Bills

Labour Hire Licensing Repeal Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 13 February 2019.)

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (16:29): I rise to support the passage with due haste of the Labour Hire Licensing Repeal Bill 2018 and with a minimum of obstruction to the government's business of the day. There is a very real prospect that we may be able to get on with the substantive business of the government, including the repeal of what has proved to be a substandard piece of counterproductive legislation. I will come to the reasons why in a moment.

The Labour Hire Licensing Act 2017, a piece of legislation that was passed by the former Labor government very late in the piece, prior to the end of that unfortunate era of 16 years of underperformance and stagnation in this state, was a piece of legislation that, if nothing else, suffered from the fact that it clearly did not achieve what it set out to achieve. Quite apart from some of the ideological observations that have been made in the course of the debate about who might need protection, under what circumstances and all the rest of it, a primary observation that ought to be made about this legislation is that it was not terribly well suited to its proposed purpose, nor was it directed to the curing of any identified ill.

Before those opposite—the member for Lee and others—get too steamed up about what an important signal this might be about where those on one side of the house stand ideologically against those on the other, I think it is important to start with the merits of the legislation itself, the problem that was identified and whether or not the legislation was fixing it. I want to step back first to a time just prior to the Labor government's bringing in this legislation.

I understand that in the previous parliament the legislation followed an inquiry that was undertaken into the labour hire industry by the Economic and Finance Committee, the House of Assembly committee now ably chaired by my friend the member for Waite. That committee inquiry had a number of thoughtful submissions put to it and it considered the topic. That all occurred prior to the enacting of the legislation. I note in the context of this debate that, as is sometimes the case, there was a minority report by Liberal members of the committee.

The primary complaint that is set out in the minority report was to make the observation that the report of the committee indeed highlighted illegal behaviour, but it did not identify an area where the law was insufficient. The minority report centred around ways to reduce already illegal behaviour. The minority report went on to say:

Given that the behaviour that this report seeks to reduce is already illegal this minority report merely differs on how to achieve increased compliance. Simply creating more red tape for those who already operate inside the law will not of itself increase compliance.

That is by reference to the Economic and Finance Committee report, entitled Final Report Inquiry into the Labour Hire Industry Minority Report.

We have a piece of legislation that on the face of it has been arrived at following some inquiry and some thought, and it might be borne in mind that a piece of legislation that cites at section 3 some apparently worthy objects. I will note what they are:

3—Objects of Act

(1) The objects of this Act are to—

(a) protect workers from exploitation by providers of labour hire services; and

(b) protect licensed labour hire businesses from predatory business practices that may be engaged in by persons unsuitable to be licensed to provide labour hire services; and

(c) promote the integrity of the labour hire industry.

The objects go on to say:

(2) The objects are to be primarily achieved by establishing a licensing scheme to regulate the provision of labour hire services.

We see a range of laudable sounding objectives in some legislation but, as the minority report, it appears, presciently predicted, the legislation was unfortunately somewhat short of the mark in that what appears, and it appears as the result of some robust engagement with stakeholders that has occurred in the early months of the new Marshall government, is that those who are in the industry and who are relying on labour hire services have had a very unfortunate experience in contemplating what would have come into play should the regime, the subject of the act, have come to pass.

For me, it is also important to note, because I listened very carefully to those contributions from time to time of the member for Lee, including his contribution to this debate yesterday, and I observed that it really does not sit well in the mouths of those opposite to say that somehow they are all about protecting employees' or workers' rights or these broader ideals. It does not sit well in their mouths in this context because the record is one of a failure to actually achieve real outcomes. There comes a time, and the people of South Australia know this, because after 16 years—

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Duluk): Order! The member for Heysen has the right to be heard in silence.

Mr TEAGUE: After 16 years, the people of South Australia decided that they had had enough.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: He also deserves to be heard by at least a quorum of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Duluk): The member for Heysen.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Duluk): Order!

Mr TEAGUE: Once again, I recall he did a similar thing—

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Duluk): Order! I call to order the member for Reynell. There is to be no debate across the chamber. Minister for Energy and Mining, could you please take your seat. It is an absolute rabble today. The member for Heysen.

Mr TEAGUE: The member for Lee drew attention to the importance of the debate yesterday and, indeed, I am very pleased to have the importance of this debate drawn to the attention of the house because there are a number of analogies that bear repeating in this context. The member for Lee referred in his remarks to the former Labor government's response to a Four Corners television program in coming to its consideration of the labour hire licensing legislation.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: No, I said public attention was drawn to it by a Four Corners report.

Mr TEAGUE: There was indeed—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: It's on the Hansard.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Duluk): Order! The member for Heysen has the right to be heard in silence.

An honourable member: Chuck him out!

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Duluk): There is procedure if you believe that to be the case. The member for Heysen has the right to be heard in silence. I call to order the member for Lee, and I will warn and chuck him out if I need to.

Mr TEAGUE: I certainly in no way wish to draw anything other than the attention of this house to the association that the member for Lee drew between this important issue having been given some attention on a television program and the Labor government's passage of this legislation. It bears some consideration by analogy, because it is not the only time that we have seen this series of events transpire. This is one example.

We have spent a considerable part of this first week back in this house debating another example of where a Four Corners television program drew attention to something going on that caused some difficulty to the former Labor government in the form of some serious allegations of practices in relation to the Murray-Darling. It led to a response by the previous Labor government: 'What can we do? We have had a Four Corners program. We have to do something. Alright, off we go down the path of ultimately calling for a royal commission.'

