South Australian Employment Tribunal (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 29 March 2017.)

Mr WINGARD (Mitchell) (17:25): I am the lead speaker on this bill. I rise today to speak on the South Australian Employment Tribunal (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2017. I note that this is just an amendment to cover or correct omissions from the Statutes Amendment (South Australian Employment Tribunal) Act 2016 and to expand the scope of the jurisdiction of the South Australian Employment Tribunal (SAET).

As I looked through the second reading, I noticed that when the bill was first introduced there were potentially a couple of errors in section 45 that have been corrected or amended. The problem was that, if there was a hearing, they could not progress to the next stage without all parties going away and coming back. In essence, this amendment streamlines the efficiencies of this process of the tribunal, which I think everyone would agree is a good thing.

The idea of people coming in, then having to go away and come back again to have their case heard is quite disconcerting and clearly a waste of time, energy and effort for those involved. When we have mediation or arbitration, as in this case, to have it as smooth as possible is something we agree with. We think that is a good thing and we are glad that it has now been picked up, given that this will commence on 1 July 2017. The amended act was passed on 8 December 2016. Thankfully, we have picked this up before it comes into play.

Whenever employment is mentioned in the title of any bill or in the passage of any documents through this place, I take great note. While it is great to have a South Australian Employment Tribunal to make sure that we deal with any situations that arise—arbitration or mediation, as was discussed—it is really important for us to note that, for this tribunal to have any effect, South Australia has to have employment—and employment is a big issue in this state.

I have mentioned a number of times that I am spoken to and cornered about employment in South Australia. People come up to me all the time and like to have their say because they know that South Australia is in a very dire predicament when it comes to employment. In fact, we have the highest trend unemployment in the country, at 6.7 per cent, and we have had for 27 consecutive months. That really is not a great place to be.

Employment is a serious issue in South Australia, as is youth unemployment, at 16.1 per cent—again, the highest in the nation. For 15 to 24 year olds out there looking for work, South Australia is not the place to be because we have the highest youth unemployment rate, at 16.1 per cent. Currently, 94,300 South Australians are underemployed, that is, people over the age of 15 who want and are available for more hours of work than they currently have but who cannot get that work. South Australia's underemployment ratio is 11.4 per cent, increasing from 10.3 per cent 12 months ago. That is the number of underemployed as a percentage of the labour force.

Also, South Australia's underutilisation rate is the highest in the country at 17.6 per cent, the national average being 15.2 per cent. Underutilisation is a very important stat because that is the unemployed plus the underemployed, so it is people who are not working and people who are working but want to work more. Again, that figure is 17.6 per cent, the highest in the country. Employment really is a very big issue for South Australia, and from those stats we can see why people out there are concerned.

I am sure that when every member of this place is out talking to their community at a supermarket, a local club or at the local pub, people will come up and talk to them about the problems we have in South Australia with unemployment. Really, that just is testament to what this state Labor government has done over the past 15 years. They have taken us to the bottom of the pile. We have the worst unemployment in the nation on all those measures, and it is their policy that has put us in this place.

The government has spruiked about jobs, and when former premier Mike Rann was in this place he was going to create 100,000 extra jobs. That was in February 2010. It is amazing to see that there are 15,600 fewer full-time jobs today than there were when premier Rann made that big bold statement back in February 2010. He wanted to create an extra 100,000 jobs, that is what this state Labor government wanted to do, but there are in fact 15,600 fewer full-time jobs.

We must remember that when employment is being measured, you will hear the government talk about growing the number of jobs. To be employed, you only need to work one hour a week. Yet, as we know, full-time employment is considerably different. They say they are growing jobs, but some of these jobs are only a couple of hours a week, and that goes back to the point I made before about people being underemployed—that is, people want to work more hours but those hours are not available.

We know jobs come and go, but it is also interesting to note that only 20,900 jobs have been created since Labor made that promise of 100,000 jobs in February 2010, and those jobs only need to be one hour a week. Jobs will come, jobs will go, but only 20,900 extra jobs have been created since the 100,000 jobs figure was proposed by the government, and full-time jobs are down in that same time period. It is quite amazing.

That is the history of employment in South Australia. It shows where we sit and where we are at. We look around and speak to people out there who are in our community who are trying to employ people, and the big thing they speak about is the cost of electricity. This has a big bearing on where South Australia is on the unemployment scale and a big part of the reason we sit at the bottom of the unemployment ladder.

