Bills

Fair Work (Registered Associations) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 17 October 2024.)

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO (15:31): Today, I rise to speak to the Fair Work (Registered Associations) Amendment Bill. From the outset, I would like to indicate my dismay at the Attorney-General's bidding for the Premier's dodgy union deals. Just 12 days ago, on 17 October, the Minister for Industrial Relations, the Hon. Kyam Maher, introduced this bill. A briefing was subsequently held just five days ago, and a couple of hours later it was listed as the government's number one priority for this week's business in this place.

The front-facing clauses of this bill are this government's way of being able to say that they are being tough on the CFMEU. Some of these clauses are very much welcome, and we hope this will prevent Victorian CFMEU branches' illegal activities from seeping their way into South Australia. May I remind the chamber that, for the past two years, we have been calling on this government to protect the South Australian construction industry from this horrendous union. We hope that these amendments will address our concerns and will help to protect the construction industry. In the Attorney-General's second reading speech, he opened by stating, and I quote:

…the state government has strongly supported the federal Labor government's decision to place the CFMEU into administration following disturbing reports of criminal misconduct within the Construction and General Division.

The Attorney-General goes on to explain that this bill's purpose is to safeguard against two avenues by which elements of the CFMEU may attempt to evade federal administration: in short, to prevent the federal division of this militant union from shifting assets into state registered counterparts, such as the Australian Building and Construction Workers' Federation, out of reach of the federal administrator. The second aspect is to prevent officials of the union attempting to operate in an entirely unregistered capacity outside of the established legal framework of the industrial relations system.

Therefore, the amendment bill makes provisions for preventing this behaviour. It intends to prevent unregistered, unlawful activity. I believe this was the original intent of the Attorney-General's bill, and the opposition broadly supports part 3A in the interest of protecting South Australians against unlawful union activity.

However, there are many clauses stashed away within this piece of legislation that have 'Mali's mates' written all over them. The Attorney's second reading speech has conveniently left out parts that give all the power to the Labor right-affiliated unions, such as the SDA and the Health Services Union (HSU), and that block of smaller unaffiliated unions from having the same powers.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Take the conversation outside.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: Thank you, Mr President. In part 2, clauses 11, 12 and 13 change the requirements of registration. The only union that this captures just happens to be the now right-aligned Health Services Union. To remind the chamber, the HSU was recently in the media because of its Victorian branch secretary funnelling $3 million of union funds into non-existent ghost services. More significantly, we saw Labor's faction war after the HSU moved from the left faction to the right. I wonder how the Attorney-General feels about the Premier throwing his weight around to support his Labor right mates.

Clause 12 completely removes section 132(2), which requires a union to have South Australian based autonomy, subsequently allowing federal unions automatic South Australian registration and therefore powers without even stepping foot in this state. The purpose of this subsection has been laid out by the United Firefighters Union where in an open letter to the Attorney-General they state:

…the public policy reasons behind these provisions is obvious: their intent is to ensure that any Associations which are operating in the South Australian industrial system are controlled by South Australian members and are making decisions about South Australia affairs in South Australia.

So why has the Attorney-General introduced an amendment to remove this? Why has the Attorney-General not allowed any time for consultation? What has occurred or been demanded of him as a result of the legislation being rushed through in just 12 days? To further quote the United Firefighters Union, their letter stated:

Simply summed up: this regime is a poorly conceived rushed mess that does little good for anyone, but which could potentially cause harm.

There are further significant concerns in here that could be discussed for hours on end. The question is: why has the Labor left-aligned Attorney-General allowed Labor right clauses into his CFMEU-focused bill?

The opposition is highly cautious of the contents of this bill. My advice to the Attorney-General is to question the intentions of the makers of these clauses and perhaps question the motives of the Premier.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (15:36): I rise to speak on the government's Fair Work (Registered Associations) Amendment Bill 2024. I acknowledge the government's stated intention with this bill is to support the federal Labor government's decision to place the CFMEU into administration following disturbing reports of criminal misconduct. The state Attorney-General was clear that the federal government has recommended that the state government take complementary action to safeguard against attempts by the CFMEU to evade federal administration in South Australia.

As part of this proposal the bill seeks to amend the state Fair Work Act to prevent the CFMEU and affiliated members from attempting to evade administration by operating in an unregistered capacity in South Australia.

My office has been contacted by a number of different unions and industrial associations about the proposed amendments. In particular the Public Service Association, a large and locally registered South Australian industrial organisation representing thousands of public workers, has expressed some concern. It is not my intention to enter into any factional union-Labor Party politics, but as a member of this chamber it is my duty to represent the views of all South Australians.

It has been said that South Australian workers will be most effectively represented by organisations based from their own state. The PSA has informed the chamber about the current existing issues with the Victorian operations of the Health Services Union. Given the criminal misconduct of the Victorian CFMEU, the PSA is concerned about the influence of the HSU on South Australia's industrial relations framework.

That being said, my office has also been contacted by Professionals Australia, a federally registered employee organisation representing professional engineers and scientists in the South Australian public sector. As a federally registered organisation Professionals Australia stands to benefit from the amended registration requirements, as it will enable them to have greater standing in South Australia and thereby allow for more effective representation for their South Australian members. Professionals Australia acknowledges and values its relationship with the PSA, and I thank the director of South Australia for meeting with my office to discuss his support for these amendments.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (15:38): I rise to speak briefly on the Fair Work (Registered Associations) Amendment Bill 2024. At the outset, in relation to one aspect of this bill I am on the record when it comes to my position regarding the CFMEU or indeed any union for that matter. I remain opposed to the way in which the CFMEU was placed under administration by the federal government and the underlying need for this legislation. It was an extraordinary and unprecedented use of power and sadly one that left the federal government with no choice but to negotiate with the opposition.

You do not have to be a union supporter or indeed a Labor member to understand the implications of this. The fact remains, though, what happened federally happened. That ship has well and truly sailed, and we cannot undo it, so now we need to focus on the choices that we have before us. The choice before us is a model that gets the CFMEU in SA out of administration as soon as possible and back on its own two feet in the best way possible or, effectively, wait and see what happens federally and potentially end up with a bill that is far more punitive and draconian in terms of the administration and, at worst, actually results in the deregistering of a union.

I do not want to see the process for the CFMEU in SA prolonged. I do not think anyone does. What I do want, and what we should all want, is for our union to be operating in SA effectively. It is not just me: if you take time to speak with builders, developers and stakeholders in this area, they will tell you this is simply not the case at the moment. The prolonged administration, whichever way you spin it, is not good for SA, plain and simple. That is not a risk I am willing to take.