It is a series of events that we have seen, and not just from state Labor. We have also seen it from federal Labor—a Four Corners program followed by some sort of response. Ultimately, it is not actually going to the core of the problem, is not directed to effective outcomes but, rather, it would appear, is directed towards somehow telegraphing a broader message that is designed to tell those who are still within the ever-diminishing chorus of those on the other side that they are somehow on the side of righteousness, if not on the side of good practical outcomes for the people they purport to represent. As the Minister for Transport (member for Schubert) observed in his contribution yesterday, this labour hire licensing regime, were it to have come into force—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Point of order: I am sure it is not just me, but the clock has indeed stopped. Time does seem to be standing still during the member for Heysen's contribution.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Duluk): Mr Clerk does apologise. Member for Heysen, please continue.

Mr TEAGUE: I thank the member for Lee. He has drawn attention to the importance of the topic, but then he has cut me short. I am not sure what message I am really getting from the member for Lee. I am getting mixed messages, it would appear, from the member for Lee.

What is clear in the context of this debate on a bill to repeal some bad and unnecessary legislation from the former Labor government is that this was legislation that was going to make life harder for the 95 per cent or so of participants in the market who do the right thing. It was going to create a great big burden of red tape in circumstances where what was clearly required, what was observed to be necessary as a result of the committee inquiry that preceded it, was enforcement and compliance rather than this onerous licensing regime.

We have heard further criticism of the fact that this was to have been a state-based regime in an area that is otherwise largely governed by federal law, and we still see that there is a chequered recent history of the introduction of other state-based regimes. It may well be that other states follow the lead of this reforming Marshall Liberal government in repealing their state-based regimes that are similar. It is clear that this would have been a regime that would have had the effect of hurting those in compliance while not necessarily doing anything at all to address or to bring to compliance those who were in any way going to be acting outside the realms of the law.

In the short time that is available to me, I want to bring home the importance of the repeal of this legislation to my electorate of Heysen. I note the Minister for Primary Industries, in his remarks, mentioned the thoroughgoing contribution to this debate provided by the South Australian Wine Industry Association. In that regard, I want to put on the record that in my electorate, there are more than 50 wine producers and 171 registered grape growers.

It will surprise no-one on this side of the house that these businesses generate local jobs directly in their winery operations, vineyard and cellar-door sales and also attract visitors and tourists to the region who shop and eat locally and therefore support other businesses. Should the act have come into force and become fully operational, it would have placed a completely unnecessary and undue burden on these businesses and this kind of enterprise. For wineries and grape growers, particularly in my own electorate, this repeal will be a welcome step indeed.

In fact, this will be a very welcome repeal to so many businesses around our great state, especially those engaged in seasonal industries involving seasonal crops. In a way, to return to the broader dividing lines in the early days of the Marshall Liberal government and how it starkly contrasts with all that had become rotten after 16 years of Labor on the other side, it illustrates an approach on this side of the house that is driven by seeking practical outcomes, driven by engagement with enterprise. It also shows that when we legislate we do so for a purpose and effectively with a view to righting a wrong.

I hope and trust that over the journey ahead of us, we will see just that: greater cooperation and sharing of information and intelligence between state and federal agencies. These include SafeWork SA, ReturnToWorkSA, RevenueSA and federal agencies, including the Fair Work Ombudsman and the Department of Home Affairs. We will see a confidence that real information sharing among and throughout these agencies will lead to positive outcomes.

I lend my wholehearted support to the repeal of this legislation. I recognise those in the wine industry, particularly in the Heysen hills, and the thoughtful and thoroughgoing engagement in this debate that leads to a positive outcome and reform, particularly by the South Australian Wine Industry Association, and also other industry stakeholders who have been actively engaged in this debate. With those brief words, I commend the repeal of the Labor Hire Licensing Act, through the Labour Hire Licensing Repeal Bill, to the house.

Ms HILDYARD (Reynell) (16:55): I rise today to voice my grave concerns about this government's appalling and disgraceful plans to remove important protections for vulnerable South Australian workers engaged in employment through labour hire firms—contrary to what the member for Heysen has just asserted, these are protections arrived at in legislation through a majority vote of both this house and the Legislative Council, despite whatever anti-worker sentiment was contained in some minority report put before this house—labour hire firms that were licensed by our former government for good reason, and Liberal plans that speak to their utter disregard for South Australian workers.

Our South Australian community expects that their government will act on their behalf, in their interests, safeguarding them from mistreatment and exploitation. On this side of the house, we believe that every worker deserves a fair go, that every worker should be treated with dignity and respect, and the provisions we introduced provided this protection, these rights, this dignity and this respect.

I had the privilege, over many years, of working with, and for, and representing many people engaged by labour hire firms. A very few had a positive experience that genuinely encapsulated a short-term period of engagement with a labour hire firm to undertake a particular task or set of tasks for a defined period. However, I also worked with and represented many who had experienced ongoing, inferior conditions to those they worked alongside, sometimes doing exactly same job, and to other workers in their industries—a lack of access to any form of leave, paid or otherwise; serious health, safety and welfare issues; a lack of basic rights; and a complete lack of job security.

These are things that must be positively addressed for working people to be able to meet the cost of living, to be able to have balance in their life for themselves and their families and to ensure that they arrive home from work each day or night to their loved ones safe and healthy.

I distinctly remember around eight or so years ago representing a woman who was engaged for years by a labour hire firm to work in a call centre here in the city. Throughout the course of her employment, despite the ongoing and regular nature of her work, her engagement was on a casual basis. For years she went without any paid leave whatsoever—no paid sick leave, no annual leave, no carer's leave—despite repeated requests to be treated as a permanent worker based on her length of service and consistency of hours.

Members interjecting:

Ms HILDYARD: She was employed by a labour hire firm, as I just stated. At a particular point—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms HILDYARD: —she broke her arm. Without access to paid sick leave, and with the ongoing and pressing need to look after her children and pay her bills, she simply continued to work, despite clearly needing time off to recover and seek further treatment. She did so because she had to. This story is not an isolated one. This story speaks to what we should be doing, as community leaders, to keep vulnerable workers safe and to ensure that every worker accesses the—

An honourable member interjecting:

Ms HILDYARD: Absolutely—the basic rights and conditions that enable them to live good lives.

