Bills

Fair Work (Worker Entitlements) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS (Cheltenham—Minister for Trade and Investment, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (11:01): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today I will introduce the Fair Work (Worker Entitlements) Amendment Bill 2025. This is an important bill designed to strengthen the enforceability of worker entitlements and to emphasise that workers have the right to expect that they will be paid in full and on time for the work that they perform.

At the last state election the state government committed to introducing wage theft laws to create criminal penalties for the deliberate underpayment of worker entitlements. Since then, the federal government has taken the lead by introducing national wage theft laws that apply to private sector employees covered by the commonwealth Fair Work Act. However, due to the division of industrial relations powers between the commonwealth and the states, those laws do not apply to public sector and local government workers covered by the state Fair Work Act.

Thankfully, in the state industrial relations system we have not historically observed the same kind of deliberate wage theft behaviour that has been too often witnessed in some parts of the private sector. Nonetheless, it is still essential that public sector and local government workers have confidence in their wages and entitlements and that there are serious consequences for deliberate and systematic underpayments.

The Fair Work Act 1994 already contains criminal penalties for noncompliance with awards and enterprise agreements. The bill increases those penalties by 10 times, to a maximum of $25,000 per contravention. Further, the bill goes above and beyond our election commitment by empowering the South Australian Employment Court to impose civil penalty orders for the non-payment of worker entitlements.

The introduction of a civil penalty power is consistent with the practice in both the national industrial relations system and other state and territory industrial relations systems across Australia. The power to impose a civil penalty supplements the court's existing powers to order payment of underpaid worker entitlements and interests. This means that there is a meaningful deterrent against serious unlawful behaviour beyond an employer simply being ordered to pay wages and entitlements. They should have paid correctly in the first place.

The bill inserts a new section 104(1) which provides for a maximum civil penalty of $25,000 per contravention if an employer contravenes a requirement to pay an amount to, or on behalf of, an employee in relation to the performance of work. This does not create any new payment obligation for employers, but instead picks up existing payment obligations under the act, awards, enterprise agreements and other workplace laws.

A 'workplace law' is here intended to capture any law conferring an enforceable right to payment arising out of an employment relationship and includes, for example, superannuation and long service leave laws. The bill inserts section 104(2) which provides that those amounts must be paid in full, by money, and at least monthly. This reflects the method and frequency of payment obligations that apply to private sector employers under the commonwealth act.

Under the bill, a civil penalty can only be imposed on an employer for a contravention of these obligations if the employer's conduct constituting the contravention was deliberate and systematic. This reflects that the government's election commitment was always focused on the deliberate underpayment of worker entitlements, not on genuine mistakes or inadvertent conduct.

For conduct to be deliberate, it must be conduct that is engaged in intentionally or consciously. It does not extend to accidental or involuntary conduct and is not intended to apply to genuine mistakes. While it is necessary to show the acts or omissions constituting a contravention were deliberate, there is no need to prove that an employer subjectively knew or intended that their conduct would result in a breach of the law or would have a significant risk of doing so. It is also not necessary to prove that an employer knew the specific provision of a workplace law or industrial instrument being contravened, or the exact amount of any underpaid entitlements.

Deliberate conduct by the Crown or a body corporate may be proved either through the conduct and state of mind of an officer, employee or agent, as provided under sections 236 or 236B, or by showing that the employer expressly, tacitly or impliedly authorised the conduct, as provided under section 104(4). That authorisation must be given by an individual within the employer's organisation or via a policy, rule, course of conduct or practice within the organisation. This recognises that an employer manifests its intention through its organisational culture, policies, procedures and practices.

There may be instances where the misconduct of a rogue employee does not represent an employer's true position. In these cases, for the purpose of section 104(4), the actions of the employer as a whole may be taken into account and there is no liability if the employer proves it exercised due diligence to prevent the rogue conduct or authorisation.

The concept of a systematic pattern of conduct was previously found in section 557A of the commonwealth act, following the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Act 2017. A systematic pattern of conduct is a recurring pattern of methodical conduct or a series of coordinated acts over time. It does not encompass ad hoc or inadvertent conduct. Section 104(5) provides an indicative list of factors that may be considered by a court in determining whether the employer's conduct was systematic. A contravention is more likely to be systematic if:

there are concurrent contraventions occurring at the same time;

the contraventions have occurred over a prolonged period;

multiple employees are affected;

the employer failed to respond, or failed to respond appropriately, to complaints made about the contraventions; and

accurate employee records have not been kept, or payslips have not been issued, making the alleged underpayment harder to establish.

The bill inserts sections 104A to 104C which provide the machinery enabling the court to impose a civil penalty order. Subsection 104A(4) provides that where the same person commits two or more contraventions of a civil penalty provision arising out of a course of conduct, these are taken to constitute a single contravention.

The same principle is reflected in section 557 of the commonwealth act, and it is intended that this will be interpreted consistent with that provision, including in authorities such as Rocky Holdings Pty Ltd v Fair Work Ombudsman in the Federal Court.

For example, if through the course of conduct an employer contravenes a single term of an enterprise agreement in respect of 10 employees, these 10 contraventions are taken to be a single contravention for the purposes of penalty. If an employer contravenes five separate terms of an enterprise agreement in respect of 10 employees, these 50 contraventions are taken to be five contraventions for the purpose of penalty.

Subsection 104A(7) provides that the court has the discretion to order that a civil penalty or part of the penalty be payable to the state, a particular organisation or a particular person. The same power is found in section 546(3) of the commonwealth act. This enables the court, in appropriate circumstances, to order that the penalty be paid to a worker affected by an underpayment or to a union that has brought enforcement proceedings on their behalf. This also avoids circumstances where the imposition of a penalty on a public sector agency may be seen to result in the Crown effectively paying a penalty to itself for its own contravention.

Section 104B provides that a civil penalty contravention is not an offence and that the court must apply civil procedure rather than criminal procedure when dealing with a penalty application. Section 104C provides that, whilst the SAET is generally a 'no costs' jurisdiction, the court will have the discretion to make an order for legal costs if a party has behaved unreasonably or vexatiously. That is consistent with the costs rules that apply to monetary claims and penalty procedures under section 570 of the commonwealth act. Courts have frequently recognised that this is a high threshold. Costs will rarely be awarded and exceptional circumstances are usually required to justify making an order. In particular, it is well established that a party should not be exposed to costs simply because reasonable argument ultimately proves unsuccessful.

This bill makes a range of related amendments to strengthen protections for worker entitlements. The bill makes explicit that the Crown is bound by the act and can be penalised for noncompliance with its industrial obligations, just like any other employer. The bill strengthens SAET's power to award interest on underpayments to include a broader range of claims, including an application to remedy or restrain a contravention of industrial laws. The bill narrows SAET's power to make an adverse costs order on an appeal of a state system monetary claim, so that costs are only available where a party has behaved unreasonably or vexatiously. The bill expands SAET's monetary jurisdiction to include claims for amounts owed under other workplace laws. This ensures, to the extent that jurisdiction is not already conferred on SAET, that the tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with any disputes about monetary entitlements.

The bill also includes several amendments to clarify the interaction between the state and national industrial relations systems. These amendments are not intended to disturb the status quo of SAET's powers and functions, but instead to reflect the true position at law. First, the bill confirms the state's Fair Work Act 1994 does not apply to national system employers covered by the commonwealth act. Second, the bill amends section 9 to remove references to the commonwealth act as a source of SAET's monetary claim jurisdiction. The Full Court of the Federal Court in Kronen v Commercial Motor Industries found that, while section 9 purports to confer jurisdiction over commonwealth claims, this is legally ineffective as a state law cannot confer federal jurisdiction on a state court. While the SAET undoubtedly does have the power to hear claims under the commonwealth act, that is because that jurisdiction is conferred on SAET by the commonwealth act itself, not the state act.

A consequential amendment is made to section 6 of the South Australian Employment Tribunal Act 2014 to ensure a note confirming the SAET will exercise jurisdiction conferred by commonwealth law. While this is legally unnecessary, it is important to emphasise the parliament's intention that the SAET operates as a one-stop shop capable of dealing with employment disputes arising under both state law and commonwealth law in South Australia.

A further amendment is made to section 51 of that act to confirm that in a proceeding under the commonwealth act a party is entitled to be represented by an officer or employee of a registered association or by a registered agent. That is necessary because the commonwealth act does not deal with representation rights in state and territory courts.

The bill provides for a statutory review of these amendments to be undertaken three years after they commence. The government's clear policy intention in this bill is to strengthen the enforcement of workers' entitlements and to provide a meaningful deterrent against the deliberate noncompliance with industrial laws. The review will provide an appropriate opportunity to consider the effectiveness of these amendments in achieving that objective.

I close by thanking all of those who have contributed to the development of this bill, and particularly those in the South Australian trade union movement who have staunchly advocated for the interests of their members in the state industrial relations system. I commend the bill to the chamber and seek leave to have the explanation of clauses inserted in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

Explanation of Clauses

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Short title

2—Commencement

These clauses are formal.

Part 2—Amendment of Fair Work Act 1994

3—Amendment of section 4—Interpretation

This clause makes consequential amendments to the definitions in the Act.

4—Amendment of section 6—Application of Act to employment

This clause amends section 6 to specify that, other than in relation to section 10, the Act does not apply to employment with a national system employer (within the meaning of the Commonwealth Act).

5—Insertion of section 4AA

This clause inserts a new provision specifying that the Act binds the Crown and imposes criminal liability on the Crown as well as liability to a civil penalty. The current contents of section 13A are now also included in this section.

6—Amendment of section 9—Jurisdiction to decide monetary claims under industrial laws or instruments

This clause removes provisions purporting to confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal that is actually conferred under Commonwealth law and clarifies that a claim cannot be made under the section in respect of a sum due under a workplace law if that workplace law confers jurisdiction on a court in respect of the claim.

7—Repeal of section 13A

This is consequential to clause 5.

8—Amendment of section 25—Representation

This clause corrects a minor error.

9—Amendment of heading to Chapter 2 Part 5

This clause makes a consequential amendment.

10—Amendment of section 34—Award to include interest

This clause broadens the application of section 34 to any claim under Part 1 for payment of a sum due or other monetary amount.

11—Amendment of section 35—Monetary judgment

This clause makes it clear that section 34 applies to any claim under Part 1 for payment of a sum due or other monetary amount.

12—Amendment of section 36—Costs

This clause replaces the costs provision.

13—Insertion of Chapter 3 Part 5 Division 2

This clause inserts a new Division as follows:

Division 2—Civil penalty provisions

104—Obligation to pay entitlements

This clause creates civil penalty provision for an employer who contravenes a provision of the Act, a workplace law, or an industrial instrument, which requires the employer to pay an amount to, or on behalf of, an employee in relation to the performance of work.

104A—Proceedings for contravention of civil penalty provision

This clause provides for proceedings for a civil penalty to be heard and determined by the South Australian Employment Court.

104B—Civil rules and procedure

Contravention of a civil penalty provision is not an offence and the Court must apply the rules of evidence and procedure for civil proceedings.

104C—Costs

A party to proceedings for a civil penalty order may be ordered to pay costs if they have instituted the proceedings vexatiously or without reasonable cause or if their unreasonable act or omission caused the other party to incur the costs.

14—Amendment of section 224—Non-compliance with awards and enterprise agreements

This increases the maximum penalty in section 224 from $2,500 to $25,000 and specifies circumstances in which contraventions are taken to constitute a single contravention.

15—Insertion of sections 236B and 236C

This clause inserts new sections as follows:

236B—Conduct etc by officers etc of the Crown

If the Crown is guilty of an offence against this act, or contravenes a civil penalty provision, the penalty to be imposed on the Crown is the penalty applicable to a body corporate. This section also sets out when a state of mind, or conduct, of an officer, employee or agent of the Crown will be taken to count as a state of mind, or conduct, of the Crown.

236C—Responsible agency of the Crown

This section specifies the manner in which proceedings for an offence or other contravention of the Act can be brought against the Crown.

Schedule 1—Related amendments, review and transitional provisions

Part 1—Related amendment of South Australian Employment Tribunal Act 2014

1—Amendment of section 6—Jurisdiction of Tribunal

This clause inserts a note pointing out that jurisdiction may also be conferred under a Commonwealth law.

2—Amendment of section 51—Representation

This clause amends section 51 to allow for representation in matters dealt with by the Tribunal under Commonwealth law (subject to any Commonwealth law).

Part 2—Review and transitional provisions

3—Review

This clause provides for a review after 3 years.

4—Transitional provision

The amendments made by the measure will only apply in relation to conduct occurring after the commencement of the measure.

Ms HUTCHESSON (Waite) (11:16): I rise today to speak in support of the Fair Work (Worker Entitlements) Amendment Bill 2025, a bill that delivers on the government's election commitment to tackle wage theft in the public sector and local government. As someone who has spent my career advocating for workers, I know firsthand the importance of ensuring employees are paid what they are owed on time and in full.

Before entering this place, I worked as an industrial advocate, helping to recoup millions of dollars in unpaid entitlements for employers. Some of these issues arose because staff were incorrectly placed on individual flexibility agreements (IFAs). While IFAs were meant to ensure employees were better off overall, in practice that often was not the case. I remember one such employee who I met when she provided all of her payslips and contracts and it was clear that she was failing the BOOT—the 'better off overall test'. It took a lot of work in trying to engage with her boss, with HR, to show them that they were in fact not doing the right thing by their staff member, that she was not in a better off overall position, and she was not alone.

Those on old IFAs were all facing a similar situation. On top of that, part-time staff were regularly not paid superannuation on their additional hours, meaning they were losing out on benefits they were legally entitled to. They were contracted for a certain number of hours—usually two to three days—and yet due to staffing issues were often called on to do additional hours, and it was these hours that were not deemed by the bank to be ordinary hours.

I had one employee on a one-day-a-week contract who was working five days a week and she was not getting paid superannuation on the extra four days. I was very pleased to learn not long after I left the FSU that some of these employers admitted to what they were doing and that what they were doing was wrong and owed their staff millions of dollars. I was proud then and continue to be proud to see the Finance Sector Union punching above its weight to hold employers accountable.

Whilst that was in the private sector, wage theft across the board is unacceptable, and it is those experiences which drive my support for this bill today. This legislation strengthens the enforceability of worker entitlements in the public sector and local government. Among its key measures, it increases the existing criminal penalty for breaching an award or enterprise agreement to $25,000.

The Fair Work Act 1994 already contains criminal penalties, but this bill increases them tenfold, sending a clear message that deliberate underpayment will not be tolerated. It gives the South Australian Employment Tribunal the power to impose a civil penalty on employers who deliberately and systematically underpay their workers. Importantly, this power applies only where underpayments are intentional and repeated. Genuine mistakes and accidental errors are not targeted, ensuring the focus is on deliberate exploitation.

This bill is about fairness, accountability and deterrence. Workers in the public and local government sectors deserve to know that the law protects their right to be paid fully for the work they perform. Deliberate underpayment must have real consequences and this legislation delivers that. It is often the case that lower paid workers are impacted by underpayments and sometimes warned not to say anything or fear that if they do there will be consequences.

The importance of unions cannot be overstated when a worker's pay is involved. Long before I knew about unions, I was a chef working in hot, sweaty conditions and doing an extraordinary amount of overtime. I was full-time, working 6½ days a week as normal hours on a contract wage that was less than my predecessor's. When I begged for a day off, I was told that head chefs do not get days off. I was working from nine in the morning till 11.30 at night with no penalty rates for weekends or late nights. I did not know my rights. I did not know who to turn to.

It was not until I started working in banking and came across the Finance Sector Union that I realised that I do have rights and I should know about them. I should not have been working 6½ days a week, and I should have been paid for excessive overtime. Without unions, workers may not know where to go for help, where to look to better understand what they are entitled to, and they may feel intimidated for raising issues. Unions are there to help with these issues, to help with underpayment of wages.

I am proud to stand in support of this bill. It builds on the work we have seen nationally and in other states to strengthen industrial protections. It makes sure that workers know their rights. It makes sure workers have the opportunity to be paid properly, because, if you work incredibly hard, you deserve that. You do not deserve to be having an employer who tries to find ways to underpay you.

My son has recently started his working career. I am always there to help him along the way with some advice. It is interesting to be able to explain to your child the way that employers can take advantage of employees. Fortunately for him, he has an employer who takes the time to get things right, but other people are not so lucky, so having unions there to be able to call on to ask questions is incredibly important.

This bill reflects a commitment that employees, whether in the public or private sector or local government, cannot be underpaid without accountability. It makes sure that these workers are protected and that for the work they do they will be paid properly. I commend the bill to the house.

S.E. ANDREWS (Gibson) (11:21): I rise today to speak in strong support of the Fair Work (Worker Entitlements) Amendment Bill 2025, a bill that delivers on Labor's 2022 election commitment to strengthen workplace protections, defend workers' rights and ensure that fairness remains at the heart of the South Australian economy.

This bill is about more than policy: it is about people. It is about the cleaners, the carers, the tradies, the teachers, the scientists—hardworking South Australians who show up every day, do their job with pride and deserve the security of knowing their entitlements are safe. For too long, some workers have faced uncertainty when their employees go under or when their rights are ignored. This bill fixes that. It enhances protections for accrued entitlements, ensuring that workers get their full leave, superannuation and redundancy payments, even when businesses fail, because no worker should lose what they have earned through no fault of their own.

This legislation also clarifies and simplifies entitlements, making it easier for workers to understand their rights and for employers to meet their responsibilities. Fewer disputes, less confusion and more confidence for everyone in the workplace—that is a real, practical reform. Crucially, the bill strengthens enforcement and penalties, because fairness only works when it is backed up by accountability. Employers who exploit workers, who withhold pay or who fail to meet their obligations will face serious consequences. Workers should not have to fight just to receive what they have rightfully earned.

Importantly, this bill protects casual and gig economy workers, ensuring that even those in non-traditional or precarious work have a safety net. South Australia's workforce is changing, and our laws must change with it. Every worker deserves respect, dignity and certainty. We said in 2022 that we would stand up for working people, and we are doing exactly that.

I have spent 20 years working in the union movement, from organiser to state director, standing shoulder to shoulder with workers in bargaining rooms, during industrial action and in tribunals. I have seen firsthand what happens when the system fails people. I have seen the stress on a member's face when they do not know if the redundancy will be paid or when they have worked years of overtime and been denied what they have earned.

That is why I am proud to be part of a Labor government that values union membership and respects the vital role unions play in protecting working people. Being a union member means having someone in your corner, someone who knows your rights, who will fight for fairness and will not back down when the odds are stacked against you. Union members together built the conditions that so many of us now take for granted: paid leave, safe workplaces, fair pay, superannuation and job security.

Every improvement in this bill builds on that legacy. So, yes, this bill is about entitlements, but it is also about values: solidarity, respect and dignity at work. It is about keeping our promise to the people who keep South Australia running. I commend the minister for bringing forward this important legislation, because when workers are protected, when entitlements are guaranteed and when unions are strong, South Australia is stronger too.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:25): I rise to indicate I am the lead speaker for the opposition and the opposition supports the bill. There is a government amendment and there are a couple of opposition amendments that have already been aired in the other place. I will address the bill briefly.

I am not sure what bill the previous speaker was addressing, but clearly it was not this one, in terms of remarks addressed to events in the private sector and so on. This is a bill that is described by the government as meeting an election commitment. I think the member for Gibson might have had more to offer had the contribution of the member for Gibson actually been addressed to the subject matter of the bill, because it is very specifically about addressing the capacity of SAET under the state act to apply penalties to public sector employers. It has got nothing whatever to do with the private sector.

Indeed, even more strikingly in the present circumstances, the government has chosen to progress this legislation at this time not so terribly long after we have seen the trials and tribulations—literally the trial—of the Attorney-General's Department in relation to the battle that the United Firefighters Union of South Australia Incorporated was put to bringing to the SAET in recent months. Clearly, it is a current issue, the capacity of public sector employers to fail in their duty to make good on their obligations to their employees. So far so good. However, what the member for Gibson has in mind talking about the private sector and the role of unions in that respect is somewhat mystifying.

It might also be observed that part of the contest in this whole space—we have seen it writ large in the commonwealth space with the recent imposition of a $50 million penalty against Qantas; it is entirely different circumstances but in the broader universe—the really rather controversial point is about where does the penalty get paid? Where is that directed to?

On this side of the house, we made it clear in the other place and we make it clear again here that we actually do not think that the occasion for the implementation of a penalty is a time when the union needs, inevitably, to get a great big payday, which is the result of the union being the party to the proceedings. That is very much front and centre in the amendment that my colleague, our shadow minister for industrial relations, first brought to the parliament in the other place not so very long ago.

If the government and the member for Gibson, who has greater experience than I do in the world of unions and how they go about endeavouring to represent their members, have a clear-sighted view of this then it will be to think about what are the appropriate arrangements in terms of the application of those penalty amounts to the members of the unions—to the employees who are wronged by employer conduct, particularly in contravention of what will be the new section 104(1).

We say employees should very much be the focus of those penalties that are applied to wrong-doing employers in the circumstances—in this case, public sector employers. We do not have to look too far into the hypotheticals or the theorising—just to go back a short while and look at what the Attorney-General's Department was required to make good on vis-a-vis the firefighters—to see that the public sector in this state is much more than theoretically involved in the contraventions of workers' rights that have been found by the SAET, as I say, just in recent months.

I refer to the contribution—and it is the usual thoroughgoing and thoughtful contribution—of the Law Society in this respect and in particular two points, the first being that there is some curiosity about the maximum amount—the $25,000 that is provided for as the maximum amount—not being at parity with the equivalent commonwealth amount. That remains somewhat of a mystery. I invite the minister at the committee stage or in the course of the second reading to put on the record anything that might be appropriately put on the record in that regard.