On that front, I am satisfied the provisions of the bill do meet the objective of having administration over as soon as possible. I am satisfied the legislation is drafted in such a way as it pertains to those factors to encourage that end, and I am satisfied that the government has lived up to its commitment to deliver that sensible outcome for South Australia. This is what we should all be focused on, and let me tell you why.

It is easy to get lost in the politics around this issue, and particularly this issue. It is easy to get lost in the politics of this bill in the factional divisions of the Labor Party and everything that comes with that, but that comes at great expense. Something that is often overlooked in these debates is that what our workers need right now is certainty and security. What our government projects need right now is stability. What our builders and developers need right now is certainty, security and stability. Politicising this issue does not achieve those ends: it feeds them.

I, for one, have not supported government projects in this place only to now see them undermined by uncertainty, and I do not say that lightly. When that happens, the reality is we all pay. Projects blow out, timelines blow out, and it is a lose-lose for all of us. It is a lose-lose for the state, it is a lose-lose for workers. Again, that is simply not a risk I am willing to take, and I sincerely hope that we can elevate the debate above party politics when it comes to this aspect of the bill.

The second element of the bill, of course, that I suspect will be tied up in politics a little more is that which relates to registration. I think that will be canvassed by other members in this place as well, but overwhelmingly I have to agree with the Attorney's assessment when he and his trusted adviser tell me, in the numerous discussions that we have had since this bill was introduced, that the registration scheme is in a mess. I think Professionals Australia has articulated this mess quite well. They, as we know, along with other unions that operate in this jurisdiction, are registered federally. I will use Professionals Australia as the example, and their correspondence that I quote I think sums this up very well. They say:

Notwithstanding the federal union status [of Professionals Australia], we undertake the functions of a legitimate and active union in the state system including participating in enterprise bargaining, taking industrial action, assisting members with dispute resolution, representing members at industrial liaison forums, maintaining a dialogue with public sector agencies, and representing and advocating for members to the Government about matters of importance to members.

They are here. They have been here for a number of years. The HSU, similarly, is here and has been here for a number of years. As Professionals Australia goes on to explain:

…the status of [that body] as a federally registered union instead of being a state registered association has meant that we have had to employ workarounds at times to provide effective representation to our members under the current [regime that exists in South Australia]. It must also be said that at times we have also faced technical and legalistic objections about the union's standing under the legislation which has been aimed at frustrating the effective representation of our members. This type of objection has been raised by individual agencies, the Industrial Relations and Policy Branch according to the attitudes of the Government of the day.

I appreciate that this aspect of the bill is much more contentious, I think, than the first that I have spoken to, and I can appreciate the sensitivities on both sides. Believe me when I say I think everyone has taken a lot of time to turn their minds to these issues and actually look at what the ramifications are going to be, so if this bill goes ahead without the provisions that are incorporated in it we could very well end up in a situation where members of an existing union that is not registered in the state sphere but is registered in the federal sphere simply ceases to exist and their members are left disenfranchised, so they have no representation.

They have been represented in this jurisdiction up until this point in time. I think both groups that we are talking about have represented members in this state for something like 15 to 20 years, and to leave them effectively in a position where they no longer have that representation is not fair on them. The way the government has sought to address that issue, obviously, is to effectively retrospectively grant them registration through the bill. I am sure other members will elaborate on this further, but it is that element of this bill that has given rise to the level of discussion that has taken place.

I am sure I am not the only one who has received numerous phone calls about this bill. I have tried my level best to see what it is that we can do to level the playing field, if you like, between the two, but overall I think we find ourselves in the position where, in the absence of those—for want of a better term I will call them 'retrospective registration provisions'; I know that is not exactly how the Attorney would describe them—we are creating another problem. Ultimately, that problem will be one that impacts members, and so they should be at the forefront of our considerations in these deliberations, because they are the ones who will bear the brunt of whatever it is that we decide today.

I appreciate that these are complex areas. I do not think many of us who are not involved in the union movement or the Labor Party before this time would even be expected to have an understanding of what being registered or unregistered means, or what red unions versus other unions means, but we know it exists out there and now here we are trying to effectively undo the mess and create more harmony in the registration system that exists in this jurisdiction.

I think the government has gone about that in a way where they tried to achieve that end. I note that there are a number of amendments to be moved in relation to that issue, which we will have to consider when they arise, and indeed the implications of those amendments. I look forward to hearing from the Hon. Tammy Franks and also the Attorney-General in response to those, because the last thing that any of us should want, as I said, is to disenfranchise members who belong to a particular union or association. That is my overriding concern and that will guide my vote in relation to those aspects of this bill today.

With those words, I indicate my support for the government bill—in principle support, if you like—noting of course that we still have to get through the committee stage debate and see where we end up.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (15:48): I rise to speak to the Fair Work (Registered Associations) Amendment Bill 2024 on behalf of the Greens. Of course, the Greens are willing to work with the government to get the best outcomes for workers and their legitimate representatives in our union movement, but we do have some serious concerns we would like to see addressed, at least in the committee stage, before we can support it. I also warn the government that should our concerns remain unaddressed in this debate we do reserve the right to oppose the bill at the third reading.

This bill presents some wicked problems. Indeed, we would have appreciated a little more time than one single sitting day to consult with key stakeholders and work through some of their quite serious concerns that have been raised with us, and I have no doubt other members of this council and parliament, before this bill was brought into this chamber—a single sitting day. Not even time for me to submit to the chamber an amendment that did not require suspension of standing orders in terms of the motion that I foreshadow.

My office has been in contact with many unions across the state proactively to find out their position on this bill because that position was not provided to us with the government's second reading or indeed in their consultation. As it currently stands, we are still waiting to hear from several unions. That being said, I would like to thank representatives from the PSA, the CEPU, Professionals Australia, the STA, the ASU, the UFU, the HSU, the AEU, RAFFWU and UWU amongst others, and I think even the Independent Education Union as early as in the last hour, as well, of course, as rank and file unionists who have been in contact with me or my office about this legislation.

There is clearly great interest in this bill and yet there has been no suitable explanation for why we are rushing this, other than, of course, the CFMEU concerns. The government has had the potential to bring in a bill to address the CFMEU concerns for many months now; however, that debate and the urgency of that CFMEU debate has somewhat been put to rest by the statements of SAPOL on these matters in our state of South Australia.

However, I am also aware that different unions have their own positions and concerns around this particular bill that we now debate and more time would have allowed us to address their concerns to find appropriate solutions that at least the majority of unions could have seen some benefit from. I certainly hope there are no factional pressures being applied to get this bill through as soon as possible, and I note that we have been talking about pressures being put on members of this place today.

