Labour Hire Licensing Repeal Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Ms HILDYARD: I guess that this is a more general question to start with, but given that the bill has only a couple of clauses I will try to put each set of my questions into parts 1 and 2 of the bill. There are only two clauses. Some may seem more general. My first question is: who did the Attorney-General consult with before introducing this bill and what was their feedback on this bill?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think that the position was very clear prior to the election when the principal bill that we are seeking to repeal was debated. The then opposition made it abundantly clear that, if we were to form government, we would repeal this legislation for all the reasons that have been outlined in the debate on behalf of the government. That was the case, that we made a commitment to it in the parliament and honoured it post the election.

Directly after election and on meeting with the Commissioner for Business and Consumer Affairs, Mr Soulio, it became clear that the then government had proclaimed their legislation (I think, at the eleventh hour) before the election. However, notwithstanding that, I met regularly with the commissioner to identify what processes were being undertaken by his department as a result of the legislation being proclaimed. He indicated that he had, over time, received over 100 applications from people who presumed that they would be responsible, liable, for the requirement to register

In light of the new government's position, I sought advice from the department about whether, in the concerns raised by a number of applicants and organisations, there was the capacity for amendment, even significant amendment, to improve the bill consistent with our position—that is, with the possible potential of leaving some inoffensive commitments in the legislation. That was presented to us as an option, not, as has been asserted during the debate, where amendments were prepared or anything of that nature—in fact, I made it very clear—with a view to seeing if there is another way to deal with this matter.

The new government considered all these matters. Having received copies of a number of submissions from the associations representing the industries to be caught by this legislation, it was clear to us that amendment was not an option, that they would be unfairly and unnecessarily captured by the definitions in the legislation. Therefore, the government made the determination that it would progress with the repeal of the bill.

Apart from the new member for Cheltenham, who came to see me as the secretary of SA Unions and presented his case—and I have detailed that in the debate on this matter—I think it is fair to say that, overwhelmingly, the submissions were by industry associations pleading for relief from the oppressive and unnecessary terms of this bill. I have referred to them, in short, in relation to the imprisonment terms and very heavy fines that may apply.

Consultation was on the two clauses, one of which reads, 'This Act may be cited as the Labour Hire Licensing Repeal Act 2018,' and the second, which reads, 'The Labour Hire Licensing Act 2017 is repealed.' It was not comprehensively consulted on outside the fact that we received an enormous number of association representations. Many of those, as I understand it from the commissioner, were also sent to his office. In light of the government's decision to proceed with the repeal, he identified that he would cease receiving applications from other prospective registrants and indicated that if the bill is repealed he would refund the application fees for the other applications already received.

Ms HILDYARD: Attorney, why did you announce that you would repeal the bill, thereby taking away rights for vulnerable workers, and only after that announcement establish a task force to look at the existing laws?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: It was always clear to us as a government (and this was contemporaneous with the ultimate decision to proceed with the repeal) that we would with that—not afterwards but with that—appoint a task force to ensure that the progress we expected to take place was taking place; that is, the commonwealth were in fact progressing their initiatives, and matters such as phoenixing, which was referred to in one of the maiden speeches today, as a practice—if I can give it as high a title as that—were being addressed. These were things that were important and we felt needed to be further pursued.

One of the reasons that we are vindicated by the decision we have made to progress to the proposed repeal of this legislation is that, even when asked to identify areas of exploitation or abuse of vulnerable workers, which this type of legislation is professing to protect, those examples were not forthcoming, and I think they were not forthcoming because there are existing practices and laws that do protect.

Let me give you one example, though, of where I think there has been a failing that is not remedied by this act or by the fact that we are proposing to repeal it. Today, I listened carefully to the member for Cheltenham's impressive contribution in his maiden speech. He referred to the Castillo-Riffo death on the Royal Adelaide Hospital grounds during the build of that facility. Sadly, it was followed by another death shortly thereafter, again on a scissor lift.

I heard the member for Cheltenham say how he was committed to ensuring that we establish an industrial manslaughter offence. It is not a new idea. It is one that has not been successfully prosecuted in this parliament in the past, although it has been raised. This is the idea of punishing a negligent or reckless employer who allows a workplace to be so unsafe that it facilitates the death of one of the employees.

I was interested to hear that because, as we now know, in Mr Castillo-Riffo's case, with the existing laws operating under the previous government, which included the operation of SafeWork SA in the prosecution of employers—in this case, it was multiple, as it was a joint venture—in respect of allowing an unsafe workplace and it resulting in the death of Mr Castillo-Riffo, which we now know were abandoned after some two years when the prosecution withdrew, there were never any disclosed reports from SafeWork SA, as the prosecuting agency, even after the prosecution was withdrawn.

