that benefit? In other words, if you do not belong to a union and you get the benefit that the union has obtained for workers in that particular area, I believe it is quite fair and reasonable that you make some contribution towards the cost of getting that benefit.

I would argue that any fee which is to be charged or levied against a non-union member should be determined by the independent commission, not by the union itself. I think that is a fair way to go about this. I have never supported people who are bludgers or parasites. There has always been a provision that if one did not want to join a union, one could make an equivalent donation to the Children's Hospital, or something similar, and some people have availed themselves of that.

Wherever I have worked, I have always belonged to the relevant union. Unions have not always acted the way they probably should but, in terms of industrial relations, I think any person who does not belong to a union is taking a risky approach to their employment situation. As I have just indicated, some unions and some union officials at times overstep the mark; you get that in all areas of life and all areas of the economy. I am well aware that the Labor Party is obviously strongly linked to the unions, as is the Liberal Party in relation to business, farm groups and professional groups, but the reality is that, if one gets a benefit that can be demonstrated as arising from the actions of the union, in fairness, one should contribute towards the cost of getting that benefit.

The difference from some others is that the fee should be fair and reasonable and determined by the Industrial Relations Commission, or an equivalent independent body, not by the union itself. Therefore, I do not support prohibiting a bargaining services fee in total. I do not think it is fair or reasonable. I do not like people getting a free ride whether they are in a union, not in a union, or anywhere in society. I do not like freeloaders. By seeking to prohibit the bargaining services fee in total, this bill misses what could be a more fair and reasonable approach; that is, having the fee determined by an independent body and not by the union itself.

Ms SIMMONS (Morialta) (11:29): The government opposes this bill at this time, as it would be unnecessary and heavy-handed legislation. The bill is also pre-emptive of the new nationally coordinated industrial relations system, which is in the very early stages of development, involving the new federal Labor government and the states and territories. Fundamentally, this bill addresses a matter that is unlikely to arise in the South Australian industrial jurisdiction as it currently stands. If it were to do so, it would be appropriately addressed in accordance with existing decisions of the South Australian Industrial Relations Commission.

It is generally recognised that a very high proportion of strongly unionised workplaces are now, as a consequence of the former federal Liberal government's WorkChoices legislation, within the federal industrial jurisdiction. This means that the federal prohibition against approval of bargaining fees in agreements, which has been in place since 2003, operates to effectively restrict the potential use bargaining fees in South Australian workplaces.

Debate adjourned.