Labour Hire Licensing Repeal Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 2 May 2019.)

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS (16:51): I rise to speak against the Liberal government's decision to repeal the Labour Hire Licensing Act 2017. This is a bad policy that will have negative repercussions for some of South Australia's most important industries and the honest businesses that operate within them. It goes without saying that it will expose our workers to further exploitation and unfair treatment.

I have dedicated a great deal of my life to fighting for workers and their rights. It is what motivated me in my professional life before entering politics and it is something that continues to motivate me greatly since entering this place. As a society, I believe we have an obligation to ensure that everyone is treated fairly and justly. If someone is unable to fight for their basic human rights because of linguistic, cultural or educational reasons, or because they are vulnerable and afraid of negative repercussions, it is our job in this place to ensure that we do what is within our power to fight for them.

This very much includes ensuring that everyone, both workers and employers, receive fair treatment and can operate on a level playing field. This was the intention of the previous Labor government when it designed the Labour Hire Licensing Act 2017. This legislation was introduced in response to a Four Corners investigation that found extreme exploitation and slave-like conditions in the food production industry, mostly affecting workers employed by labour hire companies, but we know that this practice exists in the agriculture, mining, hospitality, services and retail industries.

We have seen that unscrupulous labour hire companies underpay workers and avoid their tax obligations, workers compensation payments and superannuation entitlements. We know that when these companies are investigated some are liable to quickly fold and start up a new business, thus avoiding prosecution. Simply put, this is a wage theft towards a section of our society's workforce, but it is not only workers who would be protected under this legislation. Addressing any form of wage theft will have a positive effect on the industry and the wider economy.

As the McKell Institute's Ending Wage Theft report states, wage theft also has a significant anticompetitive effect. This is because it allows businesses who break the law to gain a competitive and unfair advantage over businesses that follow the rules and play by the rules. If left unchecked, this can create a race to the bottom where employers compete to see who can undermine and exploit workers the most.

If we allow this practice to continue it will have a negative impact on our productivity and economic growth, in addition to having a devastating impact on vulnerable workers. Many states around the country have recognised this and in response have introduced similar laws to tackle this issue, yet the Liberal government now wishes to repeal this act. So what has changed in such a short time? How can it be that legislation was considered necessary a year ago and now all of a sudden it is not needed?

The explanation the government has given is that it would create too much red tape. As the Attorney-General stated in an interview on the ABC on 21 September 2018, 'We end up with a situation where the innocent are punished just to get a few guilty.' I am sorry, but this argument just does not stand up. By repealing this legislation, the government is actually allowing the innocent to continue to be punished, while letting the guilty get away with it.

We know that workers are being exploited by unscrupulous operators right now, right here in South Australia. In an audit of the food production industry, ReturnToWorkSA uncovered undeclared remuneration discrepancies in excess of $100 million on which premiums were owed. RevenueSA identified tax liabilities of $650,000. This is just one industry where labour hire companies operate. It begs the question: how many more people are being exploited and underpaid?

The regulations set out in the Labour Hire Licensing Act are the most efficient way to both understand and get on top of the problem. It will regulate labour hire practices in three important ways. Firstly, it will require that labour hire operators must be licensed in order to operate and supply labour in South Australia. Secondly, a person engaging a labour hire provider for the supply of workers must engage only a licensed operator. Thirdly, people in breach of the licence will face much tougher penalties. I firmly believe that a rigorous labour hire licensing scheme is the best way to put an end to some of this appalling exploitation and clean up this industry.

Are we as a society truly willing to allow workers to be mistreated simply to save companies the trouble of applying for and adhering to the conditions of a licence? All the evidence shows that, by repealing this legislation, not only will vulnerable workers suffer but so will honest businesses, industries and our economy as a whole.

We still do not have enough evidence to fully understand the extent of the problem because the South Australian Fair Work Ombudsman has audited fewer than 1 per cent of businesses in the state. This legislation could have the additional benefit of creating greater transparency and understanding regarding operators. We on this side of the council have repeatedly stated that these laws would ensure that those businesses that are doing the right thing will continue to be able to exist and thrive.

