The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: 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.