Incolink

Mr COWDREY (Colton) (15:57): My question is to the Premier. What steps has the Premier taken, or will he take, to prevent Incolink from becoming the dominant entitlement scheme for the building industry in South Australia? With your leave, sir, and that of the house, I will explain.

Leave granted.

Mr COWDREY: On 1 June 2023, the Premier explained to this place that there are, and I quote:

…various acts and powers and functions that exist with the state that we are willing to deploy should that opportunity present itself and should the need arise.

The opposition has received a draft copy of the CFMEU South Australia Major Civil Contractor Enterprise Agreement 2023 which states, and I quote:

On commencement, and in accordance with the fund's procedures the Company shall register the Employees with the relevant industry funds.

The fund referred to in the agreement is Incolink for severance pay.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Premier) (15:58): I thank the member for Colton for his question. The government's concern about Incolink principally goes to transparency around those funds. That is our principal concern and it is a concern that I think we have to remember a couple of things about when it comes to enterprise bargaining.

Enterprise bargaining represents a democratic instrument that exists between employees and employers, as I know the member for Colton is well aware. It is governed by federal industrial legislation which, of course, this parliament doesn't have carriage of, ever since the Howard government assumed the responsibility for all forms of private sector industrial relations during the course of the WorkChoices changes. When it comes to workers' entitlements under any enterprise agreement, ultimately those workers will form a judgement through the democratic means available to them as to what should happen to their money—workers' money. I think that is just something to bear in mind.

But the concern that the government has with the CFMEU speaks to what we have seen over a substantial period of time come out of the Victorin CFMEU principally around the practices that they deploy: allegations of bullying, allegations of thug-like behaviour, all the things that the Labor movement at its best rejects without qualification. What we know is that the vast majority of the trade union movement reject those types of behaviours.

Mr Cowdrey: Well do something about it.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: I thought there was a powerful contribution since John Setka has reared his head again by what I think was a desperately ill-thought through piece of advocacy that the AFL should not employ someone in an umpiring role, which was a unique contribution as its mildest, and a dastardly ill-informed contribution at its most obvious. When that happened, Michael O'Connor—and I don't expect everyone in the house to know, but Michael O'Connor is a leader whose background is in leading the forestry division of the CFMEU. I think at one point he rose to be National Secretary of the CFMEU himself. He, himself, as a senior official within the CFMEU made remarks rejecting the sort of entree or contribution to the political discourse that Mr Setka has made.

I know from the Liberal Party's perspective they see this as some sort of killer gotcha moment that tries to ensnare everyone within the Labor movement as somehow being complicit or associated with John Setka's behaviour, but it doesn't fly because it's just not true—it doesn't fly because it's just not true. So we will remain vigilant where we can and we will do something about it.