Let's just take a look at one industry as an example: the agricultural industry. This is an industry that is well known for noncompliant labour hire companies that exploit workers, especially with the growth in reliance on seasonal workers. It is an industry that has been heavily investigated and audited by a number of organisations, including the Fair Work Ombudsman in its Harvest Trail inquiry report from 2018, as well as a report conducted by the University of Adelaide and the University of Sydney, entitled 'Towards a Durable Future: Tackling Labour Challenges in the Australian Horticulture Industry', 2016-18.

Significantly, it is also known as an industry of vital importance to the South Australian economy. Our primary industries are the state's largest export sector, accounting for over half of the state's merchandise exports. The industry is also a major employer, particularly in regional South Australia, employing 152,000 people in our state. Clearly, this is an industry that we want to protect and see grow and prosper, yet the Liberal government wants to repeal legislation that could protect this vital industry. As the Towards a Durable Future report states:

It is clear from our research that this is a time of tremendous opportunity for growth of the Australian horticulture industry. But the industry has also reached an important crossroad in relation to the labour force that will service the industry.

The choice is between the low road, involving a lack of compliance and protection for honest businesses which will result in more negative media stories, further damaging the reputation of the industry and its potential for growth into new markets, or the high road, which will involve real reforms and legislation that will ensure those businesses that are doing the right thing are not disadvantaged. It is about a thriving, regulated environment versus unsustainable and deregulated chaos.

It is clear that the Liberal government, by repealing this legislation, is intent on dragging South Australia down the low road. I and my Labor colleagues want our state to take the high road where we protect workers, honest businesses and industries from unscrupulous operators. As the McKell Institute stated in its submission to the South Australian parliamentary inquiry into wage theft:

Given the extent of the issue, and the lack of federal oversight, it is beholden on the South Australian government to explore every policy response available to it, and act.

This is what the previous Labor government did. If the Liberal government really wants to protect our workers, our honest business owners, our industries and our state's economy, it will reverse its decision to repeal the Labour Hire Licensing Act 2017 or, at the very least, put this bill to the chamber so that we can get on with protecting workers and honest businesses operating currently.

The Greens and SA-Best, in fact all the crossbench alongside Labor, have made clear their position, namely that they will not support the government's bill to repeal the act.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON (17:01): It would not surprise anyone that I rise today to speak on this bill. In looking at the Labour Hire Licensing Repeal Bill, it actually bears some thinking about what it is that we are even talking about. This is a licensing regime, this is about making sure that we regulate how people operate.

I really cannot think of any other type of industry where we are looking at winding back licences, and it is worth looking at what we are doing in contemporary legislation these days in terms of what we regard licences being necessary for. If you are running a business where you are employing people, however you might be employing them, it is probably worth considering why you might need a licence. For instance, you might be operating in conditions where your opponents in the commercial world might be doing something you think is not entirely fair, but you cannot regulate that as a fellow market operator. You have to exist in a market atmosphere where someone might break the rules but you cannot do anything about it.

It is worth considering why you might have an ideology that says you want to encourage exactly that practice, and what kind of practice that creates. Like a lot of my colleagues on this side of the house, I am sure, I argue that what that actually creates is a race to the bottom effect. It is not new to say that—I think a lot of people have said it—but it is worth thinking about the ideology that is driving the very thing we have before us today.

I have spent a great deal of my life fighting against exactly this kind of ideology because of the impact it has on the people it affects—and the people it affects primarily, of course, are the workers. Those workers are often unfairly exploited or unfairly dealt with in regard to their employment.

I know the Treasurer loves getting out his union-bashing batten, and before he goes to work let us all remember exactly what it says when you say you fight for workers. Giving workers an ability to have an eye on things like wages and conditions, giving them the ability to talk to their boss on a level playing field, and giving them the ability to know what their rights are is not some sort of partisan thing. I know it is often betrayed that way by the Liberal Party, in particular, and some other parties I can name, but it really is not. It is pretty common here and it is pretty common across any part of the world that has a democratic and free society.

