Portable Long Service Leave Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 29 August 2024.)

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO (17:01): Today, I rise in complete dismay over this government's handling of this bill. I will make my stance clear from the get-go: if this government is serious about helping the struggling disability and NGO sector, they will delay the rollout of this bill. With this, I will move an amendment standing in my name to insert that the provisions cannot be implemented before 1 July 2026.

The draft bill was released in December 2023, giving organisations just two months over the holiday season to provide feedback by 9 February 2024. A mountain of concerns was raised, including clarity of industry awards, the timing of the legislation during the NDIS review, the lack of consultation, the financial burden on already struggling organisations and more. In June this year, an update was released with no invitation for further feedback or consultation. Last week, a bill briefing was provided with no indication that this bill would be rushed through today, and then on Thursday afternoon the government's priorities were circulated, with portable long service leave top of the list.

In just two business days we have conducted our consultation. Organisations have been caught completely off guard with no time to fully understand this complex updated bill. Their responses were telling. Government consultation was reported as lacklustre and rushed, with some feeling that there was not much point providing feedback because they were told it was just going to pass anyway.

If this government was listening they would know that organisations across the state, small and large, are struggling. In a recent pulse survey conducted by National Disability Services (NDS) following the Annual Pricing Review, 84 per cent of more than 1,200 respondents were actively reconsidering their future, and 75 per cent of respondents were considering stopping some or all of their disability services. The disability sector is at breaking point. Amidst their uncertainty and immense pressure, last Thursday the federal Minister for the NDIS announced his retirement, all whilst the NDIS undergoes a series of extensive legislative reforms.

The state government's response is to rush through their own box-ticking election commitment legislation that, again, is causing further uncertainty and pressure across the sector—legislation that would require these organisations to potentially maintain dual long service leave systems, endure greater costs, greater compliance and confusion around entitlements, and struggle with staff retention. Looking at the contents of the bill, it reeks of big government. Remunerated boards for each industry fund, ministerial intervention, ministerial appointments, levies, registration, powers of inspection—you name it, it is in this bill.

Numerous organisations have raised their enormous concerns to both Minister Cook and the Attorney-General, but clearly they have not been heard. What they are calling for is very simple: to delay this legislation, to give them time, time to set up systems and to get through this uncertain period. Hordes of NGOs are currently running on cash reserves and with an operational loss. They are losing money and closing at a rapid rate, and this legislation could be the deciding factor.

Thank you to the South Australian State Manager of National Disability Services, Janine Lenigas, for the last-minute consultation she helped us conduct. Your work is invaluable and I hope that it brings light to some of the concerns you and your members have raised and that you have put forward on behalf of the sector. I would like to read some of the concerns raised by the sector, and I will quote CEO Liz Forsyth of Brain Injury SA:

This for us, is about the constant unfunded increases of cost of labour…For two years running, we have had an operational loss, which takes from reserves, that until price reviews, it cannot be seen how we can replenish.

We are not comparable to the building sector. They deliver projects for short term periods, and require a very mobile staff to meet the labour demand.

The money taken from the sector will fund a bureaucracy and hold onto unclaimed money for government benefit, not for the benefit of people with disabilities…

The CEO of Community Living Options, Mel Kubisa, did the maths and is very concerned that the NDIS funding of long service leave is the equivalent of 4.3 days per year, when the actual cost under this scheme will be 7.5 days, resulting in a potential extra $704,000 for her organisation. I will be asking some of Mel's questions in the committee stage, including:

a. does the state government intend to fund providers for the shortfall between NDIS funding and the state based legislative requirements?

b. Is the state government also paying into the scheme, noting that the state government is a large provider in the NDIS market, and if it does not, it creates an unlevel playing field?

c. Given the NDIS funding model is fixed, has the government considered the negative impact on jobs the portable long service leave scheme will have?