The second one is the reference by the Law Society to this I say somewhat curious amping up of the costs provision. We are dealing with a jurisdiction, regardless of what I think the Attorney might have observed in the other place, where costs are not routinely ordered, and this provision is then going further down the line to make it really clear that you are not going to get costs ordered unless the court is satisfied that there is a frivolous or vexatious action that has been brought or, particularly in the case of an employer, one might expect, there has been an unreasonableness.

If you put it this way, not too often costs are being ordered, and there is this sort of open door for the payment of the new $25,000 payment to be made directly to the union. Now, it might be put as virtuous that that payment can somehow substitute for the efforts that the union has made in bringing the action, but if that were the case—if that were the rationale—then why not deal with it directly on the costs side? That does not appear to be the intent of the government.

So it seems to make really clear that to the extent that there is a contravention of what the new section 104(1) provides that is clearly affecting the rights of employees, why should that amount—and it is relatively modest in the scheme of things, indeed significantly more modest than the commonwealth equivalent—not be paid to the affected employee rather than to the union?

Before I get accused of going after the unions or unfairly getting stuck into them, that is not the intent—far from it. If unions are there doing their appropriate work—and I think unions would rock up and say, 'That's our function. We'll come and bring actions on behalf of affected employees,' sometimes a whole bunch of them, as the United Firefighters Union, led by Max Adlam, did so ably just recently—of course that is what the unions will do. It is a service that they will provide for their members, but if not via a costs order for the action that is specifically taken, why should the results, as in any ordinary civil proceeding of that action, not flow to the wronged employees, just like they would where a representative makes an effective argument in a civil action, the results of which there is an award made in the interests of the party.

That, I grant, is something that is still available to the tribunal. There is no reason not to make it expressly clear, particularly in circumstances where this debate is characterised by highlighting the virtue of unions and the work they do standing up for the interests of their member employees.

There is a bit of work for the committee to do in a moment. I will take the chance in the committee to just ask the minister to explain the government's amendment, in that that remains unaddressed. I just refer to it in the second reading for the moment for that reason and I also refer to those couple of filed amendments that will be traversed in the course of the committee on our side.

The Hon. N.F. COOK (Hurtle Vale—Minister for Human Services, Minister for Seniors and Ageing Well) (11:37): I am really proud to speak on this important legislation. It delivers on our government's wage theft election commitment. I want to start by acknowledging all the people who have worked so hard to bring it to this point and all the union friends, colleagues and comrades in the past who have helped to build a case for fairness in the workplace. Included in that I would like to acknowledge the Assistant Secretary of the ASU SA and NT, Ella Waters, who is here to watch the debate on this. She is taking great interest in commentary about unions and how wonderful they are.

I will continue with some of the points I would like to make. The Fair Work (Worker Entitlements) Amendment Bill 2025 does actually close the final gap in addressing wage theft for South Australian workers by ensuring public sector and local government workers are covered by legislative provisions. For far too long these workers, many of whom dedicate their lives to serving our communities, have not had protection against this scourge.

Private sector workers are now covered by federal wage theft laws, and it is important that we ensure all workers are covered by similar legislation. No matter where someone works, whether it is in a local council office, a public hospital or a small business, every worker deserves the security of knowing that their wages, superannuation and entitlements will be paid in full and on time.

Wage theft is more than just an accounting error; it is a deliberate underpayment of wages, superannuation, or other entitlements a worker is legally owed. It is, in plain terms, stealing from workers. It robs people not only of money but of dignity, security and trust. Wage theft occurs in many ways. Sometimes it is through unpaid overtime, incorrect classifications, withholding of superannuation, or deliberate misrepresentation of work hours. It happens when penalty rates are ignored or when workers are paid cash under the table at less than the minimum rate.

While we often hear about wage theft in hospitality or retail, it is not confined to those industries—it happens across professions, even in the public sector and even in health care. Nurses, support workers and allied health workers—people who give so much of themselves to care for others—have at times found themselves victims of underpayment.

As someone who worked as a nurse for many years, I know firsthand how hard nurses work and how passionately they serve their patients and their communities. Nursing is not a nine to five job—it is shift work. It is weekends, it is nights, it is holidays spent away from families. Nurses do not go into the profession for wealth—they do it because they care. When nurses or other health professionals are underpaid, whether through neglect or design, it strikes at something very deep. It says that the system values their compassion but not their contribution. That is something I have never been prepared to accept. That is why this bill matters so much.

We recognise that, in the context of state industrial relations, it is appropriate to introduce civil penalty orders. These have been a feature of other industrial systems, particularly at the federal level. This marks the first time civil penalties will be available for underpayments affecting public sector and local government workers, a significant development shaped by extensive consultation, especially with workers' representatives. This is about fairness, accountability and respect for work. It is about sending a clear message that, if you deliberately underpay workers, there will be consequences.

While the Fair Work Act does already contain a criminal penalty for wage theft of noncompliance with awards and agreements, this bill increases that penalty 10 times to $25,000 per offence. We are holding ourselves to the highest possible standards; we cannot call for integrity in others unless we demonstrate it in our own backyard.

The deliberate and systematic threshold included in this bill reflects the government's election commitment. That commitment has always been about addressing intentional underpayment of entitlements, not penalising employers for administrative errors or unintentional mistakes, which can occur in any large organisation. Employers who act in good faith, who identify and rectify errors, have nothing to fear from this legislation, but those who knowingly withhold wages, who build their business models or budgets on the exploitation of workers, must be held accountable.

I have stood with my union comrades at many a rally to address wage theft in the private sector. I am very proud today to speak on this important issue here in parliament, because today we are not just talking about workers' rights—we are enshrining fairness in law. Every dollar stolen through wage theft is a dollar taken from workers' rent, food or superannuation. It is a dollar that should be circulating in our communities, supporting local businesses and families. When we ensure workers are paid fairly, we strengthen not just individual livelihoods but our economy.

This bill says to every South Australian worker: your government has your back, whether you serve our community in a council office, care for patients in a hospital or teach our children in a public school, your work matters, and you deserve to be paid what you are owed. And, to the workers who have spoken up, who have blown the whistle on wage theft, even when it came at personal risk, I thank you. Your courage has driven reform and helped us to reach this point. This legislation reflects who we are as a government and as a community. We believe in fairness, we believe in respect and we believe that every South Australian, no matter where they work, deserves justice in their workplace. I commend the bill to the house.

Ms SAVVAS (Newland) (11:44): I am really proud to be speaking today in the house, as I often am, about protecting working people. As many would know, I am a proud union member and I will always be a proud union member, and it is very much the protections that have been afforded to me by the union movement and the Labor movement more broadly that are the reasons that I joined the ALP in the first place.

I would like to acknowledge Ella, in the gallery today, from the ASU, one of the many unions I have had the pleasure of being a member of and advocating alongside in my time as a union member and, of course, I would like to acknowledge the unions that protect working people across our state and continue to advocate for outcomes like this one.

This is really important to me and it delivers on our government's wage theft election commitment. Although it only applies to public sector and local government workers, I thought I would take the opportunity to talk to you about my experiences with wage theft as a teenager. It is incredibly important to acknowledge vulnerable workers when we talk about wage theft: young people, migrant workers and women.

I was 14 years old when I started working, and I think I started applying for jobs the second my mum let me do so. I was incredibly proud to be working. We did not have a lot of money growing up and there was a huge sense of dignity for me in the ability to earn money and spend money, which I have been doing like it is out of fashion ever since. In fact, it was my very first pay cheque that I took over to Tea Tree Plaza and spent entirely on clothes. That was not the last time I have done that but it was really exciting for me to go there by myself, pick out an outfit and drain my bank account with the money that I had worked very hard to earn at Pizza Hut.

I worked at Pizza Hut for some months. I served customers, which I loved, I cleaned out back fridges, which I hated, and I made pizzas, which I also was not hugely keen on. I was working quite a few days a week during the week and I needed my parents to drive me there and drive me back. It did get a little much in year 10, and my parents and I decided at some stage that I needed to stop work and focus on my studies.

So I went to try to quit my job. The manager at the time asked me if I could stay on just on Mondays because they did not have enough staff to cover the Monday shift. I agreed, as a 14 year old, not really knowing how to broach that conversation or say no, and I showed up on a Monday and was asked to log in with the manager's code on the computer, which I did for the next five or six Mondays until they told me there was no more work for me. Of course, unsurprisingly, they never paid me for those Mondays as there was no record I had ever been there.

It was this situation that led me to the union that I am still proud to be part of, the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association. My brother worked at Woolworths and he encouraged me to join the SDA in my first week, and I am incredibly glad that I did. It was that experience and the union's response that really informed my views about working people and affirmed in me what was likely already dormant, as I was raised in quite a progressive household and there were a number of unionists in my family. My aunty had grown up working in the CPSU and running a radio show during the Your Rights at Work campaign. It really gave me a strong drive to deliver for those people, to ensure that there was dignity and integrity in their work, and to ensure that they had a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.

I also had a similar situation some years later when I was working in hospitality. I was being underpaid and a friend and I went and sought advice about that. When we were eventually offered our back pay, and the rest of our site was too, we were also asked to sign a document saying we would not request back pay again in the future. We also were not being paid super. When we think of the gender pay gap, of course, we know who has gaps in their super already, and that is women. Women are more likely to be in the category of vulnerable workers from time to time, particularly in transient workforces. In a situation like this one, it was women who were losing out. This hospitality job had 99 per cent women. We were young workers, there were migrant workers and we deserved to be paid fairly for the work that we had done.

This bill is important. It is designed to strengthen the enforceability of worker entitlements and to emphasise that workers have the right to expect that they will be paid in full and on time for the work that they perform. 'On time' is something that I think is also really relevant here. Plenty of people live week to week and it is incredibly important that 'on time' is a priority so that individuals can pay their bills as they arise.

It also increases the existing criminal penalty for breaching an award or enterprise agreement to $25,000, which is incredibly important. It gives SAET the power to impose a civil penalty on an employer for the deliberate and systematic underpayment of worker entitlements. Of course, we do know that there are some employers who are making a mistake, but we also know that there are some people who know what they are doing, who make a deliberate decision to undercut people from what they deserve.

The stories are countless, particularly with migrant workers and, again, I do want to acknowledge the incredibly hard work of the union movement in this space, particularly for those completing the farm work component of their visas. This has been an industry that has been rife with wage theft over many, many years. This civil penalty will only be imposed where it is deliberate and systematic, and I think that is incredibly important, sending a message to employers that we value people's work and we want to ensure that they are paid appropriately and on time for the work that they do.

I am really proud of this work, as I often am. For me, as I have said before many times in this place, it is really important that as a government we prioritise working people. It is the right thing to do by those working people and, on this side of the house, I am always proud that we continue to do that and show that in the work that we do. I commend its passage to the house.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS (Cheltenham—Minister for Trade and Investment, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (11:50): I thank and commend the contributions of members in this place. I understand from the deputy opposition leader's second reading speech that the will of the opposition is to move into committee. I commend the bill to the house and into committee.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [TradeInvest–1]—

Page 3, lines 21 and 22 [clause 4, inserted paragraph (aa)]—Delete inserted paragraph (aa) and substitute:

(aa) employment with a national system employer (within the meaning of the Commonwealth Act), other than in relation to an excluded subject matter (within the meaning of the Fair Work (Commonwealth Powers) Act 2009); or

Mr TEAGUE: Perhaps given that we did not hear about that in the second reading, and it has been filed only in the last day or so—in other words, it has not otherwise been aired; the government has not had the opportunity to air it more prior to that—I just wonder whether there is anything the minister might have to inform the committee and the public record about what it is doing and the necessity for it?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I thank the member for his question and the ability to explain and put on the record the government's amendment with respect to clause 4. This is a technical amendment which substitutes the wording of clause 4 of the bill, which deals with the interaction between this legislation and the commonwealth Fair Work Act 2009. The amended wording more accurately reflects the legal and constitutional division of industrial relations powers between the state and the commonwealth. The amended wording is intended to have the same substantive effect as the original wording, while avoiding the risk of an interpretation that is inconsistent with that division of powers. I can further advise the member that I am advised that this does not seek to, or will not, amend the status quo. It is an update of the technical legal wording.

Mr TEAGUE: I might just ask for a little bit more in terms of the time and nature of the perceived necessity to make the change. For the record, the bill provides for a carve-out by reference to section 10, which is SAET's jurisdiction in relation to contracts of employment. While I appreciate the government has indicated that this drafting by reference to exclude its subject matter probably does that comprehensively and more elegantly, I ask the minister the rationale, if any, specifically for the reference to section 10 in the first place, and when and how the perception of the need to make the amendment might have arisen?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I can advise the member that section 10, being the common law employment contract, is included, and the updated amendment that I have moved in my name still intends to include that. On the second part of the member's question around when or how this arose, I am advised that this was a matter that arose in between the houses on a technical internal matter that was raised with the Attorney on advice, and we have sought to correct that through this process now.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 5 to 12 passed.

Clause 13.

Mr TEAGUE: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Teague–1]—

Page 7, lines 26 to 30 [clause 13, inserted section 104A(7)]—Delete subsection (7) and substitute:

(7) The South Australian Employment Court—

(a) in the case of a civil penalty imposed for a contravention of section 104(1)—must order that the civil penalty be paid to the employee affected by the contravention; or

(b) in any other case—may order that the civil penalty, or a part of the penalty, be paid to—

(i) the State; or

(ii) a particular organisation; or

(iii) a particular person.

Amendment No 2 [Teague–1]—

Page 8, after line 19 [clause 13, after inserted section 104C]—Insert:

104D—Report on certain civil penalties

If a civil penalty is imposed for a contravention of section 104(1) by an employer of public employees, the Minister must, within 6 sitting days of the imposition of the civil penalty, cause a report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament setting out the circumstances of the contravention (including the citation of the matter before the South Australian Employment Court, the name of the agency or instrumentality of the Crown in which the public employee was engaged to perform duties, the details of the civil penalty (and any other penalty) imposed by the Court and a statement of the costs incurred by or on behalf of the Crown in relation to the matter).

With reference to my amendments, there are two of them, so it might be convenient for the committee to deal with them together; otherwise I will separate them out. They are both in relation to clause 13. The first, as I foreshadowed in my second reading contribution, is stipulating that in relation to the civil penalty that is the subject of section 104(1) then the penalty is providing for the penalty to be paid to the affected employee and otherwise as per the clause.

The rationale that I have articulated is including drawing analogy to ordinary civil proceedings. Unions are going to represent their members' core business. From my point of view, I might just say that in doing so there might be reasonable arguments for cost orders to be made in the usual way for that work, but we are here talking about a penalty provision that is a penalty that is made in circumstances where an employee or employees are wronged, and so the amendment will achieve the outcome that that money is paid to those affected employees.

In relation to the second amendment, this is a straightforward matter of public accountability in circumstances where the penalty amount is relatively modest and public accountability for public employers, local government, is going to play, I would put it, as significant a role as the monetary amount. We can see analogies elsewhere where there is a relatively nominal monetary amount that is being paid; not, I might say, an amount that would be insignificant to an individual employee or group of employees, but in relation to a public sector employer or local government a relatively modest amount.

I hope the government might be persuaded of the merits of the second amendment for these reasons. The effective public reporting on acting as a deterrent for this bad conduct may speak more loudly and effectively than even the pecuniary penalty. The best answer that has been given by the government so far is: well, SAET conducts its proceedings in public and sometimes, not always, it is publishing its reasons and judgement and so on, so you are there for full scrutiny.

The scrutiny that is available that way is certainly a means by which there is public accountability. The amendment is providing for that to be reported so that it is on the record and before the parliament. That has all been the subject of debate in another place, none of which takes the government by surprise, but I invite the government to consider the amendments and, indeed, to support them and for the minister to enlighten the committee to the extent that the government might retain any particular reservation in relation to their merits.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I thank the member for his contribution. The government opposes these two amendments moved by the opposition and is not persuaded by the matters put before the house by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

If I can perhaps go through them separately: the first of which is the member's amendment that seeks to remove the court's discretion in respect of the awarding of a civil penalty. It is the government's position that it is both right and proper to ensure that the court exercises and may exercise that discretion in respect of contravention of section 104(1). The bill does not, as drafted, require the court to order a penalty payable to any particular person or organisation. It leaves it to the discretion of the court. We consider that appropriate and the drafting remains as such.