Workers not being taken for a ride by their boss or, for that matter, someone on behalf of their boss, is consistent with the kinds of modern workplaces that working families and indeed many employers actually want to see. It is a workplace that is family focused and a workplace that promotes work-life balance. Those are not buzzwords; those are modern workplaces. We should be encouraging them. We should be encouraging environments and regulations that create them. I know there are members of the Liberal Party who believe in those things, so I wonder why they would be promoting a bill like this which removes the ability to create them.

It is not partisan to want to see regulation in workplaces. In fact, it is just keeping pace with a modern world, a world that is consistently looking to stamp out exploitation and to modernise workplaces to a higher standard. That is not partisan. Why would we want to see workplaces modernised to a higher standard? Again, uncontroversially, we all want to see workplaces that are safe, or at least consistently safer, for workers. We want to see them safe for their family, we want to see them good for the environment and equitable in the marketplace for businesses which exist now and also to promote businesses to continue to emerge and promote exactly those kinds of things we want to see—safer workplaces, more environmentally friendly workplaces and equitable workplaces which are good for when you are at work and also when you want to go home.

I put it that in seeking to remove the kind of fair and protective regulation, as we are seeing here, we see the real partisan behaviours of those in workplace politics. It is the partisan behaviour of hiding behind arguments about 'making things easier' and 'tape' and other such metaphors without detailing the substance of why. It is the partisan behaviour of alleging that workers, and their legitimate right to join associations which may help or protect them, do not have all that much to do with it.

It is the partisan behaviour of attempting to remove something before it even has the chance to work, as I know has been mentioned by the Hon. Ms Pnevmatikos. Imagine trying to remove legislation that had not even been in place and working for a year. Why would you do that? It does not make any sense. If it is going to fail, then surely it would be evident after such a short period as a year or two. But no, this government wants it gone now. It is worth wondering why. It is worth wondering how partisan actions like that are.

So far from being partisan, fighting to keep good regulation should be something this government listens to. As I have mentioned, I have seen the front line of why regulation of bosses is required. Regardless of good intentions or ignorance arguments, working below the correct wage or correct employment conditions in any environment is exploitation.

But, as has already been raised by the Hon. Ms Pnevmatikos, you do not actually have to take our word for it. We can look to the Four Corners investigation into such things, entitled Slaving Away. It uncovered gangs of black-market workers run by unscrupulous labour hire contractors operating on farms and in factories around the country. The produce they supplied was not just going to small operators, it was proven to end up in our major supermarkets and fast food chains.

These labour hire contractors in the investigation were filmed as preying upon highly vulnerable young foreigners, many with very limited English, who have come to Australia with dreams of working in a fair country. They were revealed to be subjected to brutal working hours, degrading living conditions and massive underpayment of wages claims. ABC Four Corners reporter Caro Meldrum-Hanna obtained undercover footage and on-camera accounts of workers being exploited. In fact, one migrant worker told her:

I felt like we were going back in time…the way we were treated was inhumane.

Another said:

It made me question Australia as a country.

It uncovered that female workers are particularly at risk, with women coming forward to make allegations of harassment and assault.

I am going to ask some fairly basic questions and I think the answer from all of us would be no. Is this the kind of Australia we want to see? Is this the kind of state we want South Australia to be? Are these the kind of 'simpler, easier or red-tape reduced' bosses we want? I certainly do not. I cannot see why anyone here would. In her analysis of retailers' responses to the ABC Four Corners investigation, Australian labour law scholar Rosemary Owens concluded the following:

When confronted with the evidence of exploitation, the businesses frequently resorted to platitudes defending the values of their organisation and restating their commitment to ethical behaviour by all in the supply line…

What can we conclude from such harrowing investigations and evidence? The fact is that we cannot expect the market to regulate itself. Employers doing the right thing need protection. Consumers wanting to do the right thing need protection. Workers need protection. Let's be really clear what is at stake by repealing our labour hire regulation laws.