An honourable member interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms HILDYARD: This government does not want to hear those stories. They do not want to ensure that South Australian workers and their families have access to basic rights and basic expectations about their working lives, because they do not care about them. Please forgive me for being a little bit cynical about this government.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Minister for Primary Industries and the member for Lee, if you are going to continue this way, I ask you to do it outside, please.

Ms HILDYARD: Please forgive me for being a little bit cynical about this government, but the Liberal Party time and time again keep trying to tell people that they are on the side of hardworking individuals, yet here we are again. This government continues to advocate for powerful interests at the expense of hardworking South Australian people. They have a disgraceful, out-of-touch agenda. Those opposite introduced the bill last year before even holding a briefing on this repeal bill. We welcomed the briefing finally, some 10 weeks later. Better late than never, but I think we are starting to—

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Is the Minister for Education interjecting out of his chair?

Ms HILDYARD: —see a pattern with the Attorney-General. It would be normal practice—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms HILDYARD: —to hold the briefing before debating the legislation.

The Hon. S.K. Knoll interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Minister for Transport!

Ms HILDYARD: What you have here is a situation where the right hand does not know what the other far right hand is doing. This is a government—

Mr Duluk interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Waite, be quiet!

Ms HILDYARD: —that is without a legislative agenda but with a will to entertain the interest groups and donors of the Liberal Party at the expense of working South Australians. At the same time that parents and Father Christmas were asking children what they wanted for Christmas, on North Terrace late last year the government was busily doing the same with special interest Liberal donors and big business. Weakening or destroying labour hire laws was clearly top of the wish list.

The repeal of this bill does not hurt just workers; it hurts businesses that operate in industries with cowboys who drag down wages, conditions and safety and other standards—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Lee and Minister for Primary Industries!

Ms HILDYARD: —across whole industries, the same cowboys who undercut legitimate South Australian businesses trying to do the right thing. If this repeal is successful, we will have our own version of Back to the Future Part III—back to the labour hire Wild West.

We must ask why the government is trying to push this through. It is further evidence of the all too familiar 'nothing to see here' approach to running this state. Maybe the email sent to honourable members offering the briefing should have read 'debrief after the fact'.

We have heard often from this government, the Attorney-General and the Liberal Party generally the term 'red-tape reduction'. In this case, and in many others, we should be highly alarmed when we hear this from those opposite. It is simply code for reducing workers' rights, conditions and benefits. That is what this government want to do, and that is what they are all about: they always want to reduce workers' rights. They want to reduce working conditions and they want to reduce the pay packets of hardworking South Australians. This has nothing to do with reducing red tape.

Mr Ellis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Narungga! Restrain yourself.

Ms HILDYARD: Using the Attorney-General's logic, this is the equivalent of—

Mr Duluk interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Waite!

Ms HILDYARD: —abolishing licences for drivers.

Mr Duluk interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Waite!

Ms HILDYARD: Sure, it may reduce—

Mr Duluk interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Waite! The member for Waite will calm himself down.

Ms HILDYARD: —the regulatory burden on drivers, but does it make South Australians safer? No, it absolutely would not. Regulations and licensing keep the public safe. This absolutely does not. Queensland, Victoria and South Australia have all passed legislation—

Mr Duluk interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Waite, please!

Ms HILDYARD: —to regulate and license labour hire companies, but this government is scrapping the requirement for licensing. This is not a grand strategy for justice. This is not a strategy for good process. In fact, it is not a strategy at all. It is an ad hoc action that will hack into the rights of vulnerable people. It is a return to the same situation we had before those on this side of the house took action to make things fairer and better for working people.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms HILDYARD: Should this bill pass, workers will be less protected. Unfortunately, it appears very clear to me, as I have seen time and time again, that exploitation will be the only outcome of this bill, with disastrous effects on people's lives, their families and their communities. They will be the ones to face the consequences of these decisions.

When we were in government we introduced these regulations to call out the dodgy operators, who were subsequently investigated by the Fair Work Ombudsman, and to make sure that people, like the woman I spoke about before, did not have to go to work with an injury because for years she had no access to paid leave. In relation to one meatworks site where workers were engaged by a labour hire firm, the Fair Work Ombudsman has explicitly mentioned, quote:

The inquiry encountered difficulties in locating and contacting representatives of certain contractors in the supply chain

And as reported in the Murray Valley Standard—

The Hon. S.K. Knoll interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, Minister for Transport!

Ms HILDYARD: —quote:

On repeated occasions fair work investigators attended registered business offices only to discover no business—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Lee, please!

Ms HILDYARD: —was being conducted at those premises.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Lee, I am trying to listen to the member for Reynell.

Ms HILDYARD: So where are these contractors?

The Hon. T.J. Whetstone interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Minister!

Ms HILDYARD: Where are these businesses? Who is working for them? For what wages and conditions? The Ombudsman does not seem too concerned—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Lee, please!

The Hon. T.J. Whetstone interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Minister!

Ms HILDYARD: —about the burden for these so-called 'registered businesses'.

The Hon. T.J. Whetstone interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Minister, please!

Ms HILDYARD: It is shocking, I know. They rightly seem much more interested in the lack of transparency and the risk of workers' exploitation.

The Hon. T.J. Whetstone interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Minister for Primary Industries, please!

Ms HILDYARD: Yet I stand across from a government willing to be on the other side of the argument—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Lee!

Ms HILDYARD: — to be on the side of potentially—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Could the member for Reynell be seated for one moment. I would hate to have to eject the members for Lee and the Minister for Primary Industries so late in the day and in the week, but if I have to in order to retain the decorum of this house I will. I would like to listen to the member for Reynell. Thank you.