I happened to view question time in the other place where the personal explanation of a member here in this place, a Liberal member, was politicised and portrayed as somehow being Liberal opposition bullying of that member, when indeed we know that Professor Joanna Howe is a proudly rank and file Labor member. Yet in the other place, the fact of her Labor membership did not seem to be getting the appropriate attention, and certainly in the online tweets from SA Labor representatives they have focused only on the Liberal opposition behaviours of that debate and they have not in any way criticised one of their own in Professor Joanna Howe.

Another concern raised with me by unionists has been the impact that this bill could have on the freedom for workers to choose their industrial representation. In fact, the current legislation features section 3(k), which states that an object of that act is 'to provide for absolute freedom of association and choice of industrial representation'.

The Greens do understand and support actions to stamp out 'fake unions' like the so-called Red Union movement that we have seen grow in states, particularly in Queensland under COVID. Any union that takes membership fees only to sell out their members and keep the fees for profits is not a real union. The Greens support stamping out those entities.

However, I have also been contacted by constituents who are deeply concerned about what this bill might mean and this debate for genuine progressive worker-led unions which are competing with more established unions, one particular example being the good work of RAFFWU, the Retail and Fast Food Workers Union, which have done some exceptional work for their workers and members.

It is my understanding, and I will seek clarity from the Attorney-General, that RAFFWU is not in any way affected by this bill, but certainly we would not want to see this debate extrapolated and taken further in other measures either here or in other jurisdictions to stamp out the good work of RAFFWU. Under this bill, however, these changes to registration of unions and the powers of those registered and unregistered unions would be significantly impacted.

I have also had contact with unions like Professionals Australia, which under this legislation would be granted state registration as an already federally registered union. Their work in representing their members in South Australia would be greatly improved by this bill and I have been told of examples where employers have tried to dissuade their employees from pursuing actions in the South Australian Employment Tribunal by saying that Professionals Australia does not have standing in the SAET. While this is technically true, currently Professionals Australia have met the means to appear before the SAET if their members file and then appoint Professionals Australia as their representative.

I do have a great deal of sympathy for this predicament. I fear, however, today it has been resolved with a sledgehammer being used to crack a nut. I note that Professionals Australia have actually provided me with one particular example where their members are having difficulty with SA Health and the technicalities around the work that needs to be done to represent them. That particular piece of correspondence from Paul Inglis of Professionals Australia reads:

The dispute is about whether our members who are medical physicists at a certain classification level and above are entitled to an additional week's annual leave under the relevant industrial instruments. These instruments are the Medical Scientists (South Australia Public Sector) Award and the South Australia Public Sector Enterprise Agreement: Salaried 2021. PA has been involved in negotiations for the Agreement dating many years. The dispute relates to the interpretation of how one Part of the agreement relates to another part. PA was involved in those negotiations at the time that the Part was made, which established separate provisions for Medical Physicists (as distinct from Medical Scientists). The issue is even more complicated because the entitlement arises under the Medical Scientists (South Australian Public Sector) Award which permits only the Public Service Association to bring a dispute and not even an individual member or employee. This means we are having to frame the dispute in a way so it can be heard under the Enterprise Agreement where the members are able to bring a dispute in their own right.

Our members and PA have been trying to resolve the dispute directly with SA Health through discussion and correspondence for over 6 months. We have not been able to resolve the issue so members only option now is to take it to SAET. If PA was recognised under the state system, [we] could take the matter to the SA Employment Tribunal on behalf of our members. However, in the absence of that recognition, each member must file an individual dispute with SAET and name PA as their representative. There is also a question whether PA/members will need to show the disputes procedure in the Agreement has been met by each member of the dispute. The fact that more than one person is affected shows it is a collective dispute to the Tribunal, and could be dealt with in such a manner if PA had standing, however we'll now need to try and join all the individual disputes at the SAET. These are the sorts of barriers and technicalities our members and PA have faced for many years when trying to represent and advocate for our members in the State System

I do have great sympathy for those examples that have been provided to me. I have also had, historically, very excellent dealings with the HSU, one of which was caught on record during the COVID committee when the microphone was left on during a COVID hearing. I also commend them and their work to support workers in the health sector and I have long worked with them and I commend their outstanding work. I also commend the outstanding work of the PSA, most recently on staunchly defending the scientists and other experts at our beloved South Australia Museum.

The other key part of this legislation is of course allowing the federal administrator of the CFMEU to place the South Australian branch into administration if required. While I note the Greens continue to seek democratic rights for CFMEU workers, we do support the government's goal of having the CFMEU in South Australia returned to local and democratically elected leadership, rather than being run out of the Victorian branch. Indeed, I note that the Hon. Connie Bonaros has worked long and hard on that particular issue.

One part of this bill that I do question, at least in terms of why it is part of this legislation at all today, is the decision to extend the maximum length of an enterprise bargaining agreement (EBA) from three years to four years. The unions that I have spoken to have not asked for this to be in the bill and, in fact, many oppose or strongly question the extension. In fact, one union raised with me the possible scenario that in the event of the negotiation for a new EBA, which takes roughly 1½ years, the workers could be stuck with an EBA for up to 5½ years.

Given the pressure of the current cost of living and recent CPI rises, we know that pay rates are not keeping up with cost of living, and this could see workers far worse off if it continues. The government says, regarding the change from three to four years, that it is doing this to bring South Australia in line with, to quote the Attorney-General's second reading speech, 'most jurisdictions across the country'. The Attorney-General then goes on to say that the four-year maximum is commonplace in the commonwealth government, as well as Queensland, Victoria and the ACT governments.

Could he clarify what he meant by three out of the eight state or territory governments being the 'most', which is less than half, or did he have some other figures before him that he has perhaps misquoted? I will certainly be happy to hear his answers on whether or not three out of eight is most or whether he somehow misinterpreted what he was presented with. I note that I had a briefing on that aspect from his adviser in the last couple of hours.

As I say to the government, if they want this change to EBAs, they have to show us and tell us who wants it before ever bringing this proposal before this place. If they cannot prove to us that it is desired by the workers, then who is behind putting up that proposal? I urge the council to oppose that clause. The cynics, of course, suspect that it is to shield the government from political fallout when negotiations will happen more often within the electoral cycle. Call me a cynic. I feel that could be politically motivated, but that is my opinion and the opinion of one member of this council is not necessarily government policy, but I look forward to the government's response to that concern.