It is well past time as a nation and as a state that we stop seeing the failure to pay or treat workers by the law as anything but just that: a failure to adhere to the law. Let's not kid ourselves, the repeal of this bill will make it easier for negligent employers to fail to adhere to the law. It will be easier to accidentally break the law. It will be easier to break the law in ignorance of it. It will be easier to break the law on purpose.

The rights of workers under threat here will not be some difficult thing to understand. They will not be a technical legal point. They are easy things to understand. The rights being placed under threat are wages. The rights being placed under threat are conditions, such as knowing your rate of pay before you start work, the right to know how much tax has been deducted from your pay, the right not to be assaulted sexually or otherwise at work and the right to know where your superannuation is paid or if it was even paid at all.

Any one of us would want these rights for our friends, for our partners and, indeed, for our children. They are not special, they are fundamental rights. South Australian workers and small businesses need protection from companies and industries where wage theft is rife, exploitation is common and phoenixing is part of the business plan. Not giving a bill that seeks to prevent those things a chance to work just does not make any sense. Removing a bill—any bill—that seeks to protect people against those things does not make any sense.

As the Leader of the Opposition said, using the government's logic, it is the equivalent of abolishing licences for drivers or builders or gambling licences. Labour hire licensing is one of the major levers state governments can pull to ensure better standards in the workplace within our jurisdiction. With the notable exception of South Australia, major state governments are moving ahead with labour hire licensing initiatives in lieu of federal regulation in the area. I know as well that there are plans federally to look at exactly what we are talking about here.

By removing a regulation like this while everyone else is moving forward we are placing our workers as the metaphorical last dog at the bowl when it comes to protecting them from unscrupulous and criminal employers. Why would we want to do that to anyone? What happens to the last dog at the bowl? It dies.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:13): I rise on behalf of the Greens to oppose the repeal of the Labour Hire Licensing Act. I note that, back in February when the Treasurer brought this bill into this place, he uttered only 56 words before seeking leave to insert the remainder of his second reading explanation into Hansard without him reading it out loud. In that, he outlined that the government had received numerous written submissions, which were apparently made to the office of the Treasurer, including from industry representative groups and small businesses, outlining their confusion, angst and concerns regarding the scheme.

As a result of this, the Attorney-General then undertook to closely review the issues raised and, in consultation with Consumer and Business Services, they then made it clear to this industry that the current Marshall government would not be going ahead with this legislation. I note in the very small number of words—those 56 words—with which the Treasurer introduced this repeal bill that he noted that the Labor Hire Licensing Act 2017 had been introduced by the former government.

It may have been introduced by the former government but it was passed by the entire parliament. Parliament makes the laws, not the government. This was a law for which there was a great need, a need that has not been addressed at a federal level, which not only was debated in this place and the other place for many, many hours but also went through a select committee. This is a law that anyone who saw the Four Corners expose knows we need. This is a law that we are told is too much red tape because 90 per cent of this industry is apparently doing the right thing.

As did the Hon. Kyam Maher when we first debated this, I recognise that there are many people in this industry doing the right thing. The 10 per cent doing the wrong thing are, of course, those to whom this act applies—10 per cent. That is one in 10 of everyone in this industry having been found to be doing the wrong thing. This is an industry known for phoenixing. This is an industry known for exploiting the most vulnerable workers. This is an industry that trades on portraying itself as something it is not. This is an industry where that red tape might as well be equated to the blood of those workers, where health and safety is sacrificed, where wages are sacrificed, where conditions are sacrificed and where a fair go, if you are willing to have a go, is absolutely sacrificed.

I am not willing to allow this government to get away with flouting the laws of this state. This labour hire act that we currently have is the current law of this state, but the Attorney-General and the Treasurer have indicated, and used their departments to indicate, to this industry that they will not be applying this law. Here we have a repeal bill that is based on the 'confusion, angst and concern' of a few hand-picked representatives of those who have the ear of government, but certainly does not stand up for the exploited workers with whom I have met through my work in recent years with the National Union of Workers.

