Bills

Labour Hire Licensing Repeal Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart—Minister for Energy and Mining) (18:03): Thank you for that sensible, practical, no-nonsense and quite appropriate judgement on the privileges motion. It is not going to surprise anybody here that we are not, from these two sides of the chambers, going to agree on this issue with regard to labour hire licensing, so let's just cut all the nonsense and get through it. One of the pieces of nonsense I heard just a few minutes ago—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order: if my memory serves me correctly, the Government Whip moved that the bill be resumed on motion. Was there a vote of the house?

The SPEAKER: Yes, there was.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! It was definitely seconded. Please continue.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Another great example from the member for West Torrens of his focus and contribution here.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: One of the things I just heard from the member for Lee was his trying to simplify the bill as if it were some contest, as he said—and I think I have this pretty close to his words—a contest between those who support a small clutch of big businesses versus those who support 800,000 employees across the state. What rubbish, what absolute rubbish. It is stark nonsense from the opposition to try to break it down that way. I do not think that anybody, even Labor supporters, would think that it was nearly that simple.

Do all of us here in this house want to support employees to be sure that they have a safe and fair workplace? Of course, absolutely every single one of us does. But we have different views about how it ought to be done. Those opposite think that the labour hire licensing approach, which is a blanket approach, is the way to go. They do not have any concern for the extra cost, extra red tape, extra time and effort or the drag on the South Australian economy associated with that blanket approach. The fact that we do not agree with that blanket approach does not in any way suggest that we support the abuse or exploitation of workers. That is absolutely untrue.

I come to this debate not only as a member of cabinet, as a member of the Liberal Party, but as a person who has been an employee and an employer. I have worked for very small companies and I have worked for very large companies. I have been an employer in a small and a medium context. I have never been an employer for a large company, but 50 to 60 people I think give me some very good insight.

As an employee, I can tell you that I have done some of the very worst jobs around, and I have had some outstanding, fantastic jobs as well. I will not bore the house with the things that I have done to earn a crust over the years. I have sympathy and a great understanding for the plight of low-paid workers doing very difficult and/or unattractive jobs. To try to suggest that those of us on this side of the house do not care for workers is completely inappropriate.

We need to address the problem and not throw a blanket over all labour hire companies as if every single one of them is doing the wrong thing. That is an inappropriate, economy sapping, employment opportunity-reducing way to do things. We need to deal, as is proposed, with the task force to make sure that those companies that have done or would do the wrong thing are dealt with appropriately, that those companies that have done or would do the wrong thing by their employees deliberately, knowingly or wilfully pay very high penalties in that regard. We are largely talking about people who work in regional and seasonal types of employment.

To try to assume that they can be thrown into the same bucket or the same way of licensing, regulation or treatment through red tape as other forms of employment, including labour hire, is not appropriate and it is not practical. For those opposite to assume that—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Resuming where I left off just before the call for a quorum, one of the grave mistakes that those opposite have made is to try to turn a bill about labour hire licensing regulations into some call for protection of every single employee in the state. It is completely inappropriate—absolutely and completely inappropriate—and it is false. People deserve protection and employees deserve protection; there is no doubt about that. Whether they are—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Energy has the call. He will be heard in silence. Minister.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: To try to suggest that this labour hire licensing bill is somehow attached to protection for all employees, regardless of where they work, what they earn, what their conditions are or their capacity to stand up for themselves, is completely inappropriate. Wherever people work, whether they work through a labour hire company or whether they work for the lowest paid or the highest paid jobs in the state, they still deserve to be treated fairly. I reject any suggestion that those of us on this side of the house do not want workers to have all of the protection that they are due. We do want that—we absolutely do want that. What we do not want to do is put a handbrake on the economy by holding back employers—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: You have zero jobs growth.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: —and/or labour hire companies so that it makes it more difficult. It is another example of ridiculous argument coming from the member for West Torrens when he complains that jobs growth is not high enough, but he wants to leave this shackle on labour hire companies.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order: I made no contribution to this debate and the minister is implying that I have.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could you repeat what you said, please, minister?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I take that point of order and I should correct it: the member for West Torrens contributed through interjection, not through debate.

Mr Brown: You can't contribute through interjections; it's disorderly.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: But it may be right. It is only recorded if there is a response, I think.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: And I did respond to that interjection, so it is in Hansard for everybody to see.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Back to the bill, minister.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: For the member for West Torrens to suggest that employment growth is too low and at the same time want to leave this shackle on the good labour hire firms is completely ridiculous. Of course we need to get onto those companies that are suspected of or are actually doing the wrong thing with their employees, but we need to do it in a targeted way. We need to do it in a way that actually will achieve something, not just by causing extra fines, extra red tape and extra hassles for the good employers. That blanket approach does not work.

We need to target through the task force, as is proposed. We need to make sure that we stop any actual, proposed or contemplated exploitation of workers, however that happens. We do not need to do it by putting another handbrake on the economy and doing more to actually thwart employment in industries where it is already difficult to attract people anyway. As I said at the start, the two sides of this chamber are not going to agree on the outcome of this debate or this bill.