We speak about electricity and we speak to people about the cost of electricity. Since the government's policies on doing away with the base load power from Alinta, we know that the cost of electricity in South Australia has gone up, and I will run through a couple of figures in a second, but as a result, companies are being squeezed and they are not employing more people. In fact, in a lot of cases, they are laying people off, and in a lot of cases they are looking at closing down, and that is a very big concern.

We went to TRP Ductwork in Thebarton a little while back and spoke to the boss, Ralph. He has an operation in South Australia and an operation in Western Australia. When he compares the two, it is far cheaper to do business in WA than it is in South Australia. The business in WA is a little bit bigger than the business in South Australia, but the electricity costs in South Australia are far more imposing and far more restrictive on what he can do with his business in South Australia.

As things are getting tight, here is an operator in South Australia with an operation here and an operation over the border in Western Australia, and he is making the decision to stay in South Australia or move his operations over to WA. Of course, we want him to stay in South Australia, but when he looks at his electricity bill whenever that comes in he is asking himself, 'Why do I pay more in South Australia when I could pay less? I could cut an overhead. I could cut a cost. I could relocate to WA where things are cheaper.' That is not an environment we want to be in because that drives employment out of South Australia.

I have had a chat with Buddy and Sylvia at The Red Mill Bakehouse at Ethelton. Their electricity bill has gone from just over $5,000 last quarter to $7,000 in their most recent bill. They have grave concerns about keeping staff on, given the rapid rise in electricity prices at their bakery. There is another industry in and around my area that has just got another electricity contract in 2016, and they have emailed me their concerns, after looking at their electricity bills over recent times. Previously, the price they were paying in peak was 6.926¢ and in off peak 3.617¢. From 1 January that price went up in peak to 16.61¢ and in off peak to 8.273¢—all per kilowatt hour, of course.

We can see from these figures the exorbitant jumps these companies are experiencing in electricity costs. That makes it hard for businesses here to keep their staff, when they have overheads like that that are increasing at such a great rate. It also means that businesses looking to come to South Australia are asking, 'Why would we go there when those costs and overheads are so restrictive and inhibitive?' That is a real concern for all South Australians.

We know the reason. We know that it is because this government has had an unrelenting push toward renewable energy without taking into consideration the transition, moving across. We know that the government has closed Alinta, and that has been a major part of this, shutting down the base load power that was coming from Port Augusta. The northern power connector was giving reliable base load power into the market at a very reasonable price. We all know that over time we need to move toward renewable energy, there is no doubt about that, but we need to do it at a pace that does not put excessive pressure on our state and on the cost of producing electricity here in South Australia.

We know that battery technology is a fact. When the wind blows and the sun shines we can create energy with the windmills and the solar power generation here in South Australia. That goes without saying. We have had that capacity for quite a while, but the government has not moved fast enough into battery storage. That is where it has really let down the state, and it is now looking to do that. That is something we have been calling for for quite a while, and we need to fast-track that battery technology. Unfortunately, it is not yet at a stage where it can be reliable for base load power generation all the time, so we need to look at other things to supplement it.

That is where Alinta worked seamlessly, getting that base load generation. However, the government would not help or support Alinta to stay open through that transition, despite the deal they put forward of $25 million. The government decided that it would not take that offer, and we know what happened. The result was that we became the blackout state; 28 September was the first time our whole state blacked out and we did not have that base load power to restart our system. That was incredibly disappointing. The reverberations from that in the business community throughout the rest of Australia and the rest of the world were very profound, and will have a bearing on our unemployment rate.

Where we have got to as far as electricity is concerned is a real blow, and we know that a number of businesses are feeling the pinch because of that, let alone families, who feel the brunt of this in the costs that are transferred on. When I talk about the excessive costs we pay for electricity here in South Australia compared with other states, those costs get passed on to the consumer and that goes back to the family.

As we look at employment a little bit further, we notice that a number of companies have closed in South Australia recently. We know that the Holden closure is just around the corner, and in recent times Coke announced its closure. Of course, the disappointing thing about the Coke closure, apart from the 180 job losses here—and we really feel for the families and all those associated, because 180 job losses has families associated with that, and there might be four or five or six or more people dependent on the income who will be impacted by the closure of Coke's bottling facility here in South Australia—is the lack of investment and confidence to invest in South Australia.