There are no easy answers to some of the concerns raised within this bill, which is all the more reason the government should have allowed more time to properly consider this bill and negotiate properly to address some of the problems identified by different unions—not behind closed doors but in full view of a public debate and a debate that would enable members of this council to come to this place with fully formed views and the ability to have properly consulted.

For example, I ask the government: where is the Law Society advice on this particular piece of legislation? Has the Law Society even had the time to provide us with its expertise? We have in this parliament a very perfect vehicle for better consultation on this bill than has been possible to date, and I flag that I will move that this bill be referred to that committee—that is, the Parliamentary Committee on Occupational Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation—for inquiry and report.

I note that in the past—I have been a member of this place for quite a while now—when we have referred off hybrid bills, as is required under the standing orders, to a committee, the committee has reported back within literally one or two days. I would hope that would not be the case here, but this committee could report back literally within one or two weeks but have the full ability to take on board all the considerations and come back to this place with a debate that is supported by the full information and, hopefully, such things as Law Society advice. That committee need not drag things out, and the government holds the numbers on that committee. It was hardly going to recommend that we not proceed, but it would allow for that appropriately informed and more nuanced debate to occur.

It is pretty disappointing that the Labor Malinauskas government would expect to rush through this legislation in literally one sitting day after they introduced it. It hampers the ability of members to do their job of consulting properly. It has hampered me in the ability to have moved a notice of motion for a referral to a committee, and it has certainly put undue stress on many concerned as we work through the fine detail of this bill.

I have tabled some amendments, and I note that the poor parliamentary counsel staff have been absolutely run off their feet this week and were quite surprised to learn that this bill was going to a vote this afternoon. It meant that they had to reschedule their work, and they do such fine work that I can only thank them for that but also apologise for the undue stress we have placed those particular workers under because of a lack of process in this place.

I will say that I do have a number of letters from a number of unions, and literally not a single letter agrees with the other in its entirety. Possibly if you asked 20 different stakeholders in this, you might get 21 different opinions. That does not mean that we should rush through a process. That means we should take a considered approach, debate this appropriately and give ourselves the time to ensure that this debate is supported by the best possible information, the fullest information, and has allowed parliamentary counsel, the Law Society and others to provide their expertise and input. With that, I anticipate quite a few questions should we get to clause 1 of this bill.

The Hon. R.B. MARTIN (16:05): This bill is designed to support the decisive action taken by the federal Labor government in relation to the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU. It ensures that the administration put in place by the federal government cannot be evaded by officials seeking to transfer functions of the union from its federally registered organisation to its state registered organisation.

Building and construction is one of the most dangerous industries in Australia. Construction workers deserve to have access to a strong union that represents their interests, stands up for their health and safety and advocates for fair wages and conditions. However, those workers also deserve to have a union that is free of corruption, intimidation and links to outlaw motorcycle gangs. The action taken by the federal government is designed to clean up the union from the top down, and we hope to see that result in the South Australian branch being removed from Victorian control and back on its own two feet as soon as possible.

This bill also reforms the rules that apply to registered associations in the state industrial relations system to promote a system where all associations should be registered under the act. This will provide a safeguard that the federal administration cannot simply be evaded by officials continuing to act as a trade union in an entirely unregistered capacity. It will also ensure that that all unions are subject to supervision by the South Australian Employment Tribunal, improving the accountability of our state industrial relations system.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (16:07): My office also had a briefing about this bill only yesterday. I share the concerns of other unions, in particular the Public Service Association, the United Firefighters Union and even the Education Union, about some alarming sections of this bill and also its very hasty passage through the other place and for it to go through today.

Members here have not had the time to absorb the consequences of this bill and also adjudicate on its intent. Does it really serve the purpose of improving integrity and formally recognising through the registration process unregistered unions, or is it politically and factionally driven legislation favouring the Premier's unity faction in facilitating the state's registration of the aligned Health Services Union?

The PSA and UFU in particular are not happy at the level of consultation and rightly believe more time was needed to consider implications that may well arise. Ostensibly its design is to address the administration of the CFMEU, but it has wider implications, including that the SA Employment Tribunal could be compelled to register an organisation that could be embroiled in corrupt conduct elsewhere. Another concerns is that an interstate-based union could impose its influence on South Australian industrial affairs matters where members would be best served by local representation.

The current act enables unions operating in South Australia to be controlled by its South Australian members. This changes should the bill pass in its current form, raising fears that there could be disruptions to the industrial harmony that has generally applied here—the rogues at the militant CFMEU an exception, of course, since the Victorian branch muscled in on the South Australian branch just over two years ago.

The government dismisses objections from the other unions as being nothing more than turf wars and says the bill is all about accountability, yet it actually removes the South Australian Employment Tribunal's responsibility to make an assessment on accountability.

The Greens' the Hon. Tammy Franks has an amendment to keep the maximum term of the enterprise agreement to three years. I will be supporting that. Again, this appears to be a tactical move by the government to avoid bargaining between elections and I would have appreciated more time to consider this legislation. I will be supporting the amendments of the Hon. Tammy Franks.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (16:11): I take this opportunity to thank members for their contributions. I will address some things that have been raised in the course of contributions. I might first address something that was very helpfully raised by the Hon. Tammy Franks in relation to the duration of industrial agreements across the country.

Having a look back at my second reading contribution last week, I think I said that if we went to four years it would bring us into line with the maximum term covering most jurisdictions across Australia, including the commonwealth, Queensland, Victorian and ACT systems. It does include all those. As the honourable member points out, it did leave at least one out: the NT is also at the four years and Tasmania is at the five years.

Six states, two territories and one national system: if you included nine industrial relations systems, from the advice from the government department and the maths that I do that adds up to six out of nine or two-thirds already being at four years or above, with Tasmania at five years. I thank the honourable member for her invitation to revisit my arithmetic in relation to what constitutes a majority or most and how many. So if we went to four years, it would be seven out of nine of the systems of the commonwealth, the two territories and the states that would have a maximum of four years or above.

I want to take this opportunity to make a few observations about some of the other matters raised by members, particularly about proposed changes to the registration regime and some of the concerns that have been raised by the Public Service Association.

To put it bluntly, as it stands the registration scheme in the act is a mess. It provides a system where industrial associations can choose to be registered under the act while simultaneously allowing associations to exercise almost all of their functions and powers regardless of whether they are registered under that system or not. This is not the framework one would choose if designing a system from scratch, but the reality is this is the framework that has existed and governed the industrial relations system for many decades now, on which associations have conducted their affairs.