Ms HILDYARD: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Ombudsman does not seem too concerned about the burden for these so-called 'registered businesses'. They rightly seem much more interested in the lack of transparency and the risk of workers' exploitation, yet I stand across from a government willing to be on the other side of the argument, willing to be on the side of potentially a dubious business with a dubious practice, with an unclear history that cannot even be found over that of a disenfranchised and vulnerable person in precarious employment trying to get ahead in life.

The Attorney-General has spoken in this place that it is the government's hope that a collaborative approach and compliance and enforcement activities under existing legislation will address the relevant labour hire issues and concerns about protecting vulnerable workers. They hope that all of a sudden the sharing of data will more effectively identify and potentially prosecute those unscrupulous operators who are seeking to take advantage of workers. It absolutely will not.

Why can this government not license a business that provides labour hire in South Australia? We would then know who they were, and we would rightly have an improved ability to deal with issues with and for workers when they arise. South Australians deserve rules that keep them safer at work and that mean they have the best opportunity to live a decent life with decent wages and conditions with basic job security.

Far too many workers are engaged in insecure work, and the negative ramifications of this for them and their families are taking their toll. South Australians deserve so much better than this.

Mr BASHAM (Finniss) (17:08): I rise to support this bill to repeal the Labour Hire Licensing Act—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Finniss has the call.

Mr BASHAM: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill meets the government's commitment to repeal the Labour Hire Licensing Act 2017 following work undertaken with other agencies on their current legislation and the submissions from stakeholder groups. This is an important thing to do.

As a business owner and an employer, I understand what putting extra burdens on businesses does to the ability to actually run the business and to employ. To have those extra costs within a business does make it difficult to go the next step of employing that next person. As we talk here, many of the businesses that take advantage of these labour hire businesses are very much agricultural based or horticulturally based.

Particularly as it is 14 February, I would like to mention the horticulture space. It being St Valentine's Day, there are many people who would have been hired from a hire company to pick the red roses that are being sold today. It is important that those roses are picked so that people can give them to their valentines. Happy Valentine's Day to my wife. It is very important to recognise on a day like today the support we have from our spouses, so thank you very much.

The Hon. S.K. Knoll: Someone is putting a few chips in the bank. You forgot to buy a present, didn't you?

Mr BASHAM: I may need to stop and buy those roses on the way home. Thank you, Attorney-General, for bringing the bill forward to repeal this piece of legislation. We need to understand that it is important that we do not put these heavy burdens on our businesses. We need to make sure that business can operate in a free and fair way.

There are many pieces of federal legislation, as well as state legislation, that protect workers' rights, and deservedly so, but we do not need to have extra pieces that just force other businesses that have been doing the right thing to comply with those laws. There were some people who were not complying with the laws that were already there and putting another piece in place does not make them do so.

It is very important that we look after the businesses of South Australia by making sure that they have the right atmosphere and circumstances in which to operate. The problem with agriculture, in particular, is that, as businesses, we are very much price-takers. As soon as you add the extra burden of an extra cost through regulation, the place where that most often hits in agriculture is the farmers themselves. They do not have the ability to pass that on to the consumer or business they are selling to. They are the ones who have to accept that extra cost.

If they have to accept the extra cost, the only way they can do anything about it is trying to cut costs within their businesses to cover those extra costs. Sadly, that can mean not employing as many people and the farmers themselves having to do more of the labour, so we must always consider the cost of the regulation when introducing these things.

The wine industry is a very particular industry that has very great seasonal labour needs. It is almost impossible for those vineyards to employ labour in that lumpy timing. They need significant labour at harvest and significant labour at pruning, but they do not need that labour throughout the year.

These businesses are very much in need of the labour hire service to meet the needs of the vineyard operation to be able to find staff at the time, but also to allow those people wanting to work in this space to find a more stable employment platform to operate in so that they can work for several different vineyards and spread their working time over a period of time. It makes it much easier to manage the structure for both the employee and the employers. I think it is a very worthwhile structure to have, but we just cannot put that extra burden on.

We need to make sure that we also stay competitive with our interstate bodies to make sure that we do not have an extra cost that forces others to consider moving to get employment elsewhere interstate because of the regulation not being there. Once again, the Marshall government has been forced to step in and unwind another red-tape nightmare for South Australian businesses. The tourism and agriculture industries, key drivers in the Finniss electorate and across regional South Australia, rely on strong labour hire companies to source their workers where there are significant shortages.

This is by no means the end of the battle. The federal ALP is flagging the dramatic changes to working holiday visas, which threaten to destroy our nation's image as a place that welcomes working holiday-makers. Australia is currently the second most popular destination for backpackers in the world. Tourist businesses rely on them not only for custom but also for short term labour in areas such as hospitality. Backpackers are crucial for fruit-picking industries as well. Horticulturalists in South Australia are adamant that without backpackers they will not be able to have their crops harvested.

But the federal ALP has bowed to the union puppetmasters yet again to attack farming and tourism businesses in South Australia and rob them of much-needed workforce by placing unnecessary restrictions on the first year of the working holiday-maker visa and abolishing the second year altogether. Those opposite are clearly not interested in helping key South Australian regional industries. They must immediately act to ensure their federal colleagues abandon this disastrous policy. With those short remarks, I highly support the repeal bill to remove this piece of unnecessary legislation.

The SPEAKER: Member for Playford.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members on my right! I have never seen such anticipation. The member for Playford has the call.

Mr BROWN (Playford) (17:16): They might learn something. I rise to make a characteristically short contribution on this bill.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: 'I draw attention to the state of the house.'

Mr BROWN: Sorry, Mr Speaker, was that a call?

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: No, it was a short speech.

The SPEAKER: If there is a quorum present and someone calls for a quorum, that can be a naming offence.