I thank the member in his second reading contribution for seeking to give the house some confidence and reassurance that this amendment was not sought to be taken as anti-union. I can only take the member at his word, but I also note that a leopard does not change its spots. The Liberal Party, by its definition, hates what unions do and hates what working people do by joining together and exercising their collective voices. I am reassured by the member's contribution, but I am not persuaded.

I also note that in the member for Unley's absence, somebody must carry the vociferous anti-union torch, which the member for Unley usually would. So I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for filling the unenviable position and unenviable role of the member for Unley as being the rabid anti-union spear carrier, which the Liberal Party is known for.

With respect to the second amendment moved by the deputy leader, we also oppose this amendment. In the member moving this amendment, I note that he notes that these matters are publicly and diligently reported by the various jurisdictions, in this case the Industrial Court. I would also note that, by way of existing deterrents, or the deterrent factor by which these matters should appropriately be considered, there are a suite of matters which this house can consider within the existing way that courts and the media report these matters. I would note particularly that the matter in which a suite and bevy of former Liberal members have had their criminal convictions reported publicly would act as a way to dissuade some future behaviour in the way of corruption or serious drug offences.

So the government is persuaded that the current mechanisms in the current public reporting would act in the public interest, and also that these additional penalties which the bill contains do act as a particular deterrent factor for this type of unscrupulous behaviour by employers.

Mr TEAGUE: In response, I have just two or three admonishments for the minister. First of all, I remind the minister that it is unparliamentary and contrary to the standing orders to reflect on the presence, or not, of any particular member in the chamber from time to time. In relation to the leopard-and-spots point that the minister raised, I would just remind the minister of my remarks on the public record, specifically in relation to unions.

I have been moved to refer, on at least one occasion that comes to mind, to the towering contribution of Sir John Carrick in the history of the Liberal Party nationally. He is a hero of mine who, including right up to his obituary, was at pains to highlight the central, important role of trade unions in this country in a whole lot of ways. I think where the distinction is appropriately drawn I would certainly take the Carrick distinction, and that is: when unions become political players there is clearly room to highlight the inappropriateness of union conduct from time to time. But I am pretty glad about where my spots are, and, while I am not for changing them, I think it is important to highlight that I am certainly on the record in speaking up for the proper role of unions in this state and in this country—and this is legislation with which unions are centrally concerned.

Indeed, I have made the point that the government has chosen in this bill to legislate in relation to costs of actions before the SAET and to make it clear that costs are only to be awarded in the most unusual of circumstances. I would highlight again, in response to the minister, that if it were actually a bill that was about promoting the role of unions as formal advocates for members, including in processes such as those that are the subject of this bill, then it might have done so by way of the provisions in relation to the awarding of costs, for example. So that has been aired, and I flag that that is something I would be very open to contemplating should the government be serious in its endeavours to stand up for unions and their appropriate role.

There is the third one—I think I mentioned two or three admonishments. The third one is, I think, a rather gratuitous and partisan reference the minister has just made in relation to criminal convictions. I just caution the minister in relation to pots calling kettles. The incidents of criminal convictions of members of parliament in this place over the years are certainly not exclusive to any particular side. I will not now amp up some sort of tit for tat in that regard, but cheap shots are not appropriate, nor is it accurate to deploy partisanship in relation to references to criminal convictions.

In relation to the substantive relevant point in regard to the SAET's public reporting of its proceedings, reasons for judgement and so on, it is a fair point to be made that the recent decision in relation to the United Firefighters Union is the subject of published reasons. If those interested are looking to interrogate what has happened, that is true, that is available. A system of open justice applies to that extent, and I have heard the government's response to the proposal that there be a positive reporting obligation.

To emphasise the positive reporting obligation, the bringing to parliament's attention in a systematic way of these incidents will serve that superadded purpose of making it very clear that a relatively notional civil penalty will do a certain amount of work and a superadded requirement to be publicly accountable, indeed in this place, will do some other work. I hear the government and, for the purpose of the record and assistance of the committee, I just make those further contributions.

Amendments negatived; clause passed.

Remaining clauses (14 to 15), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS (Cheltenham—Minister for Trade and Investment, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (12:12): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I thank members for their contribution. I sincerely thank the member for Heysen for his on the record and genuine noting of both the important and appropriate role that trade unions play in the enforcement of basic workplace entitlements. This is a really important piece of the delivery of an election commitment on behalf of this government but also something that has been many years in the making. Whilst the commonwealth has acted appropriately, under a Labor government, to ensure that all workers in the country and the private sector are covered by wage theft laws and protected against wage theft, this was an important piece for us to be able to deliver on behalf of both local government workers in this state as well as state public sector workers.

Can I perhaps say, in a brief way in closing, on a personal note as former secretary of SA Unions, it was in February 2018 that I was standing next to the then Premier, the Hon. Jay Weatherill, who just happens to be the first member for Cheltenham and my predecessor to announce that, should a Labor government have been returned in 2018, that wage theft laws would be implemented in this state. Some seven years later, with great pride, we have now been able to deliver that for state system workers.

What it demonstrates is that to working people, good government matters, and for working people and those of us on this side of the chamber, we fundamentally believe that good Labor government matters to working people. We proudly stand with working people and with the unions that have fought for these laws to be implemented in this state, and we will ensure that unions have a key role to play both through this and other mechanisms under workplace law to do what they do best, and that is to ensure that their members are protected and that they exercise their collective rights and their collective power to seek and attain safer, fairer and better workplaces.

Bill read a third time and passed.