I had occasion to meet with these workers in a small lounge room in Belair Athol, who told me stories of being too scared to take any time off, to take leave to go back home, to take any sick leave. These are people who were sleeping in their cars because the shifts were so close together. These are people who were getting by on what you would have to say were unacceptably low wages. These are people who were working for companies that were supplying the Woolworths and Coles of this country with that 'fresh food' that they proclaim and love the consumers to go and buy.

We know that D'Vine Ripe does not like us pointing out that they are Perfection Fresh. I am sure that they do not like these labour hire licensing laws very much because it means that they cannot exploit their workers anymore, but this Marshall government is happy to thumb its nose at the current law of the land and stand up for the 10 per cent doing the wrong thing. This is similar to shop trading hours, where that bill came to this place and the Marshall government tried to have its way with this parliament, but failed. The Treasurer then basically operates by stealth and wages a campaign flouting the current laws that this parliament has made.

There is no respect for this parliament in this bill that comes before us today because this bill is a straight repeal bill. It is not an amendment bill; it does not seek to address the issues of angst, confusion and concern, but it certainly wipes away all the issues of protection of work health and safety, standards and job security. We will not cop it. This parliament will speak loud and clear against the government's attempt to repeal the entire act. To have this sit on the Notice Paper, hanging over the head of the industry as a sign that perhaps the department does not have to actually implement the laws of the land, is an affront.

This should be going to a vote. The government rails against it going to a vote because they know what the result will be. They know that a repeal bill is a pathetic excuse for them not winning the vote the last time in the last parliament, so they are having another go, and now that they are the government they think they can control the department. That is unacceptable. That is not democracy. That is certainly not something that most Australians would expect in terms of protection for workers in this country.

We are a proud nation that has respect for workers, that has workers' rights, and we have that fine tradition to uphold. We will not be signing off those workers' rights by letting the government play politics in this place with bills that sit on the Notice Paper like this one and like the rate capping bill where, because they do not get their way and because they do not have the numbers in the parliament, they play politics to enact their polemics.

Bring on a vote because then we will know the numbers for sure. Here today in our speeches we will make our position loud and clear and we will hope that the department will see and respect the will of the parliament, not the whim of the government. Otherwise, why do we not just see the Firearms Act or the Road Traffic Act not complied with either? While I am on that, I have one final piece of advice for the Treasurer: the Liberal Marshall government came to power promising to amend the Road Traffic Act to increase speed limits. Why are you continuing red tape there but not here?

The Hon. C. BONAROS (17:21): I rise to speak on the second reading of the Labour Hire Licensing Repeal Bill 2019. Of course, the former Labor government, as has already been mentioned, passed the bill prior to parliament rising ahead of the 2018 state election, and it did so with the support that has been alluded to by the Hon. Tammy Franks.

The proposed new laws, as we know, were designed to protect labour hire workers and legitimate employers by making it illegal for businesses to operate as a labour hire provider without a licence, and of course to crack down on the rampant exploitation of vulnerable workers revealed in the Four Corners program from 2015, 'Slaving Away'.

In theory, the licensing scheme came into effect on 1 March 2018 and, whilst it is technically operational, Consumer and Business Services, which has been charged with its enforcement, has not issued any licences, despite receiving 125 applications. Indeed, they have also refunded all fees that have been paid.

Since coming to power last year, the Marshall Liberal government has failed to enforce the legislation and therefore has gone against the will of the previous parliament. Instead, we have the bill before us, which seeks to scrap the law in its entirety. As with other pieces of legislation it has tried to introduce, the government has not accurately gauged the pulse of the community.

For the benefit of government members who were not present at the recent rally on the steps of Parliament House in opposition to this bill, I will repeat the comments I made to the many members of the community who battled the cold and the rain that day to make their position known to all of us. For the record, SA-Best does not support the repeal of the legislation, although we do acknowledge there are valid concerns with the practical application of the current legislation. Again, we would be amenable to working with the government to tighten elements of the existing legislation if, of course, they are open to doing so.