I raised this issue with the then head of the CFMEU, Mr Aaron Cartledge, with whom I had a number of dealings. I am not sure what actually happened to him. I think he lost an election or something and he disappeared off the face of the CFMEU; nevertheless, he was in a leadership role at that time. I raised the issue of how it was that one of his workers had died but that we had not had any indication from SafeWork SA about what was going on.

We had no report. It had not been referred to the Coroner, as best as we could understand at that stage, and this was in the early stage. Nobody seemed to be doing anything. His indication to me at the time, and maybe to others as well, was, 'We're letting SafeWork SA look after that.' Just have a bo-peep at the report of ICAC in the review they undertook in relation to SafeWork SA and the lack of adequate practices, expertise, competence and everything else in relation to that agency, particularly in the prosecutions unit.

All the laws that we have still require a competent government managing the agencies that are supposed to deal with these things to ensure that we have protections. I think that was a classic example of the woefully inadequate government-sponsored agencies that are there, and that are supposed to protect workers, hopelessly abandoning that responsibility. All the laws in the world are not actually going to be effective in protecting people in the workplace unless the agencies that are there to investigate, prosecute and protect are being managed properly.

I think that there are some significant areas of deficiency. I have just given one example today where the partner of Mr Castillo-Riffo had been very public in her concerns about the lack of protection for her partner, apparently in the face of there being alarm bells ringing in relation to the workplace circumstances. We can make all the laws we want here, but unless the government of the day, whether it is commonwealth or state, properly ensures the instrumentalities and agencies that are there to protect are implemented, this bit of law is not going to help.

There are plenty of other laws, but let's have a task force with it, which we announced with our decision to progress to the bill to repeal. Let's have with it a task force to ensure ongoing dialogue about the implementation of both current legislation and legislation that has passed since, and practices at the commonwealth level and some of the state practices that we rely on.

Ms HILDYARD: Thank you, Attorney. Have any fees collected by business services in terms of application and registration fees been refunded? What was the value of any fees refunded?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I did mention in the second reading or in the rebuttal that a small number of fees had been refunded. I think I indicated at the time that—if I was not clear about it, I will try to make it clear now—I do not know the reason for that. I was advised by the commissioner that he had refunded them.

It may have been that an application was received and it was clear that the nature of the industry or the business that applied to register was not captured by the legislation. In those circumstances, I would expect that the commissioner would send the money back with a letter stating, 'Dear sir, you mistakenly identified this legislation as necessitating you apply. It does not apply, and therefore you are covered either by some other way or it does not apply to you at all.' I imagine that is the reason, but I have been informed and I have advised the parliament of the over 117 current applications, or whatever the number was that I indicated previously. It is the intention of the commissioner to refund those in the event the act is repealed.

The CHAIR: Given that there are only two clauses, I will allow a fourth question on this clause.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Can I just add to that that I am advised by my adviser here that 10 applications were refunded.

Ms HILDYARD: How many labour hire firms had registered before the termination of the application process?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: There were 125.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

Ms HILDYARD: Under the current law, the labour hire licensing scheme started on 1 March 2018. On what legal basis have Consumer and Business Services decided not to comply with the law and refused to accept applications for labour hire licences?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am glad you mentioned the date. Of course, it was into the caretaker mode of the previous government, as we were in election mode. As I said, they slipped through a proclamation for commencement just before the change of government. Notwithstanding that and perhaps the validity of the previous government doing that during caretaker mode—let's not take issue with that at the moment; I am about to have a constitutional challenge about that—what I would say is that, having done it, if the commissioner, who is an independent statutory officer of the commission, made the assessment that, in light of the debate progressing for the repeal of the legislation, he would not continue to advertise or seek to enforce the terms, that was a matter for him.

He did not ask for my permission. I did not give any direction to him. I did not ask him to do it. He informed me that, in light of the government's decision to progress with the repeal of the legislation in the parliament, he would be discontinuing the processing of this until that matter was concluded one way or the other, obviously.

Ms HILDYARD: Has the department provided any advice or warning against noncompliance with the existing law?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Not to me.

Ms HILDYARD: How will the government ensure adequate protections for workers engaged by labour hire firms, particularly those who cannot be located once particular industrial claims in relation to their conduct are made, should this bill progress?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: If I am clear, it is on the basis that the labour hire firm in some way mistreats or fails to provide for its workers, who would otherwise, for example, be subject to a SafeWork inquiry of some failing under the Work Health and Safety Act, or they had not made provision in relation to the obligations under the Return to Work Act, or they had not paid their payroll tax, or they had not undertaken their obligations in relation to their employees under the Fair Work Act.

These are all areas in which currently there is legislation that applies. Payroll tax may not apply to all of them but more than likely it would, given the nature of these types of entities. In the event that this entity then either dissolves or disappears back overseas or the relevant directors die and so are no longer available—is that what you are saying?