Mr BROWN: I rise to speak on the bill. The act that the bill seeks to repeal came about because widespread abuses were exposed in the labour hire industry. Numerous examples were given of those who were employed by labour hire companies and who were often foreign workers being intimidated, blackmailed, underpaid, sexually harassed and generally treated as legal slaves. Following this, the Economic and Finance Committee produced a report recommending the industry be further regulated and legislation pass this parliament.

Despite the regulations being proclaimed in early 2018, the scheme has not been implemented or enforced by the current government. This bill now seeks to repeal the act before the scheme can even take effect. I am confident that there are a great number of employers in the labour hire industry who would be appalled at some of the practices that have been documented to have occurred in their industry. It may well be the case, as some in this chamber have asserted, that it is only a small number of rogue operators who are giving the industry a bad name. If that is so, then let us make sure that they are forced to do the right thing.

Let's make this legislation work. If amendments are needed, then let the government produce them. Some of my colleagues have suggested that the bill may be nothing more than an attempt by this government to assist its mates in big business—

The Hon. S.K. Knoll: Sorry; I sat on this committee. I heard the evidence. I have talked to the businesses in my electorate they are affecting. There are two sides to this.

The SPEAKER: Minister for Transport, I also sat on the committee.

The Hon. S.K. Knoll: You did. You signed the minority report, too.

The SPEAKER: Be quiet, please. The member for Playford has the call.

Mr BROWN: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your protection. I am more of the view that they have decided that it is simply too hard to properly balance the need to protect working people from exploitation and to help employers struggling to increase our state's currently pathetic level of jobs growth. I say that they are too modest on the other side. Although, granted, there are a number of 'bunyips', to borrow the term from the member for Davenport, in the cabinet, this house has enough competence to deliver a scheme that properly weighs up those competing interests. If they still think it is too hard, then we would be happy to give them some advice from this side of the chamber.

As many members on both sides have acknowledged, exploitation exists in this industry. For me to vote in favour of simply giving up on fixing it without us even properly trying would be doing a great disservice to my constituents. I cannot support the bill.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Minister for Education) (17:19): I am very pleased to be able to speak on the Labour Hire Licensing Repeal Bill, which of course meets the government's commitment to do just that. The current act requires anyone who provides labour hire in South Australia to be licensed. The government is committed to ensuring that the employees of labour hire companies receive their correct legal entitlements, but it believes that adequate protections already existed in federal and state legislation.

This is an unnecessary layer of red tape that a range of businesses within my electorate of Morialta have contacted me about and asked me to ensure that their views are put on the record as well. Like the member for Playford, I will be brief. Unlike the member for Playford, I will argue for the correct side of the debate.

The Attorney-General has already established the labour hire task force. This will continue to operate, utilising existing legislative provisions, to effectively address and prosecute unscrupulous labour hire providers in South Australia. The task force includes representatives from CBS, ReturnToWork, SafeWork, RevenueSA and the Small Business Commissioner and they have undertaken a review of existing laws to determine that these are sufficient to deal with issues that have been raised in relation to the labour hire sector—serious issues included, but existing laws being sufficient.

Labour hire is, of course, a legitimate form of employment and a legitimate form of hiring labour. It is often an essential tool for businesses to supplement their workforce on a temporary basis. It is often the case in regional areas that they need to supplement their workforce at harvest time. In my electorate of Morialta, where we have cherries, pears, apples and grapes, this is a significant concern to a range of growers.

These businesses, including wineries and the growers, create local jobs, significant jobs. They attract visitors to our regions who shop and eat locally, supporting other local businesses. They attract tourism and they are part of what makes the Adelaide Hills region spectacular. In fact, the Morialta region—which is, of course, the best part of the Adelaide Hills region, which is, of course, the best region in South Australia—is the most spectacular region in South Australia and therefore the most spectacular region in the world.

The Labour Hire Licensing Act, when fully operational and enforced, would have placed—assuming this bill is unable to get through; I very much hope that it does get through—an unfair burden on wineries, wine grape growers and pack houses through additional red tape and compliance costs, without having any positive impact on compliance. It is so critical for those packing houses as well. There are already substantial compliance measures and legislative provisions in place that govern the industry: the Fair Work Act, the Work Health and Safety Act and the ReturnToWork Act. Financial penalties are also available to the Fair Work Ombudsman and the courts under the federal Fair Work Act 2009.

The existence of the Labour Hire Licensing Act, as introduced by the former government, implies that the labour hire industry is beyond the capacity of existing legislation to appropriately regulate. This is not the case. The Labour Hire Licensing Repeal Bill that we are debating today will remove labour hire specific legislation that resulted in increased costs and regulations and unnecessary increased costs and regulations, and labour hire companies will continue to be covered by ample existing legislation.

The Marshall Liberal government is committed to supporting business. Additional regulatory requirements, when previous existing laws could simply be better utilised to deliver a better response to issues with the labour hire industry, are therefore counterproductive to job creation and economic growth. The Labour Hire Licensing Repeal Bill will remove an unnecessary layer of red tape and the task force will focus on cross-agency and departmental collaboration to ensure that existing legislation is effectively applied to address the number and impact of unscrupulous labour hire providers in South Australia. I thank, in particular, the primary producers, the pack houses, the wineries and other constituents in the Morialta electorate who drew their concerns to my attention. I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI (Unley—Minister for Industry and Skills) (17:23): Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. The debate from the Labor Party certainly illustrates the difference in what we on this side of the house believe in and what those on the other side of the house believe in. We believe in empowerment of the individual and people getting the best out of their life and being independent. On the other side of the house, they believe in controlling people. That is why they favour compulsory unionism: they do not want people to have a choice.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: That is why right at this very moment they are fighting the bill. They are moving amendments to the Education Act bill that the education minister has put together to try to stop others, who are not members of their club, from being involved in different committees that the education system needs. Instead of it being exclusively for AEU members, the minister's bill will enable any teacher to put their name forward to participate in the education process. They want to keep it in the club. That is what this is all about. This is all about controlling workers, not enabling workers, not giving workers the ability—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: They have the protection. The fact is that, if this bill goes through—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Wright!

