EXCLUSIVE BRETHREN

The Hon. M. PARNELL (15:02): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Police, representing the Minister for Industrial Relations, a question about the Exclusive Brethren.

Leave granted.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Last year, I asked a question in this place about the interaction between the Rann government and the closed and secretive Exclusive Brethren sect. I was keen to find out which ministers had met with members of the Exclusive Brethren and what issues were discussed. In particular, I was keen to find out more about the special clause that was introduced into the Fair Work Act 1994 by minister Wright as part of the Industrial Law Reform (Fair Work) Bill 2005. This clause provides that a union official may not enter a workplace if more than 20 employees are employed at the workplace and the employer is a member of the Christian fellowship known as The Brethren. In his reply to me, minister Holloway said:

I will refer that question to the Premier. In as much as it refers to individual ministers, I can say I certainly have not met with the Exclusive Brethren. It is my understanding that that particular clause in the Fair Work Act is one that was carried over from previous acts and has been around for many years. If there is any further information I will bring that back to the honourable member.

No further information has been provided by the minister, so I used the freedom of information laws to find out more. The first thing that I discovered was confirmation that this special clause relating to union rights of entry was, indeed, new and had not, in fact, been around for many years, as the minister suggested. Secondly, I discovered a very intriguing series of correspondence and communication that pointed to a very surprising, strong and sustained influence on South Australian law by the Exclusive Brethren sect. For instance, one email reported the following phone conversation from a Brethren lobbyist. The email states:

They represent a Universal Christian Fellowship called the Brethren. They're 'responsible for inserting the original conscience clause in legislation (section 144) in 1972, and have made constant representations on industrial relations, since influencing legislation, along the way'...Over the years they have had meetings with ministers for industrial relations as the ministers have changed.

In Saturday's Advertiser Nick Henderson and Michael Owen followed this up with minister Wright and their report says:

Minister Wright said his staff had met with senior members of the group, but insisted he had never had any contact with them.

This directly contradicts a claim from the freedom of information documents, this time in an email from a public servant, documenting a phone call she had received, which stated:

I have just taken a call from Kevin Seeley re setting up a meeting with the minister regarding an industrial relations matter. Kevin said he spoke to the minister before the election and was asked to get back in touch with him once the election had finished. Both him and Warwick are willing to meet with the Minister wherever is most convenient and Kevin said perhaps the minister would like to call him first to refresh his memory of their last conversation.

If members had watched last night's 4 Corners expose on the brethren they would have heard the name Warwick Joyce mentioned. According to today's Australian newspaper, Warwick Joyce is described as 'an Exclusive Brethren sect leader who booked 10 full-page advertisements in Adelaide suburban newspapers at a cost of $10,000 during the last campaign'. This same Warwick Joyce received the following letter from minister Wright in March 2005, which stated:

Dear Mr Joyce, As you would be aware, the government's industrial law reform Fair Work Bill was passed by the state parliament on Wednesday 9 March 2005. I know how much you supported the parliamentary debate by your regular attendance during the course of it. I am pleased to be able to advise that the clause you specifically sought inclusion of has now become law and I wish to take this opportunity to thank you for your support.

I remind members that federal opposition leader Kevin Rudd stated, in regard to the Exclusive Brethren, 'I believe this is an extremist cult and sect. I also believe that it breaks up families.' He said that on ABC Radio on 22 August. Premier Rann has described the Exclusive Brethren as 'seriously weird gear' and stated, 'I mean, they are like a cult.' He said that on Mix Radio on 22 August and in fact repeated it again today on Radio FIVEaa when he was asked whether he had ever met Exclusive Brethren members and he described them again as 'weird, weird, weird gear'. My questions of the minister are:

1. Why did the Rann Labor government introduce specific anti-union clauses in state legislation against its own long-held support for union access to workplaces?

2. Is the government still supportive of its decision in 2004 to introduce a special and unique exemption to South Australian industrial relations law to a group it now describes as an extremist 'weird gear' cult?

3. Did minister Wright mislead the public when he insisted to The Advertiser that he had never had any contact with the Exclusive Brethren, when departmental documents clearly indicate otherwise?

4. Will minister Wright now come clean with exactly what contact he has had with Exclusive Brethren members?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Police, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning) (15:08): If the Minister for Industrial Relations is approached by a group in relation to the legislation under his jurisdiction with a case, I will not criticise him for meeting with those individuals. I meet with all sorts of people with all sorts of different views who do not agree with me about matters of legislation coming before me. We have a responsibility to govern for all South Australians, whether or not their views are weird.

The Fair Work Bill came before the parliament and it refers to this group being an exemption. That clause was passed by all members of parliament, so I do not think anyone could say that there was anything covert in relation to legislation being brought before this parliament. The honourable member asked why the Labor Party should be supporting an anti-union measure. It has been my understanding, just as with the Electoral Act and in other matters, that people have deep religious views and, whilst we may not agree with their views, we respect those customs within our laws. Whether they are seriously weird or not is not really the issue. The bottom line is whether or not that clause should have been passed and should that group with those views have been exempted. This parliament to my recollection unanimously said that it should have.