Ms HILDYARD: I can clarify, if you like. I guess there are two parts to the question. One is—and you have partly answered it—how do you envisage that there will be protections for workers engaged via labour hire firms in a general sense? You have started to answer that, but I am also interested, Attorney, particularly should this repeal bill progress, in how you will ensure protections for workers engaged through labour hire firms when those firms, as I spoke about in my speech in relation to this matter a couple of weeks ago, cannot be located and there is no process any longer for registration of those firms.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: If the Labour Hire Licensing Act is repealed, there would not be any registration. The act sets up a licensing and regulation process. It is a typical Labor model; that is, you make everybody sign up and pay fees. They then monitor it. They have a list that they can check, and you cannot practise or operate your professional business, essentially, unless you are registered. The instrument of discipline with these Labor-type models is that you get struck off and therefore lose your right to operate your business or practice or profession if you are no longer registered, and then there are massive penalties if you purport to operate or trade without a licence. That is the nature of the models of these things.

We are saying that, whether you are an individual, a partnership, a corporate entity, a co-op, or any other amalgam for the purposes of operating a business, you have obligations when it comes to employment under a whole lot of legislation. I named three or four of them a minute ago: to provide a safe workplace, to pay people the right amount of money, to pay the workers comp levy and to pay the benefits that employers are obligated to pay—unless they are self-insured or unless they work for the government. Even if they work for the government, there are some protections.

A really important one in this area is, of course, the entitlement to remuneration and benefits. We have a whole lot of commissioners, for example, at the South Australian Employment Tribunal whose job on a daily basis is to negotiate and mediate resolutions in relation to underpayments or failure to provide benefits. This is something that happens in the real world, and because of reckless indifference or deliberate conduct by the employer there has been a failure to pay the right payment or benefit to somebody. There is a remedy to it, as there should be, and that is why we have a law to remedy that.

How would they have protection? Workers who felt they had been in some way deprived of a benefit or entitlement or placed in an unsafe work circumstance would have the protection that they have right now at the federal and state level. That is important to have. I suggest it is much more important than this. If you have unscrupulous people, having a licensing or registration process—

Ms Hildyard: But it helps you to find them.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: You say it helps to find them. The member interjects to say it helps to find them. Give me a break. If they have disappeared, if they have packed up their business and they have nicked off out of the country, believe me, you are not going to find them. That address at such-and-such road, Seaton, is not going to be there, or it is going to be empty and the desk is going to be cleaned out—

Ms Hildyard interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! The question has been asked. The Attorney is answering.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The question has been asked and I am happy to answer it.

The CHAIR: Yes, and you will be heard in silence.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: This is the misconception. There is some idea that you are going to be able to arrest some ghost who is no longer sitting behind the desk at the address and you say, 'For that unscrupulous conduct, Mr Commissioner—

Ms Hildyard: Get them registered before they start.

The CHAIR: Member for Reynell, order please!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —you shall forthwith deregister this person.' Well, big deal. What is that going to do to help protect those people who were apparently unfairly or badly treated as employees? There is not a single piece of benefit to those people. What is important to those people is, firstly, that they have a legal framework of protection for when they are abused or treated with such reckless indifference that they are not even advised of their entitlements. That is the first thing: to make sure they have a legal framework under which they can make a complaint, under which they can seek a remedy and under which there is a benefit to them, not chasing some ghost who has closed up their office and nicked off.

In the real world, the member might like to appreciate that there are unscrupulous people out there, and they are in the employment business as well. This type of registration, this type of superficial process of saying, 'We will deregister you,' as a means of protecting workers is a complete nonsense. When you are not paying your taxes, not paying the super benefits for employees, not providing them proper WorkCover, making them work in an unsafe workplace, not giving them accommodation, paying them half the wages, a threat of being deregistered does not carry weight or any benefit whatsoever to those victims—not a single jot. These people are not stupid.

I have been here 17 years and I can tell you that minister after minister has come through here saying, 'We have the answer to this. We are going to have a registration process. We are going to have a new licensing scheme. We are going to have a list and we are going to monitor you.' I can remember a bill we did on the lists of registration of people who operate in the hydroponics business. I met with the police and asked, 'What's this about?' They said, 'We want to have a registered list of people who operate in hydroponics.'

This was pre the period, member for Reynell, of the methamphetamine ice epidemic when growing marijuana hydroponically was seen as a vast improvement in the productivity of the drug and less requirement to have a garden or soil to grow it in. You just stuck it in a house, under lights, in a test tube, and you grew it hydroponically, and you would get 20-size in half the time.

Ms Hildyard: I wouldn't know, Vickie.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Well, it is an education for you. What happened in that new registration process was: 'We need, Ms Chapman, the support of the opposition for a registration process of people who are in the hydroponics business.' I said, 'What? The tomato growers out at Virginia?' 'Yes.' 'Anyone else who might be not growing tomatoes?' 'Yes, we want to capture them and we are going to require them to be registered.' They came to me and I said, 'How many of these people are there?' They said, 'We estimate that there are, say, 96.' I said, 'Okay.'

They introduced this big regime. I did not think it was necessary, frankly, for it to have to be managed by SAPOL. I said to them at the time, 'Isn't this a Consumer and Business Services process?' They said, 'No, this is a bit like the registration of guns. This is pretty serious. It involves drug people and drug operators and we need to manage it.' I said, 'Okay, whatever. The government of the day wants to push this through.' So they came back to me to say, 'Do you know what happened? We have introduced this law, Ms Chapman, and only 60 or 70 people have registered.'

They took that as being that 20 or 30 people who were in the drug business did not register and that they would therefore have been no longer growing hydroponically operated marijuana. I said, 'Let me give you another interpretation. Another interpretation is that 72 honest tomato-growing operators in hydroponics had gone in and paid the fee and the registration, put their address down at such-and-such road in Virginia, or wherever they were operating their glasshouses from, and the other 22 were still out there growing whatever they wanted to grow in test tubes; they had not registered and they were still out there growing marijuana.' They said, 'That's possible, but we think it is because we have scared them off by this new registration scheme.'

I thought some people have to get in the real world. There are unscrupulous people out there. There are people out there who operate in illegal practices and there are certain protections we need to ensure for employment but also for the service or product they produce. Obviously, we do not want teachers or nurses, or lawyers for that matter, going out there trying to practise a particular discipline unless they are registered because they have to attain certain standards of qualification, and sometimes experience they have to document, to be entitled to be registered.

I see this for what it is and it should be seen for what it is: a backdoor attempt by the Labor Party to try to have something as close as possible to industrial manslaughter in this, and there are now serious imprisonment penalties in this legislation. They could not get it through the front door so they have tried it through the back door. All it does is give them a list of a number of people their Labor unions can harass to join the membership. If the unions really cared about protecting these workers, they would be down there on the dock or at the airport when these people arrive, offering to support them with membership.

Ms HILDYARD: Chair, I think this might be digressing.

The CHAIR: Member for Reynell, you asked a broad-ranging question and you had a very fulsome answer, I think.

The committee divided on the clause:

Ayes 23

Noes 21

Majority 2

Clause thus passed.

Title.

The committee divided on the title:

Ayes 23

Noes 21

Majority 2

Title thus passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (17:09): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (17:10): I would like to make a contribution to this debate, particularly as a result of not only what I have heard through the committee stage but also what I have heard over the last few days about workers' rights, particularly around insecure employment.

As I understand it—and I would say this is my understanding of the Liberal Party's position in terms of repealing this bill—the Liberal Party’s argument is that there are some technical defects in the bill, that there are existing agencies and existing laws which cover it, and that certainly the repeal of this bill will actually make some contribution to workers' rights, which is quite a bizarre argument. That is essentially my understanding of the Liberal Party's view or rationale behind this bill.

That is their view, but I would say that I reject that interpretation on the basis—certainly from my own experience of people I have known who have been affected by people who work for labour hire firms and also from the arguments put forward through committee—that there are not enough sufficient case studies to warrant the support of this bill.

One of the most important things the bill does is to create, for the want of better terminology, a chain of responsibility. It makes sure that somebody is actually in the chain of responsibility for people's employment, that someone is responsible for an employee, responsible for their occupational health and safety and responsible for their working conditions, their pay, etc. The committee, which I and other members sat on, found that one of the major problems of the existing laws is that there is lack of clarity about who is actually responsible at what point in time. I say that bad employers—not all employers—and those bad labour hire firms get away with blue murder, and usually the worker is the one who pays the price.

Who are the workers who are going to be affected by this proposed repeal law? It is an area of highly casualised work. It is actually insecure employment, and one of the greatest problems in our society today is insecure work in terms of people trying to make decisions about their future, making investments for their children and families, or just their own futures.

The people who are affected by this law, if it was kept, who would be helped by those who want to repeal it, those who will be hurt by this law, are as follows. Essentially, these people are employed on an ad hoc basis in a whole range of industries. They are migrants—people who have recently arrived in Australia who perhaps do not have language skills or an understanding of our laws and what their rights are. They are, generally speaking, lower paid people—people who work in a whole range of industries that have lower pay.

They are young people. A lot of young people are often employed through this. There are visa holders—people who come here under some sort of visa. I know for a fact that a number of visa holders are exploited by labour hire firms and bad employers. I am aware, through my association with the national Italian association, of the young people who visit our country on work visas and who are exploited horribly by some of these bad practices. Women are also affected.

By repealing this law we say that it is okay to exploit these people. That is the message the Liberal Party is giving to these bad employers and to these bad people who work in labour hire firms. It is saying that it is okay to exploit these people. You should be ashamed of what you are doing here by repealing this bill. If there were some federal difficulties, you could amend it. You could actually make it better. It is also a highly non-unionised area, so there are not people to advocate on people's behalf. You are exploiting those people who are already vulnerable for a range of reasons but do not have an advocate next to them.

The importance of this legislation is that it acts as a deterrent. No law is perfect, but these laws would act as a deterrent. We could lead the country by passing these laws. Another bill this party opposed was the franchise law reform, which became the Small Business Commissioner Act in this state. Through this parliament, we enacted the best laws to protect small franchisees, small mum-and-dad owners, which then forced the commonwealth to act.

If we keep these laws, we would force the commonwealth to act, and we would have national laws to protect these workers. It is a sad day when this Liberal Party says that, by repealing this act, we are making the worker better off. Shame on you!

The Hon. D.G. PISONI (Unley—Minister for Industry and Skills) (17:15): I think we have all been surprised by the faux rage about the bill that we have heard from the other side of the chamber. We know that the Labor Party are experts at creating an illusion of action. Rather than actually doing something, they create an illusion of action.

They do it by additional regulation, they do it by a specific amendment to a bill, they do it by an inquiry and they do it by a royal commission. Whatever it is, it is about creating an illusion of action rather than actioning themselves. They know there is no outcome; there is no benefit for workers. As a matter of fact, this just makes it much harder for workers to get jobs in key industries in South Australia that are growing and that need to grow because there are hungry export markets to our north.

There was a retrenched workers program from which two labour hire companies received money from those opposite when they were running the program. One must ask the question: what was the due diligence done on those companies? I suspect there was due diligence. Did they find that they were legitimate companies running legitimate businesses under the current law? They must have found that; otherwise, why would they hand over taxpayers' money? Either that or they did not do the due diligence. Either way, it shows the faux rage coming from that side of the chamber, and that the typical Labor Party solution is to set up an illusion that they are actually doing something.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has the call.

Mr MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Leader of the Opposition) (17:17): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank you for the opportunity to say a few words in regard to the bill because, as yet, I have not had an opportunity to contribute. This bill is particularly important because it speaks quite genuinely to the substantial policy and ideological difference that we see between the two sides of the chamber. On more than one occasion, I have made remarks about where there are points of commonality between the two sides of the house, but clearly on this one there is a genuine point of difference.

I think it is worth exploring because, at this particular point in time in the world, when we are seeing extraordinary disruption globally, what we are seeing on show here in our own way, in our own parliament, is how conservative governments and parties are doing everything they possibly can to hurt the most disengaged people in our community. It is now becoming increasingly accepted that a whole segment of our community feels increasingly economically disengaged. That leads to a greater degree of social disengagement and, in turn, a greater degree of political disengagement. All of that amounts to an erosion of our social fabric in a way that is fundamentally unhealthy to a decent and fair society and that fundamentally undermines our economy.

When we contemplate what the Labour Hire Licensing Repeal Bill seeks to achieve, one would have thought they were admirable goals that would be shared by the Liberal Party because we know that the overwhelming majority of people in our economy who employ others are making a positive contribution. The overwhelming majority of employers do the right thing. I speak to employers on a frequent basis and there is one thing they often point out to me: they are looking for people who are doing the wrong thing to be punished because they undermine the work that they are trying to engage in.

Think of two small business owners. One is doing the right thing by paying their employees fairly, paying them at least award rates, paying them on time and paying their superannuation. They are not engaging in wage theft and they provide secure forms of employment. That business is out there doing the right thing and making a valuable contribution to our society by employing people.

Then think of another business that is doing the wrong thing. They are not providing secure work or paying superannuation. They are seeking to exploit someone because English might be their second language or seeking to exploit someone because they might be young and not know their rights. These are two competing businesses. These are two businesses with vastly different ideologies and business models.

The person doing the right thing, I would have thought, would want a degree of confidence that there is a government regulator seeking to punish the one that does the wrong thing because that business undermines the ability for the business doing the right thing to be able to compete in the marketplace. One would have thought that the Liberal Party, which is constantly espousing the virtues of wanting to look after small businesses, would have been seeking to look after those small businesses that do the right thing.

The Labour Hire Licensing Repeal Bill does not seek to punish employers or even labour hire companies; it seeks only to punish those who do the wrong thing. Why would the Liberal Party want to find themselves on the side of an argument trying to protect those employers who do the wrong thing? That is not the Liberal Party that I understand, and it certainly is not the Labor Party because on this side of the house we will always have a predisposition to not just look after those employers that do the right thing but also add a degree of protection for those workers who would otherwise be robbed. We should think about who those people actually are. The member for Light rightly started to touch on this point.

I have to say that I know people in my electorate from lower socio-economic communities, a high proportion of people who speak English as a second language and people who came to this nation only wanting to find an opportunity, who end up finding themselves exploited in a workplace, often by labour hire companies that are doing the wrong thing. They find themselves being marginalised because they might be more vulnerable or in a smaller community. What sort of nation are we or what sort of parliament is this or what sort of government do we now have in charge that seeks to have those people exploited for the sake of employers doing the wrong thing? It is utterly extraordinary.