Coke is not closing, not stopping bottling in Australia. In fact, Coke is investing a further $90 million in its operations, but they are expanding that into Queensland. So it is not South Australia, no; South Australia has been overlooked. That expansion is going to Queensland. We are just not in a competitive position to be able to battle it out with these other states, and I think that all South Australians find that incredibly disappointing.

Another 90 jobs will be lost with the downsizing of Pfizer when it leaves South Australia over the next few years. That company was meant to be in the biomedical precinct the government was spruiking, but they could not compete here. In fact, they found it easier to go elsewhere and again South Australia misses out, with the loss of 90 jobs; Caroma is another one—and these are just the recent ones. The list is very long. Caroma has more staff leaving as they downsize their operations in South Australia.

It really is disappointing when you go back over these operations that are taking jobs out of South Australia. This is the reason that the policy settings that the state Labor government has had over the last decade or 15 years have driven us to the bottom of the ladder when it comes to unemployment. We are cellar dwellers, with Tasmania often outshining us, which is really frustrating.

If we do have a little bump or a little movement in a positive direction, the government gets very excited but, as I have said in this place before, it is a bit like being an AFL football side sitting at the bottom of the ladder. You might be a team that moves one place in the season and you think, 'Wow, we have improved out of sight,' when really you still are at the bottom of the ladder with the cellar dwellers, as I pointed out.

We know Holden is leaving soon and, sadly, I am hearing whispers through the grapevine about supply chain issues and supply chain operators that are going to be closing down in the next little while, and that is also incredibly disappointing. I am also hearing a whisper that we expect another car parts supplier to be closing down sooner rather than later. Again, more jobs will go, which is a sad moment for the workers and their families and a real disappointment. We know the government has an Automotive Supplier Diversification Program and an Automotive Workers in Transition Program, yet they underspend on these programs every year to the tune of $10 million. We see these employment opportunities slipping out of South Australia and, as we know, the car industry is on the way out.

Realistically, this is probably still rolling over from when Mitsubishi closed all those years ago. The government has not been proactive in what they claim is transitioning. They are not really transitioning us anywhere and South Australians are beginning to wake up to that fact. A key indicator of that is our unemployment figure, along with our underemployment figure, our underutilisation rate and our youth unemployment figure.

A plastics company I spoke to recently also has grave concerns. They have dropped from three shifts to two shifts. They said that electricity is another key indicator of why they are having this issue. Their electricity has gone from 7¢ in peak to 15¢ to 16¢ in peak. Last year's bill was $150,000 and this year it is looking to be over $220,000, so jobs will be impacted by that.

There was an issue recently with Master Butchers Limited (MBL). They have also seen the problems that are coming. The MBL has been hit with a $750,000 increase in their electricity bills this year, which is quite staggering. They have had a 448 per cent increase since 2010. They say quite openly that this does impact the viability of their operation and their ability to employ South Australians. In fact, the CEO of MBL, Warren McLean, has just put the blame for the electricity problems we have fairly and squarely at the feet of the Premier of South Australia. People are waking up to that.

The Premier is very good at getting around it, like with his TV ad where he spends hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money telling them that he has a solution to the energy crisis that he has created. He is on television delivering his message to the people and, as you look at him, you can see him shaking his head from side to side. Even he does not believe his own message. He knows that he has created this mess and he is trying to spin it and sell it to the people of South Australia that he has a solution. This is quite incongruous and I think people in South Australia are waking up to what is going on.

People know that this state Labor government has created the mess that South Australia is in and employment really does sit at the forefront of where we are at. The councils came out today saying that the increase in the electricity costs of their operations will have a flow-on effect. That will increase the rates of ratepayers, given that the increase in the bills that the LGA is paying is quite exorbitant.

Those are some of the key issues that South Australia is dealing with. It is all well and good that we have the new Employment Tribunal, but we need to have employment to go with it—that is the key in South Australia. I have talked a lot about what is going on in the city, but we know that this is having a great impact in the regions. If we look at the unemployment rate in the Upper Spencer Gulf, that sits at 9.8 per cent when the national average is 5.7 per cent. Around Port Augusta, the unemployment rate is 9.9 per cent and the national average is 5.7 per cent.