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: —nothing will change because the bill has not been enacted. They passed the bill and then they got lazy. They got their headline, they responded to the Four Corners report, they did their Economic and Finance Committee review, they put the legislation through the parliament, they got all the media they wanted and then they went home. They did not do the regulations. So nothing will change—nothing will change. The member for Reynell is telling everybody how everyone is being exploited in South Australia—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: —and that this bill will stop it from happening. Well, guess what? Nothing has changed because they did not finish the job they were doing. It is extraordinary. It is fearmongering, and that is how they get their union members.

Look at the shoppies union. They have done a deal with the big fast-food companies and the big supermarket companies to get half an hour on the three-hour induction night. Half an hour they get. They force 16 year olds to sit together in a room and then out comes the burly union rep who says, 'Look at me. I'm vulnerable on my own. Look at this stick.' They break the stick. Then they get a whole lot of sticks together and they say, 'Look, with all of us together the stick won't break. Join the shoppies union and the stick won't break!' That is what they do. It is amazing. It is terrific.

Of course, what they will not tell their members is that they will be charged 10 per cent more for their membership because they give that in a commission to Woolworths and Coles, so they take it from their salaries. They deduct it from their salaries. So every single member of the shoppies union is paying 10 per cent more than it actually costs to provide the services so that they can give a commission to Coles and Woolworths. It is extraordinary. The lowest paying workers in South Australia are subsidising some of the biggest multinational companies that operate here in South Australia. What else happens?

The SPEAKER: The minister will be seated for one moment.

Ms HILDYARD: Point of order: relevance.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! We are having so much fun, though. I uphold the point of order. I have given the minister great rein. He has had a good crack. I ask him to come back to the bill. Thank you.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Sir, I do admit to the irrelevance. The union movement is irrelevant. Only 9 per cent of the private sector is in a union movement, yet they want to tell South Australians what to do. It is extraordinary. It is for those reasons that we are supporting this bill today.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (17:28): It is good to see a bit of joy in this house after the last couple of days. I speak to the Labour Hire Repeal Bill, which is interesting. This is being repealed for a very good reason—because the former act has never been enacted. Not one business has been licensed. It has not been implemented and not one business has been registered under the scheme—not one business.

We have the union thugs from the other side and the union hacks, and the member for Reynell supports these people. I am not sure how she supports the member for Torrens when he comes in here with his boorish behaviour and does all he can to put people off from ever entering politics, especially women, with the way he acts in this house.

Ms Hildyard interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: You have had your go. You have the member for Lee and then the member for Croydon, the leader, who I think is auditioning to try to keep his job. You have the member for West Torrens, who sadly feels irrelevant because no-one will accept him as the leader of the Labor Party in this state, and then you have the member for Lee, who gave a great audition yesterday to be the leader. There is this internal bunfight in the Labor Party, this internal tension going on. It is not as if—

Ms Hildyard interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: You had your go.

The SPEAKER: Order! Yes, member for Reynell, please!

Mr PEDERICK: It is not as if the leader, the member for Croydon, is not used to throwing the knife. He used the knife with his mate Jack and they knifed the former member for Ramsay, Mike Rann—not that he lived anywhere there; I think he lived in our Premier's electorate.

The SPEAKER: I doorknocked him when I was a councillor. He was very polite.

Mr PEDERICK: There you go. What I say to the member for Croydon, the leader of the Labor Party, is that he might need to watch his back. He will not have to worry about the member for West Torrens because he is not palatable to the public. The member for Lee was putting on such a show and, to give him credit, he shows great promise.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: That's it. We have the member for Reynell happily backing up these people who like to complain about Coles, Woolworths, McDonald's and these other big companies of the world, but guess what? These same union hacks negotiated enterprise bargaining agreements below the award wage.

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: And they signed off on it.

Mr PEDERICK: And they signed off on it. We have had all this bleating from the other side about protecting workers, about protecting wages, and what have these union hacks done? They have sold them out.

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: Put it in their pockets.

Mr PEDERICK: They have sold them out and they have put it their pockets. Guess what happens? I know this for the fact: when 16 year olds sign up at Big W—

Mr BROWN: Point of order: unfortunately, I have to point out that this does not relate to the bill.

The SPEAKER: There is a point of order on the point of order.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: It is the Labor Party that has raised workers' exploitation. This is exactly what we're hearing at the moment from that mob over there.

The SPEAKER: I have the point of order. Minister, please be seated. Member for Playford, I have the point of order. The Minister for Transport should go back to whatever else he is doing. I have given the member for Hammond a bit of a warm-up. Let's bring it back to the substance of the bill, thank you.

Mr PEDERICK: Just to finish off that point—

The SPEAKER: Finish quickly and come back to the bill, please.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, it is directly related to the bill and labour licensing and how Labor comes and engages with these companies and how the unions have got so deeply embroiled. If these young people at 16 do not want to be a member of the union, they have to go to the default position of signing themselves out because they are automatically signed up to the very unions that have killed their wages and signed them up for under the award.

I am never going to listen to the preaching from these union hacks on the other side about looking after workers in this state because the facts are the facts and they actually destroy the rights of kids and workers in this state. I just want to reflect on the wine industry in my electorate and how this will—

An honourable member: Talk about the meatworks.

Mr PEDERICK: The meatworks do a great job.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Absolutely. I want to talk about the South Australian Wine Industry Association.

Ms Hildyard interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: You had your go. Hang on, what is that I can hear in the wilderness?

