HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-02-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

FAIR WORK (PROHIBITION AGAINST BARGAINING SERVICES FEE) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 21 June 2007. Page 519.)

Mr KENYON (Newland) (10:52): It seems that we are spending a lot of time today wondering about something that will not affect a very large number of people, and that is not necessarily the best use of parliament's time. However, it is the opposition's time, it is private members' business, and if those opposite want to waste their time worrying about things that will not affect many people I cannot say it particularly worries me. However, I am happy to contribute to the debate.

When the federal government's WorkChoices legislation came into effect at least 60 per cent of South Australian employees were covered by federal jurisdiction, and those federal WorkChoices laws outlawed the bargaining fee. So, automatically 60 per cent of employees in the state will not be affected in any way by this legislation. The workplaces most likely to be affected by bargaining fees are the more unionised industries, and a very large percentage of them are already covered by WorkChoices. So, again, we will not be affecting a lot of people.

Having made the point that it is not really a good use of time for us to be discussing this and that the bill will not cover that many people, I must say I am surprised that the opposition is in here arguing against a fee for service; that it is arguing that people should not be paid for the work they do—because, essentially, that is what bargaining fees are about. Bargaining fees are about charging people for the service of negotiating wages and conditions. It does not seem to me to be an outrageous impost on people that they pay for the direct benefit of an increased wage and improved conditions. So, I have to say that I find it incredibly interesting for the opposition to come in here and argue against a fee for service arrangement.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (10:54): I wish to contribute to this debate, as the originator of the legislation on behalf of the opposition, and now the new shadow is taking it on.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Attorney, I reached the leadership of my party. I know one thing that is certain: your party will never have the confidence in you to put you in the number one position. My point is this: the federal Labor Party supports the banning of bargaining fees. In their WorkChoices amendments moved yesterday, they are not changing that. So, why is it that the state Labor Party supports the continuance of bargaining fees for those remaining under the state system?

The member for Newland, in his brief but brilliant contribution, says that the Liberal philosophy is fee for service—absolutely correct! The people who will be charged bargaining fees, to which I object, are the people who have never sought the service and who have never requested the union to negotiate on their behalf. Under the government's legislation, they can be charged a bargaining fee. I agree with the member for Newland: in principle, that is wrong. Why should someone be charged a fee when they have never asked someone to negotiate on their behalf? They have taken a conscious decision not to join the union.

My sister is an example of a teacher in the public system who has never joined the teachers' union. Why should she have to fork out a bargaining agent's fee for a service that she never requires? Under the honourable member's philosophy, of course, they will not allow individual negotiation. You rule out individual negotiation, so you have to negotiate as a collective group. How many single teachers negotiate with your government over their pay conditions? Zip! It is done by the union.

I agree with the member for Newland's philosophy that those who ask for the service should pay for it, but I believe in the Liberal philosophy that, if you do not ask for the service, you should not pay for it. This government needs to explain its belief that, if you are under the federal jurisdiction, you should not under any circumstances be charged a bargaining agent's fee, but God help you if you are under the state system because this government believes you should be charged.

The government's policy is not sustainable—it is inconsistent—and this bill makes the state system consistent with the federal system, which is exactly what your government federally, through Julia Gillard, announced it will do. It will seek to ensure that every state government goes to a single national industrial relations system in order to unify the law. If they do that, bargaining agents' fees will be banned in this state. The state government's position on bargaining agents' fees is not sustainable. This legislation should be supported because it is right—its principle is right—and it is common sense.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT