South Australian Employment Tribunal Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 6 August 2014.)

Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (12:45): I rise to speak on this bill and indicate to the house that I will be the lead speaker for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, but do not let anybody think that I am going to use up my allocation of unlimited time. I will get to the point because, as I said yesterday in this parliament, we need to get on with these reforms and move them through this parliament as soon as possible because businesses in South Australia continue to suffer each and every day if we do not fix the broken system which has existed for far too long in this state.

Yesterday and earlier today this parliament discussed the government's Return to Work Bill, and I am very pleased to say that it has enjoyed the full scrutiny of this house but has passed in almost record time for a bill of such great complexity. Of course, today we deal with the South Australian Employment Tribunal Bill and, if you like, this sits in a package with the government's Return to Work Bill as part of the overall agenda shared between the government and the opposition regarding reforms to the WorkCover system in South Australia.

I indicate that we have some reservations regarding this current bill, but that will not in any way delay the progress of the bill through this house and to the other place. We have some reservations simply because I do not think that the government to this point in time has really outlined a cogent argument for the establishment of this new tribunal.

Let's just look at this week's media from the government. Earlier in the week, they said that we need to cut through the bureaucracy which exists in South Australia. The said that we have to get rid of more than 100 tribunals, boards and committees in South Australia and, less than 48 hours after the Premier has been out there talking about removing this bureaucracy, the government comes to this place and asks us to speak on a bill to establish another tribunal.

A tribunal currently exists. The Workers Compensation Tribunal sits currently within the Industrial Relations Commission, and I do not think that the government has mounted a sufficient argument for why it should be removed. I think what the government needs to do, certainly when we move to the committee stage, is explain fully to this place exactly what the differences will be between the existing Workers Compensation Tribunal and the proposed new South Australian employment tribunal. There does not seem even to be a lot of difference in the title.

I think they also need to mount an argument why this new tribunal—if it does need to be extricated from the Industrial Relations Commission in South Australia—should not immediately go into the South Australian civil and administrative tribunal. I will tell you the reason why: I think now we are the only jurisdiction in Australia that does not have a civil and administrative tribunal.

This was a reform which the government themselves put forward last year. It was supported expeditiously by the opposition and, as the Deputy Premier said, it is great that the opposition has seen that this is a good piece of legislation currently in the parliament (the Return to Work Bill), and supported it. That is always our case: if we see a good piece of legislation from the government, we will support it. The problem of course in recent times is that there has not been much good legislation coming forward. But the SACAT legislation was good legislation; like the Return to Work Bill, it was long overdue but, nevertheless, when it came we passed it. That umbrella legislation has been in place for an extended period of time. The other place is currently considering a piece of legislation to populate that new umbrella piece of legislation, the South Australian civil administration tribunal.

We believe that there is a very good case that if the Workers Compensation Tribunal is not in the right place in the Industrial Relations Commission it should move immediately to the SACAT. There is plenty of time—there is absolutely plenty of time. I have heard those opposite say, 'Well, ultimately that's potentially where it could end up.' If that is ultimately, potentially, where it could end up, let's just do it now. Why are we going through the rigmarole, the cost, the delay of moving one jurisdiction from the Industrial Relations Commission, establishing a new tribunal, if ultimately it belongs in the SACAT? We have plenty of time between now and 1 July next year.

I give my commitment to the Deputy Premier opposite and to this parliament that if the government wishes to move this into the SACAT we will do everything we can from a legislative perspective to support this happening. We will be raising questions during the committee regarding the appointment of the deputy presidents of this new tribunal, the length of time that they will serve, the methodology for the selection, and the involvement of the opposition in that selection process.

It is fair to say that, over the 12½ years of this sorry government, we have seen some unfortunate appointments to a range of boards, committees and tribunals over an extended period of time. We have been unhappy with those, and we would like the government's proper consideration for involvement of the opposition in those appointments, because they are very important appointments, and those appointments need to be considered carefully, not just jobs for the boys. They need to be people who will make sure that they discharge their obligations under the act once it is passed, and we would like to have an involvement in that.