The current act has allowed associations to lawfully participate in the industrial relations systems for many decades while operating under a variety of different organising models, both registered and unregistered. This includes associations solely registered under the state system, it includes associations registered under the federal system and reciprocally registered in the state's system, it includes associations registered in the federal system but not registered in the state system, and it could include associations not registered under any of these systems at all. This is not just a theoretical issue, it is one that needs to be dealt with now because in the context of the CFMEU administration we need to safeguard against any attempt to evade that administration by officials operating as an unregistered association.

One policy position the government has taken with this bill is a simple one: in order to exercise the powers and functions of a trade union in the Australian industrial system, you must be registered under the act. That is important because it ensures that the powers and functions we confer on trade unions are only exercised by those organisations that are responsible and subject to the supervision of the state Industrial Relations Commission.

If those associations breach the law or act oppressively or inappropriately towards their members, they are subject to disciplinary consequences, including potential deregistration. It also means those disciplinary consequences are effective and cannot simply be circumvented by officers and employees of an association continuing to operate in an unregistered capacity.

However, this raises a transitional issue: how do we get from the current mismatch of different arrangements to one where every union in the state system is registered under the act? The reality is that we have a handful of federally registered unions, including both Professionals Australia and the Health Services Union, which have lawfully been representing members of the public sector in South Australia for decades.

You can go back and look at the public sector enterprise agreements negotiated since at least 2010 and see that Professionals Australia and the Health Services Union have been active and coexistent alongside other unions, such as the PSA, for the entire period. That includes representing their members in enterprise bargaining negotiations, running claims in the state's industrial tribunal, participating in industrial action, and representing their members' interests to the government of the day.

The notion that the amendments in this bill would suddenly let those unions into the system is simply not the case. They were already in the system and they have been in the system for decades. If we are going to say that all associations now need to be registered under the act, the critical question to consider is this: do we make that change in a way that acknowledges the industrial reality that those unions are part of the system, or do we do it in a way which would see those unions no longer able to represent their members?

If we suddenly pull the rug out and say that those unions cannot participate in the system unless they obtain registration through a process that never previously applied and where they may not be registered because there are other unions of similar coverage, the practical effect is that we would be disenfranchising many thousands of public sector workers who have chosen those unions to represent their interests over a very significant period of time. The government does not consider that would be an appropriate course.

What this bill does is recognise the industrial reality that those unions are already in the system. The bill adopts the least destructive transitional arrangements, which is to take the system as it exists, provide a pathway for those unions to become registered under the act and then to be bound by the same obligations as everyone else. In our view, that is significantly preferable to perpetuating a system where those unions do not need to be registered at all to exercise their functions and powers, or, much worse, a system that would see those unions cease to be able to represent their members practically overnight.

If, following these amendments, those unions apply for registration through the pathway provided for in this bill, what is the practical effect, compared to the position today, in worksites across South Australia? The practical effect is that those unions will be able to continue representing their members in the public sector in exactly the same way as they have been doing for many years. They will continue to participate in enterprise bargaining and they will continue to bring claims on behalf of their members and to represent the interests of members.

Nothing in this bill expands their coverage or gives them any advantage over any other registered union. The scope of workers whom they can represent remains just the same as it was before the amendments and as it is under the law today. It is the same law which, it must be emphasised, has already enabled them to represent those members, in some cases for decades.

However, there is one important change to the status quo: unlike today, those unions will have the same legal obligations as any other union registered under the act, including transparency in reporting requirements, supervision by the SAET and the possibility of deregistration if they engage in misconduct. In truth, what this bill does is increase the scrutiny and supervision of those federally registered unions and create a more level playing field between them and other unions registered under the act. In our view, that can only be a good thing for the health of our industrial relations system.

Finally, to the extent that there is a dispute between different public sector unions about who should represent different workers, the act has always contained a mechanism to resolve those disputes. Any union can bring a dispute about a demarcation issue to the SAET and the independent umpire can help to resolve the dispute. If the PSA objects to Professionals Australia or the Health Services Union representing members of the public sector, then, at any time over the past 20 years, they could have asked for the Industrial Relations Commission to step in and help resolve those issues. For reasons that are best known to them, that is not what the PSA have chosen to do at any time over the last couple of decades.

To be very clear, nothing in this bill takes away from the SAET's powers to resolve those demarcation disputes. If there is an issue, for example, between the PSA and other unions, about coverage in the public sector, then we would urge them to consider the assistance of the independent umpire, which is a pathway that has been open to them today, before these changes, and will continue to be open to them following these amendments. I commend the bill to this chamber and look forward to an in-depth committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Standing Orders Suspension

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:19): I move:

That standing orders be so far suspended as to enable me to move that the bill be withdrawn and referred to the Parliamentary Committee on Occupational Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation for inquiry and report.

The council divided on the motion:

Ayes 8

Noes 9

Majority 1

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Motion thus negatived.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Before I ask some questions, I will make a few general remarks as I did not have an opportunity to do so during the second reading stage of the debate. I want to express my frustration at the breakneck speed with which the Labor government has embarked on this legislation. Once again, we are seeing legislation that is of a complex nature being introduced into this place at the end of the previous sitting and now rushed through with this head of steam that the government seems to have, telling us all that there is a huge amount of urgency and that this needs to be dealt with pronto.

When there is an opportunity, which the Hon. Tammy Franks has presented, for the government to apply its proposal to the rigour of a parliamentary committee that would actually have an opportunity to consider the implications of the legislation, lo and behold, the government squibs and says, 'No, we can't possibly do that.' What is the urgency? That is the first question I would like to ask the Attorney: why the urgency in relation to this bill? Why could the government not have given members of this place more time to consider the proposal, more time to consult? What level of consultation has the government adopted in relation to this reform?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his questions and his concern. In relation to the timing: because we want to make sure it is in effect so that there is no incentive to circumvent the federal administration of the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU in a number of jurisdictions. I think in other jurisdictions similar legislation has gone through in a much shorter time period than what has gone through in here, but I appreciate the honourable member's concerns.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I also asked the Attorney about the consultation that he and his government have undertaken in relation to this reform. Can he provide us with an update on those he has engaged with? We know the Law Society has not been engaged with. Who has he engaged with in crafting this proposal?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I have certainly personally, and I know the government has, been involved in discussions with the peak body, SA Unions, and I have certainly benefited from hearing the views of a number of trade unions in South Australia as well as having had discussions with the federal government about its interaction with their federal administration.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Attorney expressed that there was an urgency around the CFMEU provisions of this bill. Why did he not simply bring forward the CFMEU provisions of this bill?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Because it is our view that a number of other provisions in this bill are directly related to that. As I answered to the Hon. Robert Simms, we do not want to create an incentive to circumvent the effect of federal administration by having unions operate as non-registered entities if we are to allow for a path to administration in South Australia.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Can the Attorney please explain for the council the connection between the CFMEU and a change in the maximum time for an enterprise bargaining agreement that is proposed within this bill?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I said, some of the provisions relate directly to that. That is something that is being considered while the act is open. In relation to the maximum time, as I laid out with the very generous help of the Hon. Tammy Franks it brings us into line with the majority, in fact two-thirds exactly, of other jurisdictions: the states, the territories and the national system. While the act was open, it was an opportunity to make that reform to bring us into line with most of the jurisdictions.