The SPEAKER: I am trying to listen to the member for Hammond.

Mr PEDERICK: The South Australian Wine Industry Association are absolutely certain that it is superfluous to the needs of the industry. The legislation did not look like it was even going to pick up the people it was targeted at picking up. It has been deemed not useful. As I indicated before, it is draconian legislation. We hear from the other side about how they supposedly look after the rights of the workers, when the actual facts are that they do the exact opposite. They want to preach to us about supposedly being in the pockets of business. I just hope the union hands back every business donation they get.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (17:34): I wish to thank members for their contributions to this debate. Some were lively, some entertaining, some less helpful, some significant and some that I thought were going to cause some health problems for some of the contributors. Nevertheless, I am pleased to see that those sitting immediately adjacent to me are still alive.

There are a couple of matters I wish to raise. Firstly, there was a statement made by the member for Lee in his contribution. As members know, this is a bill to repeal the act, and he referred to the question of whether the bill could be, should be or was intended to be amended. As I think I have previously explained to the house, that issue was considered by the government and was seen to be an inadequate resolution of this matter. Therefore, we have proposed that the whole of the act be repealed. In his contribution, the member for Lee says:

It is funny I should raise that because I am advised that when the opposition was briefed on this bill the officers who provided that briefing admitted that there were amendments that had been drafted in order to make sure that this regime was doing exactly what was intended and nothing more…

I want to point out that the briefing offered was with the Hon. Mr Maher (Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council, spokesperson on consumer matters and shadow attorney-general), his adviser, my adviser and Mr Dini Soulio, who is the Commissioner for Consumer and Business Services. I do not know what other officers he is referring to, but I am advised that Mr Soulio confirmed that, in the event that the bill was not repealed, in his opinion it would need a lot of amendment. That is not what the member has said: namely, that there was some kind of secret preparation of amendments for the purpose of progressing this bill.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, I am just correcting the record on what I have been informed by the commissioner, and I just want to confirm to the house that no amendments have been prepared or considered by the government in respect of this bill. We categorically reject that this bill is amendable.

We have had a flurry of contributions on the philosophical basis upon which anyone is better at providing for the protection, safety and rights of workers. For the purpose of this debate, I accept that however inadequate some might present as a proposed regime of protection for workers, I do not think anyone here would accept that workers should be exploited, especially if they are in a vulnerable circumstance. They deserve to have protection of their wages, their entitlements, accommodation provisions and their leave, and they are entitled to work in a safe workplace.

I am not going to sit here and give a litany of cases where I think the former Labor government oversaw disgracefully unsafe workplaces in this state, including the much-publicised death of Mr Castillo-Riffo at the Royal Adelaide Hospital, or detail my conversations with Mr Cartledge, head of the CFMEU, about my concern that his union had failed to provide adequate, safe working conditions for that person.

What I will say is that we on this side of the house are keen to ensure that there is provision for those protections. We clearly say that this piece of legislation, passed under the previous government, does not do that. Whilst there has been some comment about the implementation of this from the member for Reynell—Reynell or Kaurna?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Mawson!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I know where you are, and I know who I am working to get rid of.

The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Mawson!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The member for Reynell represented in her—

The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Mawson will cease interjecting.

The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Mawson, cease interjecting please.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —I think quite passionate and probably well-intentioned speech that the act has actually provided some panacea of protection—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —some blanket of security—

An honourable member interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —for those in the labour hire industry. The fact is, though, in this state—although the bill was proclaimed and indeed regulations followed—not one single person has been registered under this new regime. I want to bring this important point to the attention of the house because whilst the commissioner received 121 applications immediately upon the commencement of the act from people who felt, even though they had raised concerns about being captured under this legislation, that they were obliged to put in their information, not one single person has been processed or registered.

Indeed, when the government made the announcement that it would be progressing this repeal bill, the commissioner indicated to the industry generally that he would not be accepting any further applications, and made a commitment that if the bill were repealed he would ensure that applicants were refunded their application fee. So there has not been any actual implementation in the establishment of a register that has therefore attracted the protections.

Under this legislation, the protections so offensive to those on this side of the house and to which we have attempted to move amendments were, in particular, the imprisonment clauses for labour hire operators. We see that as a backdoor attempt to deal with things such as industrial manslaughter. These are failed attempts that have been presented to this parliament many times before and they may be again. They will never have my support, and I still say that this attempt to place serious and significant imprisonment terms on employers in relation to these is completely unacceptable.

However, let us go to what the current protections are because I think it is important that the house is aware of them. First, there is the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 under SafeWork SA. Obviously, if a worker is at risk in any way there is a whole agency to provide investigative and prosecution actions in that regard. I realise that SafeWork SA has had a few problems, so much so that the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption conducted a review into it and highlighted very significant failings in relation to that agency.

I was responsible for it at the time of the change of government—it is now with the Hon. Mr Lucas—and I am pleased to say there have been very significant reforms. However, suffice to say that it had a lot of people who were clearly not up to the job. They were either inadequately skilled or unskilled people who failed utterly in what should have been successful prosecutions.

Secondly, there is the Return To Work Act 2014. Anyone caught providing false information can be fined up to $50,000 and, in that regard, imprisoned for two years already. We know that the South Australian Employment Tribunal and the many commissioners down there, in particular, are regularly processing applications for people who have been underpaid, who have not had their superannuation paid as well as other entitlements they have been unfairly, illegally denied and for which they have sought redress—as they should.

There is the Payroll Tax Act 2009 under RevenueSA. Obviously labour hire companies are liable to pay payroll tax relating to wages of all workers, and there are consequences if they do not. Importantly, there is also the Fair Work Act 2009 in the commonwealth under the Fair Work Ombudsman as well as, of course, the court structure to deal with, in particular, the Fair Work Act 2009.

