Question Time

Secure Jobs, Better Pay Bill

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS (Black—Leader of the Opposition) (14:02): My question is to the Premier. Does the Premier stand by his remarks about the Secure Jobs, Better Pay Bill? With your leave, sir, and that of the house, I will explain.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Yesterday, the Premier advocated for the Secure Jobs, Better Pay Bill, which includes a controversial single interest employer authorisation scheme. Business SA, the Australian Industry Group, the Motor Trade Association of South Australia and Northern Territory, the South Australian Wine Industry Association, the Master Builders Association South Australia and the Australian Hotels Association have raised severe risks posed by the bill for South Australian businesses, including that it would 'damage small businesses, who would have costly new conditions and requirements imposed upon them for nothing in return'.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Premier) (14:03): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. There are elements of the Secure Jobs, Better Pay Bill that I think would go a long way to informing better outcomes around industrial disputation in the state of South Australia, and I will give the Leader of the Opposition an example.

Earlier today—and I understand the Leader of the Opposition may have had a similar opportunity—I had a chance to chat with the business owner of Crane Services, a company which is currently in industrial disputation with the CFMEU. That is a process that is currently playing out under existing industrial relations law. Having familiarised myself a little more with the circumstances of that dispute, it's fair to say that I can see the merit of a role for an independent arbiter here.

On this side of the house, the Labor Party has always advocated for a strong, robust, genuinely independent umpire in the industrial relations system. That was the Industrial Relations Commission in the past, and today of course it's known as the Fair Work Commission. If there is an ability to go into arbitration to have an independent umpire make a ruling about what represents the best balance between the interests of capital and labour, then I think we get a better outcome.

At the moment, there is no capability for either employer or employee to arbitrate on a matter such as this, which can result in protracted disputation which, in my estimation, rarely helps workers, let alone businesses. So I do think there should be a mechanism for arbitration. My understanding is that that is not a view that is shared by the CFMEU. I appreciate that it is also a view that is not shared by some employers.

My assessment is that the only people who would be concerned about going to the independent umpire are those people who believe they might be disadvantaged by it. I don't share that view. I think getting the balance right in industrial relations between both employers and employees is the right thing to do for both parties. The use of an independent arbiter in the form of a fair work commissioner can go a long way.

Mr Tarzia interjecting:

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The member for Hartley interjects not necessarily from a basis of knowledge. If there is a—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Hartley!

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: If there is a—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Hartley is warned for the first time.

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: If there is a mechanism for compulsory arbitration where the outcome is binding upon parties, then I believe that could play a constructive role in addressing the sort of disputation that we see that a South Australian employer is experiencing at the moment. To bring it back more directly to the Leader of the Opposition's question, yes, I do think there are elements of the Secure Jobs, Better Pay Bill that will go some way to enhancing industrial relations in our country rather than diminishing it.