Let's be very clear: do not let those opposite imply, whether deliberately or accidentally in any way whatsoever, that we do not care for employees, whether they are hired directly or hired indirectly through a labour firm. We will stick up for those people, but we will do it in a way that does not further diminish their employment opportunities.

Mr McBRIDE (MacKillop) (18:14): I rise to speak in support of the Marshall Liberal government's Labour Hire Licensing Repeal Bill, which is a final step to address the unnecessary, confusing and ambiguous aspects of the Labour Hire Licensing Act 2017. The introduction of this bill delivers the government's commitment to repeal the act. Importantly, our government has ensured that the repeal of the act has followed work on a range of pieces of legislation that addresses many of the matters relating to labour hire providers, in particular in relation to remuneration and work safety issues. These laws protect vulnerable workers and provide appropriate powers for ongoing management of labour force conditions, including pay and safety.

Workers that may be considered vulnerable include migrant workers. These workers are vulnerable to being disadvantaged in the workplace by unscrupulous workplace hire operators. Issues such as language barriers, being new to the country and, understandably, not being familiar with the workplace rules and culture of Australia make these people vulnerable. Some of these people have come from great hardship and are seeking to adjust to different living conditions and working conditions. These people are often desperate for work to improve their financial situation for themselves and their families and in some cases do not want to rock the boat if their visa applications are pending. These people often come from very different work environments that do not have the checks and balances relating to safety and conditions that we have in our state.

For many parts of this state, migrant workers form a very welcome and important part of the workforce. In the MacKillop electorate, migrant workers provide a valuable and critical workforce for the wine industry in our important grape growing areas of Mundulla, Mount Benson, Padthaway, Wrattonbully and Coonawarra. These workers undertake key seasonal work in our vineyards, including pruning and vine training. Without these workers, our regional wine businesses would struggle to meet the seasonal workload. In particular, business owners involved in the viticultural industry interact with labour hire businesses on a daily basis.

The South Australian wine industry has advised me that there are more than 60 wine producers and more than 246 registered wine grape growers within my electorate. These businesses play a role in generating local jobs in winery operations, in vineyard and cellar-door sales and also in attracting visitors and tourists to the region, who shop and eat locally—in short, providing flow-on benefits to local businesses. If brought to full operation and enforced, the act would place an undue burden on wineries and wine grape growers in MacKillop through additional red tape and compliance costs, without having any positive impact on overall compliance.

Migrant workers are also an important source of labour for intensive industries such as vegetable growing, for labour-rich industries such as the sheep and wool industry and for the important meat processing sector in my electorate. Our regions have a shortage of both skilled and unskilled workers. When we attract people to our region, we want them to stay and we want them to be paid and treated fairly. It is in everyone's best interests to ensure this happens, as it benefits workers, businesses and our towns and communities.

We know that when the Labour Hire Licensing Bill was introduced to parliament in August 2017, the Marshall Liberal team, then in opposition, made a commitment to repeal or heavily modify the act. It is pleasing to see the delivery of this commitment. The reasons for this commitment have become all too evident since the commencement of the act; in particular, the interpretation of the scope and application of the legislation has proven to be unarguably difficult and unworkable.

Further to my earlier reference to the viticultural sector, the South Australian Wine Industry Association, an organisation whose membership represents around 96 per cent of the grape crush in South Australia, has shared its view with me in relation to its support for the repeal of the bill, some of which I am pleased to share with the house in the time I have available.

They have indicated to me that, should the act continue, there is a genuine fear in the wine industry that due to the heavy compliance burden under the act, labour hire providers will exit the market, thereby putting even greater pressure on regional employers, including wineries and wine grape growers in MacKillop, to try to source labour during peak operating periods.

They have further concluded that the act is poorly drafted and open to a number of different interpretations. They have also highlighted to me that it is their view that the financial penalties for being an unlicensed operator and their clients being subject to penalties of $140,000 or three years' imprisonment in the case of an individual, and $400,000 for a body corporate, are disproportionately high for a breach of an administrative licensing scheme.

I have been advised that the introduction of the act coincided with the introduction of similar laws at the time in Queensland. Time will tell if they got it as badly wrong as this Labor government did here in South Australia. The lack of proper engagement in relation to the preparation of the Labour Hire Licensing Act is concerning. The Labor government at the time did not listen to the considered submissions of industry stakeholders, some of whom provided feedback to me about their deep frustration in relation to the then Labor government's lack of genuine consultation, rushed approach and unwillingness to properly consider and listen to the industry. Rather, the government of the time ran with an approach that provided more power to unions.

The Marshall Liberal government is a government that understands that policy needs to be targeted and effective, encourage business, provide adequate rights and protection for workers, and assist and support our regions to thrive. The problems identified with the Labour Hire Licensing Act are many. The definitions in the act of 'labour hire provider' and 'worker' are unclear when applied to today's business operations.

