Labour Hire Licensing (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 12 November 2019.)

The Hon. C. BONAROS (11:43): I rise to speak in support of the second reading of the Labour Hire Licensing (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2019. Back in May, I spoke on the repeal bill on behalf of SA-Best and gave our reasons at the time for opposing the repeal of the labour hire licensing scheme. We never supported the repeal of the legislation and our view was firmly that our job is not to scrap the legislation but to fix legislation that was rushed through parliament before it was prorogued in 2017.

Our position, with respect to the scheme, has been clear. At the time, we acknowledged there were valid concerns with the practical application of the current legislation and that we were always amenable to working with the government to tighten elements of the existing legislation. We acknowledge that there have been a number of unintended consequences and further acknowledge that the legislation attempts to correct those unintended consequences and to ensure the legislation is focused and targeted on those industries highlighted in the 2015 Four Corners program Slaving Away. This report highlighted gross exploitation of the most vulnerable workers, predominantly migrants, in areas like meat processing and fruit and vegetable picking, as well as a number of state and federal reviews into worker exploitation.

At the time of the repeal bill, I implored the Attorney-General to work on strengthening the current legislation, rather than throwing out the bill in its entirety. I want to acknowledge the efforts of the Attorney-General in her willingness to work with us (particularly with me) on legislation that is more focused on the target, and for taking into consideration the very valid concerns that we have been raising with her.

We want to see a national scheme. I think that is the best outcome to protect vulnerable workers exploited by unscrupulous labour hire companies. I again note that in those discussions the Attorney indicated, prior to the 2019 federal election, that she would be writing to Bill Shorten and Prime Minister Morrison in relation the national scheme, and would ensure that they were aware of the importance of this issue, particularly in the South Australian context, in the lead-up to that election.

Following the re-election of the Morrison government, we are told they are still working through elements of a labour hire scheme, despite allocating money in this year's federal budget for the implementation of such a scheme. I am not, by any means, suggesting that this outcome is good enough, but I certainly note the efforts that have been made, particularly by the Attorney, to make sure that the Morrison government has this at the front and centre of their agenda.

I, too, implore the Morrison government to work expeditiously on federal legislation that will protect vulnerable workers from exploitation by dodgy labour hire companies. In the absence of a federal scheme, there are schemes operating in Queensland and Victoria, and of course the bill before us. SA-Best notes that stakeholders raised a number of concerns about the difficulties of a wideranging scheme capturing industries and professions it was never intended to capture. That is really, I suppose, the essence of what we are debating: a wide-capturing scheme or a targeted scheme?

I have been briefed by the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner, Dini Soulio, who has articulated the difficulties with the current legislation and the need to exempt a number of industries and professions from the legislation since his office commenced the implementation of the current legislation. I note that the opposition is probably of the view that we should let that legislation operate for a while and see whether the problems highlighted will eventuate, but I think the view expressed by the commissioner, and the fact that he took the action that he did in relation to the scheme, illustrates that there are problems that needed to be addressed.

The amendment bill captures industries that have been identified as 'high risk' in a number of reports, including the Migrant Workers' Taskforce report released in March 2019, the Harvest Trail Inquiry report released in November 2019, and the Victorian Inquiry into the Labour Hire Industry and Insecure Work released in October 2016.

I note that although the security industry was identified as high risk, at this stage the government has not proposed to apply the act to that industry in South Australia, as they argue this industry is already heavily regulated and licensees are subjected to significant licence fees under the Security and Investigation Industry Act 1995. In addition, security firms are required to be licensed as security agents in order to perform security work, and persons who carry on businesses providing security agents must also be licensed.

The directors of such firms are subject to thorough probity checks with police and CBS through the personal information declaration (PID) process. As I understand it, the position take by the government on this bill—and again, this position is supported by the commissioner—with regard to the security industry is consistent with the current exemptions in place by the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner services employees.