I think it is important to note that it is a maximum time. No-one has to have agreements for that length. In my experience in a couple of years as the Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector in this government, I am absolutely certain that public sector unions will bargain for what they believe is in the members' best interests. None of them have to bargain for an agreement of that length. It gives the opportunity for it, though.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I thank the Attorney for his recognition of the Greens' generous help. We are always here to generously help. When did the government commence consultation on the enterprise bargaining agreement clause of this bill? On what date?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that it is our recollection that a draft of the bill that would have included that part of it was provided in early September. My advice is that it was on 2 September to SA Unions.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Which unions support this bill in its entirety?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have a complete list of which unions support the bill in its entirety. I think it is fair to say that there are some unions that do not support the bill as it is currently constituted, for various reasons. We have heard, and I think other members would have heard, particularly from the PSA, but, as I said in my second reading sum-up, nothing changes in relation to the standing of other unions in relation to the PSA that applied yesterday, should this bill pass.

As I said, I do not have a list of the number of unions that are fully in support of all elements of this bill. I think there are some unions that certainly I have heard or had correspondence from, some only very recently, that fall into the category of they are supportive and would, given a choice, prefer the bill as it is currently put to not having the bill at all.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Which unions support this bill in its entirety?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I said, I do not have a complete list of what category of either of those unions fall into.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Which union supports this bill in its entirety?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I said, there are a number of unions that support the bill in its entirety. I do not have a list of those.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Can the Attorney-General name which unions support this bill in its entirety? It is a simple question. Please just name the unions that do.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her invitation once again. There are a number of unions that support the bill in its entirety. There are a number that fall into the category that support it as it is currently constituted and a number that have other concerns. That is up to unions. I know a number of unions have had discussions with a number of members of parliament, so I am sure that they are aware of what support there is, and I do not want to speak on behalf of those unions. I am sure they have done that already with members in this chamber.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: Can the Attorney please table a list of what unions have raised concerns regarding this bill and how he plans to address them?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As regularly happens when we are asked to table exact details of consultation, that is not something this government regularly does, nor has a former government regularly done it.

The Hon. H.M. Girolamo: You cannot even tell us who is agreeing with it, let alone who does not agree with it.

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If she would stop interrupting, I was going to say I thank the honourable member for her invitation to do so.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Proportionately speaking amongst the unions, is there majority support for the bill that is before the parliament now?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Certainly many of the unions do not have a specific view on some of the elements of the bill such as the length of time for industrial agreements in the state's public sector system. Many of the trade unions in South Australia operate in the private sector which is governed by the federal system. In relation to the issues to do with the CFMEU and the registration provisions in the bill, my impression is that a majority of unions are broadly supportive of those.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Attorney, on 25 October you wrote to Senator the Hon. Murray Watt, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. In that correspondence you noted:

The South Australian government is not presently aware of any evidence that the criminal links of the Victorian branch have extended to the Construction & General Division's operations in South Australia, noting the outcomes of a recent investigation by South Australia Police into these matters.

Has anything changed since 25 October to see this bill brought before this place? Are you confident that there are no criminal elements within the CFMEU in South Australia?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That was as a result of, I think, inquiries that were undertaken by SAPOL and what SAPOL reported back. Certainly I was concerned, and I think many people, including many members of this parliament, were concerned in recent months with what they saw in the national media about some of the incidents that have occurred, particularly in the Eastern States, and in particular in the Victorian division of the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU.

We do know that for some time South Australia was administered by the Victorian division, so consequently we were concerned about the potential for the influence of the behaviour that we saw nationally play out in Victoria being in South Australia. As I have said as recently as question time today, we support and I suspect all members of this chamber would like to see the operations of the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU in South Australia run responsibly by South Australians and we look forward to that happening as soon as is appropriate to happen.

As I talked about in question time today, the levels of risk and danger that face workers in the construction industry are significant. We see deaths in this industry and we think the workers deserve a well-run and a well-functioning union representing their interests industrially, and particularly in work health and safety. As I said, we had concerns about the influence of Victoria, given what we had seen in national media about some of the behaviour of officials in the Victorian branch, but we look forward, as soon as it is appropriate, to the return of local control of that division in South Australia.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: My question to the minister is: did he consult with RAFFWU, the Retail and Fast Food Workers Union on this bill or, indeed, any other piece of legislation or proposal in his time as minister in this particular parliament?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question and I think it was a contribution that the honourable member raised in her second reading. I am happy to say my advice is that an organisation like RAFFWU operates solely in the private sector. Regularly in question time, I get questions from the opposition about private sector industrial matters or disputes; that is not something that comes within the purview of the state industrial relations system.

Regarding what is being proposed in this bill, my advice is it is difficult to see how that would have any impact on any organisation that operates solely in the private sector, which is solely the providence, in those industrial systems, of the federal schemes.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I reiterate my question and ask the minister if he has ever, as minister in this term of parliament, consulted with RAFFWU on any issues. He has done quite a lot of work on retail workers. I would have hoped that he would be able to just simply inform the council that he has consulted with RAFFWU on those issues, particularly on worker safety in the retail and fast food sector.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not recall having had a meeting with RAFFWU or consulted on changes, but nor has that organisation sought to consult with the government, as far as I am aware, on matters affecting retail workers.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: Would RAFFWU be considered an unregistered association for the purposes of the bill?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I said in answer to a question from the Hon. Tammy Franks, my advice is that what this bill relates to would not affect them because they operate solely in the private sector, which, for these industrial matters, is solely the providence of the federal system. So this bill does not have anything to do with how they operate.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: Can the Attorney please outline the purpose of retrospectively registering the two unions, both Professionals Australia and the HSU? What benefits would the registration provide these unions?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that the characterisation of 'retrospectively registering' is not correct; they are only prospectively registered. They do not have an effect as if they have been registered previously. As outlined in my second reading speech, what this bill does is provide a pathway for registration for those unions who have been in the industrial relations system, in many cases for many decades, to continue the functions that they had yesterday, five years ago, 10 years ago.