CEO Tim Baker from Enhanced Lifestyles raised the following points:

The NDIA DSW cost model is broken and won't cover the cost of the introduction of this scheme, once again leaving NFP's paying the gap. Provider viability is on a knife's edge at the moment, and the new cost burden of this scheme may be enough to tip some well run, longstanding providers over the edge.

Its incredibly disappointing that there is such widespread challenges in the sector that is simply being pedalled by this government through bills like this.

I foreshadow that my amendment speaks to calls directly from the sector. We implore the crossbench and those opposite to support our amendment that would see the implementation of the Portable Long Service Leave Bill and its impact on the community services sector delayed until July 2026. Please consider this during a time of uncertainty for this industry. Do not ignore their pleas. Without them our most vital community services could be lost.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (17:08): I rise to speak on the Portable Long Service Leave Bill, which is an election promise by the Labor government. The intent is to enable workers in the not-for-profit community services sector to be able to move their entitlements from one job to another, mirroring the same scheme that is operating in the construction industry.

In my day, long service was a reward for loyalty to one employer after seven years and then fully qualifying by the time you hit 10 years. This bill changes that. The reason is that these workers are essentially doing the same kind of work and can move on within that sector—for instance, the disability sector, the aged-care sector. Many of these workers are casually employed or are on fixed-term contracts.

The SA Business Chamber rightly have concerns that it could be damaging to the sector. Firstly, they are critical that there has not been proper consultation on it. They say that there has been no data to support claims that it will alleviate high turnover of staff, and they cite evidence from Victoria and Queensland, where employee retention has not improved.

They have concerns about the cost, particularly that almost half the providers in the disability sector reported financial losses, with 9 per cent breaking even, and also that the sector is already under extreme financial pressure. Seventy per cent of providers in the disability sector are not-for-profit, and the cost of portability could well be the final nail in the coffin for them. They may not have the financial resources to manage the introduction of the scheme, which is why I would urge members in this place to strongly support it beginning a year later, in 2026, as the Liberals are calling for.

It also calls for a two-year moratorium on making payments into the scheme. Employers will be required to pay a levy for each worker into a fund that would then be used to distribute long service pay entitlements when they are claimed, and it is anticipated that this pot of gold will grow to be able to afford those payments. As we have seen with the superannuation scheme, there are always problems in trying to ensure that employers, particularly smaller operators, comply with their requirements of paying superannuation benefits to their workers or paying them into a fund. It is a problem that the ATO has tried to address in recent years.

I think compliance and policing that requirement has been difficult at the commonwealth level, and I would anticipate it could well be difficult at this level as well once this bill is introduced to ensure that those levies are being paid. It certainly would be difficult for companies and small businesses that are struggling financially to be able to find the resources to pay a levy that could be up to 3 per cent on a regular basis for workers who may not be full-time workers but on contracts.

The other concern I have here is that this labour union-infused government has opened the door for portability to be expanded into other industries and business somewhere down the track. This bill is coming at a time of crises in our communities, and these crises are not being fixed: cost-of-living pressures, power bills, groceries. Families and businesses—a lot of these businesses are also family owned—are struggling.

The last thing these businesses, particularly the family-run ones, need is the extra burden of complying with this type of legislation that serves to drain money from them, particularly from the struggling community services sector. In saying that, as I said, I will be supporting both amendments, one from the Liberals and also one from the Hon. Tammy Franks. I look forward to the debate.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (17:13): I rise to speak in support of the Portable Long Service Leave Bill 2024, which I note, as other members have, was a key election commitment of the Malinauskas Labor government. As has already been canvassed, SACOSS in particular has been advocating for this change for a number of years, and it is great to see the community services sector is finally getting the recognition it deserves.

Most Australian states, and I think this is really worthy of noting, already have portable long service leave schemes for the community services sector. This year alone, New South Wales and the Northern Territory introduced similar schemes, so South Australia is catching up in this respect. The bill explicitly lists 29 different community services in schedule 2, including services which offer accommodation, alcohol and drug, disability, youth, and financial counselling supports.