Further, as I understand it, none of the abovementioned reports recommended that the construction industry should be specifically targeted because that industry is also already heavily regulated. There were also no recommendations that specifically suggested that the hospitality industry should be captured, although I do note for the record that this is one of the sectors that I think does need further consideration. Certainly, evidence presented at the wage theft committee to date reflects that, so I will be pursuing further particulars from the government in relation to the exclusion of that industry from the current proposal.

I am pleased that the government has indicated its in principle support for the amendments that I have proposed. There are two filed sets of amendments. The first is a regulation-making power to include potential high-risk industries and professions but not to remove any as may be required in the future. That was a proposal I also raised with the commissioner at one of our briefings. I think there was consensus that it made sense that, should it become apparent that an industry needs to be included, the commissioner should have the ability to do that without necessarily having to come back to this place and open the bill up. I think that was an omission on the government's part, and I am glad that the government has seen sense in terms of supporting that amendment.

In addition to concerns raised by the Hon. Ian Hunter, I have also filed a second set of amendments for a further regulation-making power that would enable the inclusion of certain activities within a particular profession or industry, which is ancillary to my first set of amendments. Further to that, for the record, I would like to refer to an email that was sent to my office—and I believe all members have received the same email—from Brian Smedley of Wine SA. That email states:

Dear Attorney-General

I refer to my correspondence dated 28 October 2019 regarding the South Australian Wine Industry Association (SAWIA) on the Labour Hire Licensing (Miscellaneous) Bill 2019 (the Bill).

I am aware that the Bill was debated in the Legislative Council on 12 November 2019. We are concerned that some of the remarks during this debate have the potential to confuse SAWIA's position on the Bill.

We wish to reinforce that our position on the Bill remains, namely that we have very much welcomed and appreciated the consultative approach the Government has taken with regard to labour hire licensing and its genuine engagement with the South Australian wine industry and that there are sensible changes in the Bill that we do not oppose.

Mr Smedley indicates that he has advised other parties in writing of their position, including the opposition. I say that just in terms of clarification, because Mr Smedley thought it was important that that be placed on the record.

I also want to refer to some correspondence that the Attorney has sent me in relation to this process because I think it is important to put politics aside. I appreciate that we have two differing views from the major parties as to whether this should be a targeted scheme or a broad scheme, but I think that the Attorney has come at this issue—certainly in discussions, and there have been many that I have had with her—with a genuine desire to get this legislation right, in the absence of a national scheme. I think we can all agree that that is our preferred position, but we do not have that at the moment. Referring to the Attorney's correspondence most recently to me, she has said that:

As opposed to a heavy-handed, broad-based approach, it targets those high-risk industries which have been consistently identified in Government inquiries as ones where workers are vulnerable to exploitation: specifically horticulture, meat processing, seafood processing, cleaning and trolley work.

Clearly, this is not the repeal that some in the industry were seeking, but it does address identified deficiencies in the scheme and narrows the scope so the Bill's focus is, as it should be, on industries with a high risk of worker exploitation.

She goes on to say:

As I have already discussed with you, Connie, in the absence of a national approach to date, it is better we advance our own reforms expeditiously here in South Australia.

This, in turn, will influence the Bill that will ultimately be produced in Canberra and adopted nationally.

I think that is important because it demonstrates that the Attorney is seeing this issue through, particularly in terms of follow-up with the federal government. The Attorney goes on to indicate again that the government will ensure we retain the ability to swiftly address cases of exploitation arising in new industries by supporting the amendments that I am proposing and goes on to say that, however, should there be genuine issues raised with respect to other industries that have not been captured, she 'would have the capacity to prescribe these in regulations with your amendment'.

I am heartened by the comments of the Attorney, and I again thank her for working with me closely in relation to this matter. I am sure there is a lot more that will be addressed during the committee stage of the bill, and certainly there are a number of concerns which I think need to be aired in this place so that we can consider them appropriately. Whether that results in further amendments or not remains to be seen, but at this stage we remain very open-minded and supportive in principle of what the government has come back with.

We of course continue to have discussions with those stakeholders on both sides of the fence in relation to their concerns and hope that those issues can be thrashed out during the committee stage debate on this bill. With those words, I indicate our support for the second reading of the bill and look forward to the committee stage debate.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.