Importantly, what this does though is, upon gaining access under the pathway that this bill proposes for registration, impose those same obligations as other state registered unions that can see, for failure to abide by those obligations, the potential for deregistration, which they do not have the potential to today. If they are deregistered under what is proposed in this system, that would have very significant implications for them to operate, which we do not have today. In our view, it provides a much greater level of oversight. It does not retrospectively confer any powers but it provides a pathway for prospective registration.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I apologise: that was my fault in relation to the retrospective, for want of a better word, I think I used when I spoke. But that pathway, just in relation to section 135 of the act, runs through all of the different circumstances under which an organisation may be deregistered. To be clear—and if we use perhaps the most obvious example of the PSA and the HSU—is the PSA subject to all of the qualifications that come under section 135 now in terms of the potential for deregistration? Equally, how does that apply to the HSU in the absence of registration?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised, for a locally registered organisation like the PSA, the deregistration of associations provision comes under division 6, section 130. As I think the honourable member was pointing out, for example, the PSA could now be subject to deregistration in the state system. As it currently stands, it is difficult to see how someone like the HSU, in representing the members in a very similar way, would be subject to deregistration because they simply are not registered in the state system.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I apologise for getting my sections wrong, but to be clear that means that the PSA is held to a higher level in terms of its requirements in relation to registration than is the unregistered HSU currently?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is my advice in effect, yes, because as a state registered organisation they are subject to deregistration if they fail to comply with their obligations. The HSU, not being state registered, does not have the possibility of state registration. If, in the context of the example we are given, the HSU opted to seek the pathway for registration under the state system, it would then be subject to the same possibility of deregistration for not meeting its obligations, but it would be significantly curtailed in its ability to represent members if they were not registered in the state system, which we think is an appropriate thing to do.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just leading on from that, and whether we are talking about the HSU or Professionals Australia, if we had an association that was acting oppressively towards any members or class of members that fall within their membership, as outlined in section 130, or if they failed to comply with provisions of this act, then under the current rules as they apply there is no coverage—we are talking about the HSU and Professionals Australia now—and under the rules that are being implemented through this bill those provisions would apply to those bodies?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In effect, that is correct. Organisations that operate under federal registration but participate and have done for decades in the state system, like the HSU, are not registered, are not required to be registered and therefore cannot be deregistered. Under the system we are proposing, should this bill pass, finding a pathway to be registered, to be full participants in the state system, will mean that they are subject to potential deregistration.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: In regard to the changes being proposed in this bill, will they affect the standing of the two unions under the government's proposed political donation reforms? Is there any impact of the changes being proposed in this bill that will affect the standing of the two unions under the government's proposed political donations reforms?

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: Yes, both of them.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I cannot see any way that that could be the case.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: Is the Attorney able to clarify the deregistration provision for federal organisations? Could the HSU, for example, be deregistered if they were not being run to the benefit of SA members?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. That is not the text as it applies in the legislation. The practical effect is that, if there are provisions under the legislation at section 135, such as an organisational branch being administered in a way that is oppressive or unfair to members resident in this state, currently a union like the HSU as a federally registered union, could not be deregistered, although today it is participating to a full extent in the state system. Under the regime being proposed, they would need to be state registered and, if they were acting in a way that is oppressive or unfair to their members resident in South Australia, there would be the potential for deregistration, which currently does not exist.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: Can Professionals Australia and the HSU bargain on behalf of their members without registration?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is they can, they do and they have for decades in this state.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 and 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Franks–1]—

Page 3, lines 14 and 15—Delete the definition of unregistered association and substitute:

unregistered association means an association, society or body formed to represent, protect or further the interests of employers or employees, other than an association registered under either this Act or the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 of the Commonwealth;

I do so noting the representations to the Greens of the PSA in seeking to try to find a way forward here. I know the government has in the last hour or so expressed some concerns about the drafting. As I noted in my second reading speech, we have had this for one sitting day. Parliamentary counsel was put under undue pressure to get cracking on requests for amendments. Not only that, I have not had the time to consult very broadly on these amendments, but certainly I have attempted to fulfil what the PSA suggested as a way forward.

I do not know what the position of Professionals Australia or the HSU is on this, but it would have been better, of course, to be having these discussions through a committee process and with the benefit of Law Society advice on all of these matters. I do so to try to generously help the government, as you so aptly put it earlier, and I urge members of this council to consider these amendments as a way to try to perhaps create more debate and clarity on exactly what this bill does.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her contribution in bringing forward this amendment. I will confirm for the sake of the deliberations of the committee that the government will be opposing the suite of amendments moved by the Hon. Tammy Franks.

I guess I understand where the Hon. Tammy Franks is coming from in moving this amendment. I understand the intention is to find a halfway house, to look at something that the Public Service Association has suggested that gives effect to what they have stated their concerns are without destroying the intent of what we are trying to do. One of the parts of that intent is to discourage unregistered unions from operating in the light of what the first part of this bill does, and that is to try to make sure that the CFMEU in South Australia do not evade, effectively, administration by either using their state body or becoming unregistered completely.

I have to say it is something that we have considered long and hard over the last couple of months in terms of the drafting of this bill and particularly over the last few weeks: is there a way to take into account the PSA's concerns and find some sort of halfway house in the drafting? Unfortunately, in most of the ways that you would contemplate doing that—and possibly the effect of doing this—would I think, in our reading of it, be to effectively disenfranchise members of Professionals Australia and the Health Services Union in the passing of it.

My advice is that the effect of these amendments, in concert with the remaining clauses in this bill that would be unamended, would be, firstly, that the functions and powers of trade unions under the act would be limited so that they can be exercised by registered associations only. Secondly, the amendments would remove the clause of the bill to provide that pathway for federally registered unions to become state registered.

In our view, that would mean, if the amendments came into effect, the requirement for unions to be state registered would mean that Professionals Australia and the Health Services Union would no longer be able to represent the members as they have done for many years for thousands of members until such time as they register. It would leave in place a system of registration which may not be possible for those unions to become registered, thereby potentially disenfranchising thousands of members simply because there are other unions with similar coverage, even though those unions have coexisted, in some cases, for decades and even though, as I said in my second reading wrap-up, no demarcation disputes have been taken to the SAET in that time.

Our view is the effect of the amendments as proposed, in concert with the unamended sections that would remain, would be to do what we have desperately tried not to do in our drafting and effectively pick a winner—that is, the thousands of members in the public sector in South Australia represented by the federally registered unions. It might be the capacity to destroy their ability, as they have done for a couple of decades here.