I will not say anything further. I know that other members of the opposition would like to make a contribution at this second reading stage, but I look forward to the committee stage and teasing out some of the issues that I have already highlighted. It will pass this house. We reserve our position in the other place but, as we have previously said to the government, there will be no surprises in the other place and all of our discussions will be held in a respectful way because business needs relief and it needs that relief as early as possible.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:52): I rise to speak on the South Australian Employment Tribunal Bill 2014 introduced by the Attorney on 6 August 2014. It is a bill proposing the establishment of a tribunal with jurisdiction to review certain decisions that will arise from the return-to-work scheme, which is a new scheme to be established with the passage of the preceding bill. The government has pointed out that it needs to have a tribunal to deal with what is currently under the Workers Compensation Tribunal, that is, dealing with claims for workers compensation under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986. However, they claim that it is necessary to establish a new return to work scheme, requiring a fresh approach to the resolution of disputes arising under that scheme.

Accordingly, they then promote, under this bill, the establishment of an employment tribunal very similar, they say, to the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act model, which is there to absorb multijurisdictions to deal with administrative decisions and reviews over a period of time; and that is underway. That act passed in 2013 as the umbrella legislation. We currently have before the other place a bill covering the first tranche of jurisdictions being considered to be transferred and to come into operation over forthcoming months.

The government, however, has chosen to establish a separate tribunal for this jurisdiction and not bring it under the same umbrella as the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT). They say publicly, in response to briefings and, in fact, during our earlier House of Assembly debates on the SACAT Bill, that it is necessary to establish a distinct and separate tribunal, even though it is to be of a similar model to the government's new SACAT proposal, because of the time frame of implementing this jurisdiction from 1 July 2015 with the passage of the new scheme. They say that that would place too much pressure on being able to transfer that jurisdiction over.

Let me say this: firstly, I do not accept that; and, secondly, the SACAT Act (as it now is) is almost word for word exactly the same model as is currently presented. There is a slight difference. For example, there is a hierarchy of presidents, deputy presidents, magistrates and the like, and there is provision for the inclusion of the appointment of assessors under the SACAT Act, who have a function, obviously at the administrative level, under that legislation. Under this bill currently before us, instead of having assessors, we have conciliation officers.

If any member were to take the time to have a look at the SACAT umbrella legislation and compare it with the bill we are currently considering, except for that, this bill before us is almost exactly word for word as per the tribunal. They will have the same model. They will have the same structure. They have the same powers to compel to give evidence, to enter land, to call for expert reports and the like—all exactly the same. It is the new model, the inquisitorial model, which the government promotes.

The other aspect is that, as members are probably well aware, our current specialist industrial court and commission, including the Workers Compensation Tribunal, and in fact a couple of other jurisdictions that have been added on in the time that I have been here, covering dust diseases, licensing court jurisdictions and the like all reside in one place just down the road here on North Terrace. Just as the Guardianship Board has discrete premises at the ABC building at Collinswood and the Residential Tenancies Tribunal is set up in Grenfell Street, they have a dedicated facility and they get on with their individual jurisdictions.

I mention those two jurisdictions because they are the current two under consideration by the parliament in another place now in that first tranche of jurisdictions to be dealt with. It is not intended that they have to be uprooted out of the ABC building or out of Grenfell Street, or if we were to move the industrial commission and courts from North Terrace, and move them all into some big massive premises. No, that is not intended at all.

Apart from the advertising of positions, which has already taken place for those jurisdictions—and the contract has been drawn up to reappoint a number of them—and the transfer of employment of the staff of those agencies, frankly, not much is to change come late October, which I think is still the anticipated date, where some or all of those jurisdictions will actually continue under SACAT. What will happen is that they will change the sign out the front of the Residential Tenancies Tribunal building, on the lift and as you go into the courtrooms. They will have a big, new, flash sign: 'South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal'. I put a plea in here: I hope they have the full name. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00.