People who vote on this bill decide to make a conscious decision to not just put other people in our community who are already vulnerable at greater risk but also undermine those businesses that do the right thing and those employers who do the right thing. Why is it that we have not heard from any of the speakers on the other side of this chamber espousing the virtues of those employers who do the right thing who have their business models undermined by labour hire companies that do not act fairly within the marketplace? We have heard nothing from them.

We have heard nothing from them in that regard because, if members opposite, including the member for Heysen, were genuinely serious about making sure that employers could compete fairly within the marketplace, there would be no reason for the member for Heysen, or anyone else for that matter, to support this legislation.

Understand the power of the decision that you are making because today, when we vote on this bill in this place, we too are making a contribution to this fundamentally important question that we now have as a society about whether or not we want to exacerbate the problem of income and equality. I know that we, on this side of the house, think that is a problem. Where we see rising income inequality, we start to make a contribution to the erosion of a decent and fair society. I thought we all had a common interest in that, but clearly not.

This is an important vote because it lays bare the stark difference that exists between those opposite on the conservative side of politics and us on the Labor, moderate side of politics. The side of politics that once espoused moderate views is now on the extreme right when it comes to questions of employment, and we, on this side of the chamber, are on the side of common sense. We are on the side of those employers doing the right thing. We are on the side of those marginalised workers who would otherwise find themselves at risk. That is what this bill seeks to represent: the best interests of fair industrial relations in this nation. Those who vote against it should, quite frankly, hang their heads in shame.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL (Schubert—Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government, Minister for Planning) (17:25): I rise to provide the assurance that the Leader of the Opposition was looking for in his third reading speech just then. The defence of why those businesses in the labour hire industry that currently do the right thing do not want this piece of legislation is that those businesses are the ones that get punished by this legislation.

Those who understand and have worked in small business will understand what red tape does to small business. It makes them less competitive and it wastes their time filling out forms as opposed to getting on, innovating and creating the jobs that we need them to create. What this bill and this act do is punish the 90-plus per cent of businesses that do the right thing. The way we know it punishes them is that they told us. They wrote to us and said, 'Do not give us extra red-tape burden because all it's going to do is have us sitting at our desks and filling out paperwork, as opposed to getting on and doing what we need to do.'

What is also very interesting is that this measure is supposedly somehow going to stop those who are undertaking illegal activity from undertaking illegal activity. Again, I put this example on the table: the fact that somebody has to have a driver's licence does not make them stop speeding in and of itself. The way that you enforce behaviour on our roads is by having a police officer enforcing the law.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Minister, could you hold it for a minute?

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Hammond!

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Silence! Order! Leader of the Opposition, you were the previous speaker and you were heard in silence.

Mr Malinauskas: No, I wasn't.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You were. The minister will continue and he will be heard in silence. Minister, you have the call.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: This is when those opposite suggest they are on the side of common sense, when they believe a piece of paper is going to change behaviour. What changes behaviour and what changes illegal behaviour is enforcement. There are a whole multitude of agencies in this space that can enforce the existing law. Again, nothing that the Leader of the Opposition said says that there is behaviour that is legal that should be illegal. All of the behaviour and all of the exploitation that you are currently talking about is already illegal. Instead of more paperwork, what we actually need is more enforcement. That is what is missing in this debate. Whether it be the Australian Taxation Office, whether it be RevenueSA, whether it be the great work that ReturnToWorkSA is able to do in enforcement in this space, whether it be the federal immigration department—

Mr Malinauskas: ReturnToWork suggested this.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Sure. Anyway. Hang on. I am not sure that ReturnToWorkSA did recommend this. What they came in and actually gave us evidence on was how they use existing law and enforce it. What they showed us was that they can go in and look at dodgy operators who have a history of phoenixing and, using data analytics methods, they can find businesses that are potentially under-reporting revenue or potentially not paying their employees enough money by looking at the percentage of the wages as a total of their revenue turnover. They can use those data analytics to enforce the current law.

It is what they do. They require these businesses to pay an up-front payment for their premiums in order to allow them to operate. They do not need a labour hire licensing act to do that. They enforce the existing law. This is what I find so frustrating—that you punish and create more red tape for the businesses that are doing the right thing, and those that already operate outside the law will continue to operate outside the law.

This is the central fallacy of the idea that a regulatory system is in and of itself going to change behaviour. It will not. What we actually need is the existing enforcement agencies—and the report suggested there are upwards of eight to 10 agencies that have jurisdiction in this area—to go and do their job. Instead, that is not the answer the Labor Party put forward. Their answer, as it is with everything, is more bureaucracy.