I could go through the whole state and we could look at those unemployment rates. South Australia really does languish at the bottom, and of more concern, as I have said, is that we have languished at the bottom for a number of years. I made the football reference before. If you were a football side and you had languished at the bottom of the table for this long, you would change the board, at least, and the coach and the captain. You would get rid of them.

That is what we need to do with the state Labor government. They have not delivered for South Australians. South Australians are feeling the pinch, and I really do feel for all of them. The only way we are going to fix this unemployment problem is to have a change of government. On our side, we believe very strongly that we have the vision, the people and the passion to actually turn South Australia around from what this state Labor government has created.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:45): I rise to speak on the South Australian Employment Tribunal (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2017 and I am sure that the parliament—or at least the minister and Attorney—will be pleased to know that I will be mercifully brief. That is only so that we can move into committee, probably tomorrow. Let me make quite clear what I want to say.

Firstly, with the South Australian Employment Tribunal having been established in 2015 to deal with compensation disputes for workers under the Return to Work Act 2014, I had always understood from the discussions we had in this chamber relating to SACAT that, ultimately, it would be reasonable for that jurisdiction to come into SACAT and not the other way around. That alternative direction was cemented in the legislation last year when the government added to the SA Employment Tribunal's areas of responsibility a multitude of areas of jurisdiction, including the whole of the jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations Court of South Australia, dust disease matters and a number of appeals and/or review boards or tribunals.

What has also been added of course is the criminal jurisdiction in respect of summary and minor indictable offences that are currently the 'industrial offences' under the Summary Procedure Act and indeed even some civil jurisdictions relating to contractual disputes between employer and employee. It has been loaded up. It is now going to become a massive tribunal—as rumour would have it, ripe to receive the Attorney-General as its first chief justice. Nevertheless, we will wait and see. He might want to find some other work in retirement now that he has given himself special appointment as an SC.

In any event, I do want to place this on the record. The amendments dealing with relieving the obligation for mandatory prehearing conferences, a minor change to the Education Act in respect of changing the word 'division' to 'act' and what I consider to be another minor amendment to deal with a redundant provision under the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 have been explained in the material outlined in the second reading speech of the Attorney. However, I do want some answers on the record about what the other three amendments relate to.

I want to thank Ms Ward from the Attorney-General's Department who provided a briefing in respect of these amendments. They are not minor, they are significant and they ought to have been outlined in more detail in the second reading explanation. As they have not been, I can say to the Attorney-General that he can expect some questions from me in the committee stage on this matter. If that is tonight, that is fine. If it is not, we will deal with it at noon tomorrow.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (17:49): I rise to speak on the South Australian Employment Tribunal (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2017 and support its passage through this house.

The bill primarily corrects omissions from the Statutes Amendment (South Australian Employment Tribunal) Act 2016 and further expands the scope of the jurisdiction of the South Australian Employment Tribunal. The SAET was established by the SAET act in 2014, and its scope entailed jurisdiction over workers and compensation disputes under the Return to Work Act 2014. It will be further utilised in the future to resolve other employment-related disputes and ultimately be a one-stop shop for resolving disputes between employers and employees.

Parts of the 2014 act being amended through this bill include that the South Australian Employment Tribunal cannot proceed to hear any matters unless a prehearing conference has first been held before the presiding member. The amendment (as part of this bill) removes the requirement unless it is related to proceedings under the Return to Work Act 2014 and other regulations prescribed. The impact of the amendment will be that certain cases can move immediately from the unsuccessful conciliation, mediation and arbitration process with parties to a tribunal hearing.

The bill also repeals part of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984, thus ensuring that the SAET is solely responsible for making rules related to the operation of the tribunal. By way of background, as described on their website:

The South Australian Employment Tribunal (SAET) is the dispute resolution forum for South Australia’s Return to Work scheme. SAET provides timely, fair and independent resolution of workers compensation matters and helps injured workers return to meaningful employment.

I would like to talk about the regional unemployment trend. The electorate of Chaffey, in the Riverland, has significantly higher unemployment than the general trend of South Australia, highlighting Berri, with 11.2 per cent unemployment, and Renmark, with 10.7 per cent unemployment. The state's 6.6 per cent trend unemployment is the highest in mainland Australia but it shows that there is a significant input to that worrying trend. We do not seem to be pushing the high unemployment figure away any time soon.