When people talk about there being a lot of other laws, it is important to remember what those laws are, that they are there and that they are working now and are in fact providing protections to many people from many of the circumstances that have been raised in cases and even in stories contributed by the other side. I think the member for Reynell pointed out a case of obvious exploitation of a person who was employed in a host worker situation. I think she indicated that she advocated for this person, and I expect she would have been successful, I hope, in recovering whatever entitlement she had been unlawfully deprived of.

That is the purpose of ensuring that we have a court, an ombudsman and a structure: to ensure that we do protect workers in those circumstances. That is what is occurring. Regarding the task force that has been referred to by a member, I confirm that that task force was set up last year. I have referred to it. It comprises a number of the representatives of these agencies and it continues to sit and work.

One of the contributors suggested, rather dismissively I think, that all it does is share data. However, the reason why this is very important is that, if a particular employer fails to adequately pay somebody their wage, or does not pay the payroll tax they are obliged to pay, or does not provide for the safety, supervision or accommodation for a worker in those circumstances, it seems—and I think this is quite logical—that quite often they do not do multiple things.

So if they are treating an employee badly in relation to not giving them their correct wage, there is every possibility that they are also failing in their obligation under these other areas. It is important that those agencies work together, particularly if they identify an employer who is showing up as having alleged impropriety or misconduct in relation to multiple areas, and that that information be exchanged, because it assists them, for example, in a case where there are multiple exploitation claims (and if SafeWork SA are not already involved), to be able to attend the workplace and actually follow that through.

That is an important task force and it is continuing. It met again earlier this month, and under our proposal it will continue to operate. I am satisfied that that is an important initiative of the government, and we are committed to continuing it. I thank Mr Soulio for his work in undertaking the work to date. Can I also say that, during the course of consultation, I had the opportunity to receive advice from Mr Joe Szakacs, who I think is the chief secretary of SA Unions, now recently elected.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: However he wants it pronounced, I am happy to do it because shortly we are to welcome him to this chamber. He may not be sworn in yet because the postal votes are not all in; nevertheless, there is every expectation that he will be the new member for Cheltenham. At the next week of sitting we will of course be welcoming both new members to the seats, for the full complement of the house.

He and one of his senior advisers in SA Unions came to see me about this bill, as I would expect they would. It is part of their responsibility to ensure that whoever is in government and those who are making the decisions in these matters keep abreast of what their view is and what their member unions' view is in relation to these matters. So it did not surprise me, at first blush, that he would say, 'Our position is that we are opposing the government's bill to repeal this. We feel that the registration and licensing regime that is proposed under the act should prevail. It is necessary for the protection of itinerant workers,' etc. All of this is what I would expect. That is fine, and I think it is reasonable that he would present that.

I did ask him whether there were any examples in South Australia that had been brought to his attention of exploitation of the nature that is intended to be protected by this bill. One would expect either him or one of his member unions to have a body of examples where there needed to be extra protection that would be granted by this umbrella legislation.

He immediately referred to the Four Corners program, which many contributors have commented on, and some of the appalling abuse, I would suggest, of workers that was recorded in that film, which I think was filmed three years ago. As I understand it, no-one was ever prosecuted, but it seemed, at first blush, an appalling treatment of workers.

I said, 'I am not aware of any of those cases being in South Australia.' 'No, they weren't.' The question was asked, 'Were there any others in South Australia that you are aware of?' After a number of minutes, it was clear that there was not one single case that had come to his attention as the head of SA Unions, which has multiple unions in its membership in South Australia, where there had been a breach in respect of itinerant and host employees that were intended to be covered under the labour hire legislation.

At that stage, having recently handed over part of my electorate to the member for Heysen and the member for Morialta, I explained to him that there were cherry growers, pear growers and apple growers and so on who were represented very proudly over a number of years, and I know continue to do so. When I said that the cherry season was coming up, he said, 'Oh, yes, that's it. There is a case. I have heard of it. There is an exploitation of cherry pickers.' I said, 'What, this year?' He said, 'Yes.' I said, 'To the best of my knowledge, and I am not a cherry picker expert, the season for cherry picking doesn't open for another 10 weeks.' He was unusually silent.

Nevertheless, I said to him, 'I think it is important, though, that if any single case of exploitation comes to your attention that you think this legislation would cover but, more importantly, where there had been a failing of the existing legislation to provide protection or prosecutions, please let me know.' We concluded the meeting and I thanked him for his representations. That was about three months ago.

Obviously, he has been busy doing a by-election. I accept that. I am not being critical of him not presenting any cases to us, but I just make this point. Every one of us could stand here and give stories of the exploitation of people. Every one of us could probably give multiple stories historically of cases where there has been, in our view, unacceptable conduct by an employer. But I do not know of anyone so far who has come up with any case in South Australia in the last 12 months that has not been dealt with by the existing agencies—any of those four agencies I have referred to. We now have the extra watchful eye of the task force to ensure that, where there has been misconduct in multiple areas, it has been followed up.

As the Minister for Consumer and Business Services, I make it very clear that I will continue to ensure that reports of any offences or misbehaviour in this regard are followed up. They need to be investigated. We need to ensure that good employers are recognised, that good workers are properly paid and that we do not have exploitation, especially where the worker is either young or on a temporary visa arrangement in Australia. I think they are even more vulnerable because of there being less likelihood of there being a critical number of people who might individually work in an individual industry on a seasonal basis. These are potential areas of exploitation.

We say on this side of the house that they should be protected. We say they are protected and we say this legislation does no service to us or them, other than to place a blanket of extra regulatory obligation on industry and employers that we are seeking to relieve them of. If we are not able to conclude this matter in the next few minutes, I hope we will be able to conclude it in the following week when we return.

The house divided on the second reading:

Ayes 23

Noes 16

Majority 7

Second reading thus carried.

Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. J.A.W. Gardner.