What is worse is that they do this in a unilateral situation to only South Australian businesses. As opposed to the primary recommendation of the report, which is to actually work together on a national solution, they punish South Australian labour hire firms and interstate labour hire firms get off scot-free, according to their argument. What happens is that we create a higher red-tape burden here in South Australia, we encourage business to go interstate, where they have a lower red-tape burden, and in the end it is South Australian jobs that lose.

It is the Labor Party's mantra to say that they stand up for the workingman. I understand that. That makes perfect sense. Once again, what we see is the fact that we have a Labor Party that do not stand up for common sense: they stand up for tokenism. They do this, as on a whole host of other measures, instead of doing what is actually going to work. In their time in office, did we see increased money, for instance, going to SafeWork SA? No. Did we see increased money going to ReturnToWorkSA? No. Was there any sort of task force by RevenueSA to go and investigate labour hire firms? No.

What they did was come into this place with a piece of red tape that will do nothing to change the behaviour of labour hire businesses that are doing the wrong thing. Instead of giving us the bleeding heart story, over 16 years why did they not come up with a solution that was actually going to change someone's behaviour?

Mr Malinauskas: And you're getting rid of it.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Of course we are getting rid of it. Of course we want to get rid of it. Red tape does not work. It does not, in and of itself, change behaviour. To suggest that it does is completely wrong. If you were right, why have a police force? There are rules there. Everybody has a driver's licence. Everybody who has a driver's licence, according to the Labor Party, will not break the law. This is the problem. Everybody in South Australia does have a driver's licence. Do all of them abide by every road rule? No. That is why you have to have a police force to enforce the law on our roads.

The enforcement is what works. You have a system of law that creates offences. You have a police force that enforces that. That is how you change behaviour. The act of having a driver's licence does not do that. That is why in this instance having a labour hire licence is not going to change illegal behaviour.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, could you just hold that thought. Members on my left have all had the opportunity during this debate. Some may still want to take up an opportunity, but you will have that opportunity to make a contribution, as the minister has right now. This is a debate in the House of Assembly. There will be different points of view. The minister has the call.

The Hon. A. Piccolo interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Light is called to order.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Once again, we on this side of the house will stand up for a practical solution and ideas that work, and the other side will stand up for tokenism to make it look like they are doing something. I think it is one of the fundamental reasons why there was a change of government at this election—because they wanted a government that got on and delivered as opposed to a government that delivered by press release,

It was a government that, for instance, would stand up and say, 'We're going to deliver a skate park,' and then do nothing about it, a government that said they would never close the Repat and then closed the Repat. We now have a government with practical common sense that is willing to stand up and do what works, rather than what makes the government feel and look good, and actually delivers proper outcomes for the people of South Australia.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (17:34): I rise to make a third reading contribution on this important bill. As the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, no other issue so far in this session of parliament has more clearly delineated the difference between our two political parties. What I find really disturbing about the contributions from those opposite is the deliberate obfuscation, the deliberate misrepresentation, of what this issue is about—that is, the purpose of the licensing regime we are currently debating.

We have had speaker after speaker, particularly those on the front bench and particularly the members for Unley and Bragg, take every opportunity to falsely label this as some ideological battle about this act having been put in place by the former Labor government as some gesture towards the union movement. It is not a gesture for the union movement, but it is a gesture. It is a gesture for workers. It is a gesture for those people in our community who need the greatest level of protection from their government. It is a gesture for those people who are being exploited and continue to be exploited.

I gave examples in my second reading contribution about the levels of exploitation we are currently seeing across the country, including in this state: workers being paid less than $4 an hour, workers being forced to work shifts of more than 20 hours at a stretch and workers being forced to sleep in dog beds between those shifts. It is clearly unacceptable.

The solution from the member for Schubert is apparently that RevenueSA should be doing more. Apparently RevenueSA is populated by revenue agents of the ilk of Eliot Ness, with their special agent badges and their pump-action shotguns, who are meant to be battering down the doors of these companies, issuing notices, conducting inspections, arresting people and pulling them before the courts. That is not the purpose of RevenueSA. That has never been the purpose of RevenueSA.

The purpose of RevenueSA and compliance is to make sure that people are paying the taxes they are meant to pay—in this case, for example, payroll tax. The role of RevenueSA and payroll tax compliance is an interesting point to contemplate. One of the reasons that we have seen the growth of the labour hire industry here in South Australia is that some people engage in labour hire businesses to assist other businesses to avoid paying payroll tax.

I made it clear in my second reading contribution that I believe that there is a legitimate role for labour hire businesses to operate in this state. There are types of work—for example, seasonal work—for which employers require labour to be provided. We have even had those members opposite give very valid and strong examples of why labour hire companies are well placed to suit the provision of labour for their businesses in those sorts of circumstances. I think we can all agree that is not only necessary but likely to continue to be necessary into the future.