We have had a government that has continually rested on its laurels, saying, 'Our target is 100,000,' and that was announced in 2010. Since 2010, we have seen 20,900 jobs created. I notice that the Treasurer got up today and bounced a few figures around about what a wonderful job he is doing and what a wonderful job the state government is doing. The target is 100,000. Was it ambitious?

Ms Chapman interjecting:

Mr WHETSTONE: Yes. Was it ambitious? Yes, it was ambitious. I am not opposed to anything that is ambitious, but when we have an ambitious target of 100,000 and we have been able to achieve only 20,900, it is time to get out of the way. It is time to get out of the way and allow someone to come in and do something about the unemployment here in South Australia.

Obviously on this side of the house we have to hold the government to account and we have to put the numbers on the table. The numbers do not lie. The numbers tell the story. The sad part is that the government is not addressing the numbers and not addressing unemployment in South Australia. We are seeing a continual blame game, and we are seeing a government continually walking away from responsibility of what should be happening.

I want to dwell on regional unemployment because we are seeing very high unemployment in the regions. We have a very city-centric focused government and we have a one major town state mentality. Yes, that is true. But why are we looking a gift horse in the mouth? Why are we continually adopting a centralisation mentality of services of government departments and a lack of opportunity in the regions of South Australia? All the major projects and major initiatives are based almost within the fringe metropolitan Adelaide area.

We heard the announcement today of $110 million to use treated wastewater at Bolivar. It is a great initiative. It is $110 million towards a project that is now relying on federal government funding. The state government has made this big grandiose announcement, but they do not even have the $40-odd million they need to get from the feds to make this project go ahead. I think that 12 gigalitres of water for irrigated agriculture is a great initiative and equates to about 1,400 hectares of food production. I think it is a great initiative.

What are we putting behind that 1,400 hectares of food production? It is increasing to 20 gigalitres of treated water, and that is about 2,500 hectares of food production. If we want to put the number of jobs into context, the government has spruiked 3,600 jobs. That is a credible number, but where will those jobs come from? Where is our skilled workforce? Where are the jobs that will be created by this new parcel of water that will go out to new land and intensive agriculture?

I think everyone in this place has heard about Sundrop Farms and D'VineRipe, and they have all seen the confined glasshouses that are using this technology. We need to understand that we need to have the skilled workforce that will be able to complement this grandiose announcement today, which really is a half-baked announcement. The government has pushed almost all the NGO training providers out of the state. TAFE is being propped up once again.

I think it is outrageous that if a young person in the Riverland wants to undertake a TAFE agriculture course they have to go to Mount Gambier. Why would they have to go to Mount Gambier? Because the courses are not available in the Riverland because they are winding down the Riverland. In Naracoorte, and in other regional areas around regional South Australia, TAFE is being wound down. What is going on in South Australia when we are talking about trying to create jobs?

We need the new tech jobs for this new tech food production. It is all very well to announce today jobs and water for the north of Adelaide, but we need to put all the building blocks around this parcel of water and this parcel of land. Why do we have high unemployment? Why do we have low confidence in the state? I can assure members that power is the number one issue. I am sure that it has been said many times here, and I am sure that the Attorney would understand that his power bill is not where he would like it to be. It is probably twice as high as it once was; I know that mine is.

When I look around this place, I am sure that everyone, whether it is members of parliament, support staff, people in the gallery, or whether it is people in offices reading Hansard, is outraged at what it is costing them to keep a household alive, let alone run a business, let alone trying to employ people and let alone trying to compete with their counterparts interstate and overseas.

The Minister for Trade just walked out. I am sure that he would be horrified to know about the competitive edge that Victoria, New South Wales and Western Australia have over South Australia when it comes to the cost of manufacturing and irrigating. I know that my people in the Riverland look 20 kilometres to the horizon into Victoria where they are paying half the cost for power. How are they going to compete?

Other commodity industries have looked at increasing their footprint in the state, but they have now decided that they will go to New South Wales and Victoria because it is cheaper to operate manufacturing and processing equipment, which is high energy use, as is pumping water for irrigation. We heard the announcement today of the $110 million for re-used, treated wastewater. Let's just see how the cost of power will impact on those businesses. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

At 18:00 the house adjourned until Wednesday 12 April 2017 at 11:00.