In many cases, the definition captures businesses that were not originally intended to be regulated under the new licensing scheme. This inadvertent overreach is made more concerning when you consider that the legislation also includes an inherent fault in that operators of businesses within known problem industries such as fruit picking are not captured as was originally intended. In this respect, the act is a basket case.

There is confusion about requirements for obtaining labour hire licences due to the ambiguity of the legislation. I am informed that Consumer and Business Services have not issued labour hire licenses under this act. What we can do now that this repeal is underway and reaches a conclusion is work with the current piece of legislation and its rules that can work to protect workers. Existing legislation that addresses the checks and balances that need to be in place to protect these workers includes the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 under SafeWork SA, the Return To Work Act 2014 under ReturnToWorkSA, the Payroll Tax Act 2009 under RevenueSA, and the commonwealth Fair Work Act 2009 under the Fair Work Ombudsman.

These acts variously carry the ability to prosecute a labour hire agency or host employer, or implement significant penalties for breaches. Importantly, we can take action to empower employees to know their rights and the awards they are working under and understand the conditions and checks and balances that are in place.

I would like to take the opportunity now to reflect on the current members who have already spoken to the bill. The member for Hurtle Vale and also the member for Lee talked about ripping up working conditions, working for lobbyists and big business. They mentioned Coles, Woolworths and Aldi. They tried to relate it back to shopping deregulation and shopping hours. This is how overreaching Labor Party can be, and I would say this reflects the misunderstanding they have between employees' needs and employers' requirements.

What I mean by that is that I think Australia has always been based on a fair go for everyone. It goes way back to the first union in Australia, which was created in the shearing industry because it was not fair back in those days. It literally was not fair. It took massive changes to see that industry actually survive nearly 150 years later, where they work under the act that is in today without the changes that the Labor Party were trying to bring in. The changes the Labor Party was trying to impose on this state were actually going to hurt that industry, an industry that has survived 150 years without its interference, or even further interference. That is why it was so far overreaching what it was trying to achieve.

If you ask yourself why Labor would try to do that, a lazy reason might be to say 'They're just trying to build up their union base. They're trying to make it sound to the workers like they are looking after them, that if they join this code, this legislation's working boundaries, if they join the union, if they belong to the Labor Party, they will look after you.' In the end they make it so hard for these people to be employed, and they forget about looking after the employer, who is such an integral part of employing these people.

Why would you make it so much harder to employ people if employees needed to be looked after? Sometimes you have to ask whether Labor really advocates for the employee or whether it likes to move them aside so that they need to be managed by Labor and the government, and they find themselves on the unemployment roll, find themselves without work and find themselves without employers out there to employ them. They become more dependent on unions and Labor governments and that is a no-win situation.

This is a government I want to belong to and a government I hope will bring about economic benefits. Mention was made earlier today about this government not having a higher rate of employment at the moment—in fact, they say that employment growth is on the way down—but we have been in this job for only 12 months and we have four years to prove ourselves. We want a stronger economy, and we want more employers out there looking after employees, being fair employers. Most importantly, if the employers are not fair we want the rules and regulations to be managed so that they work today rather than impose more rules and regulations, as was the Labor Party's ambition when they were previously in government.

What is most important with these regulations, if we do make any amendments to this legislation, is to have some sort of arbitrator who actually manages this so that if employers are going to take advantage of the system—and they will be out there, just like there are employees out there today who take advantage of employers, with all the bonus types of claims—then it has to be the same on the other side. It has to be a balanced approach. I am hoping that this government looks after employers and employees so that they both work together for a stronger South Australia.

The other point where the Labor Party could not help themselves was in coming back to the unions and what it means if you have employees who belong to more regulation, who go to unions to seek this information. They do not talk about actually educating people to get on with life. No, what they do is tie them up to a union membership and tell them what their rights are. They do not tell them what the other side of the equation is if they were to get a job: save money, buy a house, educate your children, get your children through university or some sort of tertiary education and continue that cycle of wellbeing and people looking after themselves.

The Labor Party does not connect up all those dots. In fact, it actually puts in a line or puts a wall in place so that they come up against a brick wall, and it is easy to stay on welfare rather than get into the workplace. The Labor Party's act was consistent with doing that, so I am pleased that we have a government in place that is going to make it easier for employees to work under rules and regulations and be looked after.

In my electorate of MacKillop, we have a lot of itinerant migrant workers come into our workplaces, and they do not know all the rules and they do not know English as well as they should. It is about educating them and making sure that they do. The regulations those opposite were imposing earlier with this bill did not help that problem, did not solve that problem. It is a wonderful thing that we have migrants wanting to come to this country to better themselves and get a job, and help employers and employees alike.

I look forward to our government continuing its work to support workers, in particular our vulnerable workers, through existing legislative mechanisms to ensure fair and safe work conditions. Common sense is prevailing on this matter. I commend the Labour Hire Licensing Repeal Bill to this house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Pederick.

At 18:29 the house adjourned until Thursday 14 February 2019 at 11:00.