But there is a cohort of businesses in operation that are deliberately engaged in practices seeking to subvert the laws of this state and subvert the laws of the country. In doing so, they are not only exploiting workers in the manner for which I have already provided examples but, in the case of the member for Schubert's instance of the Eliot Nesses of RevenueSA, they are seeking to subvert the laws of this state when it comes to payroll tax liabilities.

That is not the role of RevenueSA and that is not the role of ReturnToWorkSA. ReturnToWorkSA does not proactively run out to every business in South Australia, all 140,000 of them, and make sure that nobody is about to be at risk of workplace injury or death. They are there at the tail end. They are there when the problem has already emerged. This is not the role of these agencies.

To say that there are already options available to the state to prevent this from happening and to cite those two is completely disingenuous. It puts the lie to the member for Schubert's argument when he says that this was unnecessary. Of course it is necessary. It is absolutely imperative. If we move aside from the ideological argument that this is just some stitch up from a former Labor government for the union movement and go to the next ideological argument, which is posited principally by the member for Schubert, the one about red tape, what a joke—what an absolute joke.

The minister, herself responsible for bringing this bill into this place, is at the very same time charging her very same department with establishing a red-tape regime for the registration of property managers. I wonder what grievous ills that is going to settle for the South Australian community. Are there not enough white gloves being pulled on and run along windowsills to make sure the inspections are being done properly? How many workers are being paid $4 an hour in that industry? How many workers are currently being forced to work 20-hour shifts or being forced to sleep on dog beds in the property management industry?

Of course, red tape is an argument which is selected only when convenient for this Liberal government. It is convenient, of course, for property managers because they are shaking them down for $3.5 million over four years in the process. They are happy to shake down an industry for more money to create a red-tape regime to create a registration and licensing regime when it is good for the government coffers. But they are happy to abolish a registration and licensing regime when it is going to affect the livelihoods, including the safe working conditions and remuneration, of workers in this state.

We have already heard in this place and the other place that there has been work done at the officer level—of course, not by the actual executive—to try to come up with some solutions which would ameliorate some of the concerns which have legitimately been placed by some operators in this industry. How does the government respond? Does it engage in a genuine dialogue with the community about what ills need to be fixed? Of course not. Does it engage in some dialogue with the other side here about whether there could be an amendment bill to this act which would seek to fine-tune, improve or make better those provisions? Of course not.

It is the immediate jump back to that ideology of deliberately putting workers' needs last and, in place, making sure that there is yet another opportunity for needless union bashing and needless opportunities to put the livelihoods of workers at risk. It is just extraordinary that in this day and age, as we learn more about the harmful and terrible negative impacts that some of the ways our economy is mutating and impacting workers here in South Australia, that we could honestly have a cohort of over half of the parliament that does not honestly take those concerns seriously, or seriously enough, not to want to contemplate having an improvement to this licensing regime. Instead, it is just going to throw it out.

At the same time, all those workers who risked being placed in those unsafe conditions or being placed in a situation where they are not being properly remunerated according to law or who are having their wages or their superannuation stolen, as well as the regulatory regime being thrown out, they get thrown to the wolves. Well, shame on those opposite. Shame on those opposite!

I certainly did not come into this place to make sure that those people who are interested in exploiting workers and exploiting the law, and getting a leg up over their competitors, are placed first and foremost and beyond the reach of everybody else. But that seems to be the approach of the government. I hope those opposite think long and hard about the decision that they are making to provide the interests of a small number of businesses that are doing the wrong thing with a pedestal so that they can stand at some great height above the rights of workers. It is a disgrace.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (17:43): The government has considered this matter at length. We consider this current act to be superfluous and not a genuine attempt to protect the interests of vulnerable workers. We are satisfied that SafeWork SA, which frankly had fallen into major disrepair under the previous government, has been strengthened into a state of competence to be able to properly protect workers in that workplace as the principal agency in South Australia, together with the Fair Work Commission and the good work done by SAET, as I said earlier, particularly commissioners, to protect those in those circumstances.

All those arms of enforcement are necessary. They are going to be and will continue to be high functioning under this government. We expect them to be. We will not support or tolerate legislation which is superficial, which introduces a backdoor attempt to have imprisonment for employers because they cannot pass industrial manslaughter through the courts. I saw the presentation.

Memos were going around the Labor administration prior to the last election to push through these labour hire laws. I listened to the debates in other states that were prosecuting via then Labor administrations and could see the futile attempt by them to pretend and masquerade this type of legislation under the guise of caring for vulnerable workers. For all these reasons, we have considered these matters. We will give real protection to employees in these circumstances and not this fake envelope or veil of protection that has been presented. I commend the bill to the house.

The house divided on the third reading:

Ayes 23

Noes 21

Majority 2

Third reading thus carried; bill passed.

At 17:51 the house adjourned until Thursday 28 February 2019 at 11:00.