I think the Hon. Tammy Franks put it well when she said that our job is not simply to scrap legislation; it is to fix legislation if we think that there are glaring problems with it. We know that there are mechanisms now that the government could be using to address the current legislation and the concerns that have been raised by stakeholders. I, for one, have availed myself of the advice that supports that position. There are further changes that could be made to tighten the framework of the current legislation if that is what is required.

But the Marshall Liberal government has been unwilling to entertain these changes because, as we all know, it is ideologically opposed to a labour hire scheme. As a member of the wage theft select committee, an inquiry instigated by the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos, I can assure you SA-Best does not share those same views, especially given some of the accounts that have been placed on the public record, accounts which point overwhelmingly to the need for a labour hire scheme. We cannot support the Liberals' plans to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Once again, as I have said to her in person, I implore the Attorney to work with all sides of politics—the government, the opposition and the crossbenches—to strengthen the current legislation and tighten those areas of concern that have been expressed. There are a number of stakeholders who have expressed concerns; we do not dismiss those concerns. But that is not this government's intention. This government's intention is just to throw it out and replace it with absolutely nothing: 'We are not going to debate the merits of the scheme or whether we should be looking at fixing those glaring omissions which have been pointed out; we are just going to throw it out altogether.'

For the record, I think it is worth including a couple of the issues which have been pointed out by those stakeholders who have expressed concern with the scheme. They centre predominantly around the definition of 'labour hire' and are aimed to ensure that we capture industries that were intended to be targeted by the legislation and exempt, of course, those industries that were never intended to be captured by the scheme without those businesses having to jump through hoops unnecessarily.

I acknowledge also that issues have been raised surrounding the penalties that exist within that scheme, but again the answer is not to throw it out; the answer is to come back here to this chamber and have a debate with all members of this parliament in relation to the merits of those issues.

Like other honourable members, I think it is important to acknowledge that this issue is countrywide; it is not something that is limited to South Australia only. But, of course, in the absence of a national scheme it makes absolute sense for a state-based licensing scheme to protect vulnerable workers and operators who do the right thing in weeding out dodgy operators.

I was encouraged by this year's federal budget announcement by the Coalition of what it will, if it forms government, introduce, and I quote:

A National Labour Hire Registration Scheme will be introduced to protect vulnerable workers. It will be a 'light touch' registration scheme to target unscrupulous operators and level the playing field for law-abiding businesses. Stakeholders will be consulted as the scheme is developed.

In addition, it was announced that the Fair Work Ombudsman would be provided with additional capacity to conduct investigations and take action against employers who exploit vulnerable workers, along with an increased focus on providing information and education to vulnerable migrant workers to ensure they are aware of their workplace rights. SA-Best obviously welcomes those proposed budget initiatives to protect vulnerable workers from exploitation as part of that announcement.

We also welcome the federal Labor Party's announcement in relation to a number of measures to prevent the exploitation of workers in the labour hire sector, including wage theft more generally. I think it is fair to say that in recent days—I think it was yesterday in particular—that was a hot topic of the federal election campaign and certainly one issue that the Labor Party has given its commitment on in terms of addressing it if it forms government after the weekend.

Regardless of which party forms government, however, following this weekend's federal election, I can say that our federal counterparts in Centre Alliance will also continue to put pressure on the government during the soon-to-be Forty-Sixth Parliament to get moving with those commitments as a matter of urgency. I hope that this government and the Attorney-General will do the same.

A point which cannot be overstated is the need for the Fair Work Ombudsman's budget, which has been slashed almost by half, to be reinstated. It is all good and well for our Prime Minister to come out and say that the Fair Work Ombudsman is going to be provided with additional capacity to conduct investigations and take action against employees, but the fact remains that they are not going to be able to do that on the shoestring budget that they currently have to operate with.