I completely understand the motivation behind it. It is something we have considered: is there a way to do that that gives effect to some of the concerns the PSA have raised without destroying the ability of members who have been represented, in some cases for decades, by federally registered unions? Our advice is the amendments, with those remaining provisions that would be unamended, would likely have the effect of disenfranchising those members of federally registered unions.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I think we all have sympathy for what the Hon. Tammy Franks has attempted to do in the time available. Indeed, I think we have all probably had a crack at trying to find that middle ground and, of course, take into account the PSA's concerns—and genuinely so, because none of us wants to be in this position where we are picking and choosing. Frankly, I do not think it is our role to be in that position. Our role is to focus on the mess that is the registration scheme and how to address that.

I am concerned, though, about the potential risk that the amendments bring with them. I am sure we will get to more of those as we work through the amendments, but it is on that basis that I will not be supporting this amendment. Again, I think we have all genuinely tried to find that middle ground; it appears that it is a very difficult ground to find. With those words, I indicate I will not be supporting amendment No. 1 [Franks-1].

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: I thank the Hon. Tammy Franks for bringing forward these amendments. As the Hon. Connie Bonaros said, we have all been working very hard to put forward constructive amendments. We as the opposition will be supporting the Hon. Tammy Franks' amendments Nos 1 through to 4, not amendments Nos 5 and 6. We will be supporting the others. Just in the interests of time and to help make more things more efficient, we will support amendments Nos 7, 8 and 9.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 8

Noes 9

Majority 1

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 5 to 8 passed.

Clause 9.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Regarding clause 9—Amendment of section 83—Duration of enterprise agreement, the bill currently proposes:

Section 83(1)—delete '3 years' and substitute:

4 years

For the reasons that I have articulated in my second reading speech, the Greens oppose this clause. We have seen no consultation, we have seen no established reason, we have seen no rationale, and we see also that if it is such a strong case to do this, why can we not see it brought back to this place, properly consulted on and with evidence of those who support it? We certainly have seen many unions express concerns about this particular clause and ask why it is there. Many even oppose it in their correspondence to us.

The government has not made a case to change the maximum EBA period from three years to four years, so they should go back, do their homework and come back to this place with an established case, if they think they really do have a case. If not, I urge this council to strike out this clause.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We will be supporting the clause that we have in our bill for the reasons that I have outlined previously. It brings us into line, according to my arithmetic, with two-thirds of the jurisdictions around Australia. We think it is reasonable, but that is something that can be negotiated: up to four years, which does not impose any requirement on any agreement being that length but provides an extra flexibility both for the government and for unions in negotiations.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: I have indicated my support for opposing this clause, but can I ask a question in regard to the SAET?

The CHAIR: Yes.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: Has the Attorney consulted with the SAET, and what was the outcome of that consultation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In relation to this clause, no, we have not consulted with the South Australian Employment Tribunal, and I am not sure what role they would play in the length of an agreement.

The committee divided on the clause:

Ayes 9

Noes 8

Majority 1

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Clause thus passed.

Clause 10 passed.

Clause 11.

The CHAIR: The Hon. T.A. Franks has indicated that she will be opposing clause 11.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I can see that the numbers are what the numbers are, and noting that the numbers will only get worse on amendments Nos 5 and 6 in particular, with the lack of support there from the opposition, I just indicate to the chamber I will not be dividing on the next few. But I do intend to divide on the review clause, which is near the end.

My amendment sought to strike out clause 11, which goes to the eligibility of registration. I guess the debates are somewhat consequential, and they have been well aired through the second reading debate.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: For the sake of completeness and the reasons I outlined in relation to the first amendment moved by the Hon. Tammy Franks, while we completely understand the motivation—these questions have exercised us as well—with the effect of that, we will not be supporting it.

Clause passed.

Clause 12 passed.

Clause 13.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens oppose clause 13, which goes again to registration and to the powers of the SAET and the direction they take. I can add up these numbers. I can see that it is eight to nine and not in the Greens' favour, but certainly I ask members to consider that review clause at this point quite strongly as well.

Clause passed.

Clause 14.

The CHAIR: There is an amendment in the name of the Hon. Ms Franks at clause 14, which is amendment No. 5 [Franks-1].

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I would consider this as consequential. Again, it goes to the demarcation and registration arguments, and clearly the numbers are not there. Certainly, again, I indicate my recommendation—

The CHAIR: Did you move the amendment?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I do not have to move anything. It is just that the clause be opposed, so I do not move anything. It is just that we indicate we are going to oppose the clause. It is not an actual amendment. Just for clarity, the Liberal Party will not be supporting the Greens on this particular one, so the numbers actually get worse if we divide—for the Greens, not for everyone else.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Franks, are you moving the amendment standing in your name?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: No, Chair. It is consequential and I can see the numbers are on the decline.

Clause passed.

Clauses 15 and 16 passed.

Clause 17.

The CHAIR: There is an amendment in the name of the Hon. Ms Franks; consequential, maybe?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Consequential, Chair.

Clause passed.

New clause 18.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: This is where we try to rise again. The Greens move:

Amendment No 7 [Franks–1]—

Page 11, after line 7—Insert:

18—Review of Act

(1) The Parliamentary Committee on Occupational Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation established under section 15D of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991 must undertake a review of the operation and impact of the amendments to the Fair Work Act 1994 made by this Act.

(2) The review must be completed within 3 years after the commencement of this Act and a report on the outcome of the review must be tabled in each House of Parliament within 6 sitting days of the completion of the review.

We have rushed this process. It would be certainly prudent of all members of this council, I would think, to support at least a review of any unintended consequences or, indeed, should you be confident that the decisions we have made today in this council are the right ones, you will be able to show that this has had a positive impact through that process.

It is not a process that will cost the government any money. It is a parliamentary committee that is already a standing committee and charged with such duties. It would be an appropriate use of this committee in three or so years' time, a committee that should have been used in the first place in this debate. I urge members of this council to support this particular amendment, and I will divide on it.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am pleased to say that may not be necessary. In an act of extraordinary generosity, I can indicate that the government shall not be opposing it.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I love reviews, particularly when they are independent ones, so I indicate my wholehearted support for this amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I will note for the record that if nobody votes against it, I cannot divide on it. I welcome that.

New clause inserted.

Schedule 1.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Chair, for your sake, amendments Nos 8 and 9 are consequential and I will not be proceeding with them.

Schedule passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (17:15): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.