<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>House of Assembly</name>
  <date date="2008-06-05" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>51</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>2</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>House of Assembly</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="3641" />
  <endPage num="3705" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Bills</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Fair Work (Prohibition Against Bargaining Services Fee) Amendment Bill</name>
      <text id="20080605f6f8555321cb4f24b0000118">
        <heading>FAIR WORK (PROHIBITION AGAINST BARGAINING SERVICES FEE) AMENDMENT BILL</heading>
      </text>
      <subproceeding>
        <name>Second Reading</name>
        <text id="20080605f6f8555321cb4f24b0000119">
          <heading>Second Reading</heading>
        </text>
        <text id="20080605f6f8555321cb4f24b0000120">Adjourned debate on second reading.</text>
        <text id="20080605f6f8555321cb4f24b0000121">(Continued from 14 February 2008. Page 2085.)</text>
        <talker role="member" id="2819" kind="speech">
          <name>The Hon. R.B. SUCH</name>
          <house>House of Assembly</house>
          <electorate id="">Fisher</electorate>
          <startTime time="2008-06-05T11:25:00" />
          <text id="20080605f6f8555321cb4f24b0000122">
            <timeStamp time="2008-06-05T11:25:00" />
            <by role="member" id="2819">The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:25):</by>  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.</text>
          <text id="20080605f6f8555321cb4f24b0000123">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.</text>
          <page num="3650" />
          <text id="20080605f6f8555321cb4f24b0000124">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.</text>
          <text id="20080605f6f8555321cb4f24b0000125">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.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="3129" kind="speech">
          <name>Ms SIMMONS</name>
          <house>House of Assembly</house>
          <electorate id="">Morialta</electorate>
          <startTime time="2008-06-05T11:29:00" />
          <text id="20080605f6f8555321cb4f24b0000126">
            <timeStamp time="2008-06-05T11:29:00" />
            <by role="member" id="3129">Ms SIMMONS (Morialta) (11:29):</by>  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.</text>
          <text id="20080605f6f8555321cb4f24b0000127">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.</text>
          <text id="20080605f6f8555321cb4f24b0000128">Debate adjourned.</text>
        </talker>
      </subproceeding>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>