Yesterday, I spoke in this place in support of ongoing funding for JusticeNet. The fact is, organisations like JusticeNet exist because of deficiencies in government services. Successive governments know only too well that those sorts of organisations save them millions of dollars they would otherwise have to cough up each and every year in order to provide adequate services that ultimately they are responsible for.

These organisations provide a community service where government services are left wanting. They help our most vulnerable community members, community members who would otherwise have nowhere to turn. They step up when the Fair Work Ombudsman cannot because of budget cuts. They step up because the ALRM or the Legal Services Commission cannot because of inadequate budgets. They step up time and time again for the benefit of the community and they rely on the goodwill of their professions, and in particular the legal profession, which volunteers its precious time as a way of giving back. They are volunteers who give their time to help those who could otherwise not afford private legal representation, and they ask for little in return in terms of funding.

It seems to me that this government would prefer members, staff and volunteers of these organisations to spend their time flipping pancakes and hosting fundraisers as a means of funding their services rather than as a means of topping up their budgets and, importantly, as a means of spreading the message of the good work they do in garnering support and, of course, more importantly, valuable volunteers. I raise that again in the context of The Fair Work Ombudsman because we should not be relying on community legal centres to represent community members who have been caught up in dodgy labour hire scheme arrangements or in wage theft, whether it is through superannuation or whether it is through an underpayment of wages, whatever the case may be.

These community members should not have to rely on the goodwill of community legal centres to provide them with representation. The reality is, if these centres did not exist then these individuals would have no recourse in terms of recouping the entitlements that they are entitled to at law. On that point, I think it is important to note that if the federal government fails to acknowledge that the Fair Work Ombudsman is as cash-strapped as it is so as to limit its ability to undertake its core work—and that is what it is: its core work—in assisting these people who have been ripped off by dodgy operators or who have been underpaid their entitlements as employees, it will absolutely be to their detriment.

I will close on this point: at a state level, SA-Best remains hopeful that common sense will prevail, that we can stop politicising a crucial issue merely for the sake of political pointscoring based on nothing other than ideology, and a sensible compromise solution can be achieved. There is obviously enough goodwill in this chamber to ensure that that happens, but we need the government in this instance to step up to ensure that we are able to go down that path. In closing, for the record, it is worth noting that the health, the livelihood, the safety of thousands of South Australians depend on the government doing just that.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (17:34): This bill will repeal the Labour Hire Licensing Act which was introduced by the former government last year. I understand the current government undertook to repeal the act in its entirety if amendments they presented whilst in opposition were not successful. The amendments failed. The opposition then won the election and is now in government and they are standing by their commitment to repeal the act.

I understand that enforcement of the act has not yet commenced. This is partly due to the fact that it took a little while for the bill to be proclaimed and then, as with many changes in law, there was a phase-in period before enforcement was to begin. In the meantime, the new government made it clear that it intended to repeal the act, so I can understand why resources were not focused towards enforcing an act which was likely going to be obsolete.

In my briefing on this bill I was advised that a task force of sorts had been established where the heads of certain agencies got together to identify operators who were doing the wrong thing. One agency in particular would take the lead in each case to investigate, and it was hoped that through information sharing the bad operators would be identified and dealt with under the appropriate existing act.

Whilst this seems somewhat promising, I am a little concerned that this is the proposed alternative to the Labour Hire Licensing Act. I understand that there has been concern that the definitions of the act capture some industries that were not intended to be captured while at the same time excluding some industries that should have been captured in the act. If problems are identified with an act, the usual process would be to amend the existing act or, if the existing act is so bad, replace it entirely with a new bill.

It seems to me that there is appetite in this parliament to amend the act to rectify the issues which have been identified; however, the government has chosen to repeal the entire act and abandon the good elements of the act. This does not seem to be the right way to go forward. I encourage the government to work with the regulator, industries and stakeholders to amend the current act so that we can provide a framework to ensure that labour hire operators are conducting themselves appropriately and not exploiting vulnerable workers.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.J. Stephens.