Legislative Council Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Fair Work (Powers of Entry and Inspection) Amendment Bill FAIR WORK (POWERS OF ENTRY AND INSPECTION) AMENDMENT BILL Introduction and First Reading Introduction and First Reading The Hon. M. PARNELL Legislative Council The Hon. M. PARNELL (19:57): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Fair Work Act 1994. Read a first time. Second Reading Second Reading The Hon. M. PARNELL Legislative Council The Hon. M. PARNELL (19:57): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Last Wednesday in the Senate, the Greens, Labor, Senator Fielding of Family First and Independent Senator Nick Xenophon combined to remove a provision of the commonwealth Fair Work Act that gives special concessions to workplaces owned by members of the religious sect known as the Exclusive Brethren. These concessions involve the power to exclude unions from attendance at Brethren businesses. My bill seeks to achieve the same thing in South Australian law by removing the equivalent provision from the South Australian Fair Work Act. This is an issue I have followed closely for the past three years. I asked a question in parliament in 2006 and another one on 16 October 2007. My question of minister Holloway concerned the Exclusive Brethren's lobbying activity and the role of various ministers in providing a special exemption that has the effect of keeping unions out of Exclusive Brethren owned businesses. I will come back to the minister's answers to my questions shortly, but, in the meantime, I want to put my bill into context by outlining the change I am proposing. The bill is very simple. It seeks to delete subsection (5) of section 140 of the Fair Work Act. Section 140 is headed 'Powers of officials of employee associations'. The main provision is as follows: (1)	An official of an association of employees may enter any workplace at which 1 or more members of the association work and— (a)	inspect time books and wage records, at the workplace; and (b)	inspect the work carried out at the workplace and note the conditions under which the work is carried out; and (c)	if specific complaints about non-compliance with this Act, an award or an enterprise agreement have been made—interview any person who works at the workplace about the complaints. So, these are what are referred to as right of entry provisions for trade unions. The subsection I am seeking to delete in this bill reads as follows: (5)	Despite a preceding subsection, an official of an association may not enter a workplace under this section if— (a)	no more than 20 employees are employed at the workplace; and (b)	the employer— (i)	is a member of the Christian fellowship known as Brethren; and (ii)	holds a certificate of conscientious objection under section 118 that has been endorsed in a manner that indicates each employee employed at the workplace agrees to the exclusion of this section; and (c)	no employee employed at the workplace is a member of an association registered under this act. The effect of my bill is to remove subsection (5), which is precisely what the Senate voted to do last Wednesday night. The minister's response to my question of 16 October 2007 concluded with the following words: The bottom line is whether or not that clause should have been passed and should that group with those views [meaning the Brethren] have been exempted. This parliament to my recollection unanimously said it should have. That was the minister's conclusion to his answer to my question: Well, we passed it, and I am asking the parliament to remove that clause. Let us look at the question of who are these people, the Exclusive Brethren. I will not spend a great deal of time because members may be familiar with some of these references, but certainly Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said: I believe this is an extremist cult and sect. I also believe that it breaks up families. Premier Rann has described the Exclusive Brethren as 'seriously weird gear' and he stated, 'I mean, they are like a cult.' In another interview on FIVEaa he described the Exclusive Brethren as 'weird, weird, weird gear'. That is what our Premier and Prime Minister say about the Exclusive Brethren. In parliament last Wednesday Senator Bob Brown made the following reference: The Prime Minister did refer to the Exclusive Brethren as an extreme cult, and not without warrant. This is a cult that within recent decades required members to drink whiskey because the elect vessel did. The elect vessel is the leader. He goes on: It is a cult that requires that women not be in a position of authority over men under any circumstance. More notoriously it is a cult that separates for life parents from children and children from grandparents and brothers and sisters. It breaks up families in the most cruel circumstances if they happen to leave the cult because they are excommunicated. The literature on that is far and wide. I will not repeat all the stories and read extracts from media reports, of which there are many, including a Four Corners report from a couple of years ago, but I will put on the record a couple of sentences from government Senator Ludwig in the debate on Wednesday night in the Senate. I remind members that Labor voted in favour of this proposal to remove that special exemption for Exclusive Brethren employers. Senator Ludwig said: There does not appear to be any compelling reason why an employer's religious doctrine or belief should prevent a union from being able to talk to individuals whom that employer employs. Whether or not those employees wish to talk to the union, of course, should be a matter for them. On this point I note that the bill maintains the current protections that unions may only talk to employees who want to take part in those discussions. So, the Senate passed these amendments, yet every other state in Australia—bar Victoria, I believe—has similar provisions on its statute book, including South Australia, and I think it is now time for us to remove this provision. As I have said, Labor and Family First both supported precisely this move in the Senate last week. There is no reason it should remain in state legislation. This bill is about ensuring that our industrial laws apply in all workplaces in South Australia without fear or favour, and I commend the bill to the council. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.