I would like, at this point, to acknowledge and indicate my support for the amendment of, and the work of, the Hon. Tammy Franks to explicitly include sexual assault and sexual violence services in that schedule. The community services sector employs, as we know, over 35,000 people working in South Australia, most of whom are women. A lot of these jobs are on a short-term contract basis, as they rely heavily on fluctuating funding. The scheme also allows workers to move between employers without losing their long service leave entitlements, making it easier to retain skilled workers in the broader industry and attract new ones.

We know this model works. It has worked elsewhere, and portable long service leave has been in place in the construction industry now for decades. The bill shares the expertise of that current system by utilising the schemes of the same chief executive officer and administrative staff for both schemes.

I do note, of course, there was an amendment filed earlier today by the Hon. Ms Girolamo on behalf of the Liberal opposition that seeks to amend the designated day of the scheme to commence on a day not earlier than 1 January 2026, rather than by proclamation, to give employers time to prepare. I also note the concerns that have been raised, particularly by the disability sector and by the South Australian Business Chamber, in relation to the costs of the scheme and the potential financial impacts on the sector given the current state of the economy.

The chamber has, I think, quite rightly noted—and this is something that we should not be doing—the mention of regulations 43 times in this bill and its concern about the practical operation of the scheme, particularly should it commence hastily. Most of us in this place have been on the record many times and, indeed, I think in practically every briefing I had this week with government I raised the concerns that I have around leaving things to regulatory regimes. It is not a good way of making laws. Unfortunately, we continue to see the majority of important legislation being inserted into regulations, which simply do not, and cannot, withstand the same scrutiny as legislation in this place. The chamber has suggested a two-year lag before commencement, but given the financial year calendar the amendment filed today is in keeping with this ask, I think it is fair to say.

I think it is also though, on the flip side, worth noting that these entitlements at the moment ought to be quarantined by employers. We are not talking about something new. If I am an employee then I have every right to expect that my employer is already putting this money aside in anticipation of me reaching the seven-year or 10-year mark, and so it should not come as some sort of surprise to employers that they may be liable for long service leave. We all know that is a fact, and it falls on the employer doing the wrong thing if this is catching them by surprise, because they are not quarantining those funds for that particular employee.

If someone chooses to leave before that period, that is a win for the employer, who gets to use that money elsewhere or however they intend to put it back into their business. The notion that this is a new levy and a new cost impost I think is unfair and unfounded based purely on that fact alone. We know it has been an ongoing issue, with super and leave entitlements, and we have seen plenty of cases where businesses fold and they have not done the right thing and parked those entitlements aside, leaving employees in the lurch. Nothing in this bill takes away from the entitlements that employees already have. If anything, it is securing those funds in another way and ensuring that workers do have access to the entitlements they are rightfully entitled to at the moment if they reach those threshold years in terms of their employment time.

I also note, and I wonder, and I will ask the Attorney to answer this, how much appetite this government has in terms of expanding portable long service to other sectors such as critical health at some stage in the future. It is an issue which has been raised on many occasions in discussions I have had with stakeholders. It is an issue which the RACGP has raised both with the health committee here at a state level and also in submissions to a Senate inquiry. In 2021, the GP workforce Senate inquiry touched on this issue in relation to GP registrars, and I quote:

GP registrars do not retain their employment benefits during training as they move to a new employer each rotation. Moreover, junior doctors lose accrued entitlements from their time in the hospital setting when transitioning to community-based practice. Junior doctors make crucial decisions about their careers based on a range of factors, including remuneration, available entitlements, and their family and personal circumstances.

The same can also be said for nurses and midwives and allied health professionals such as psychotherapists, occupational therapists, speech pathologists and psychologists, all essential to the delivery of care in our healthcare system. I note that in Queensland, the Queensland Nurses and Midwives' Union has an ongoing campaign in this respect. Other sectors, tertiary education for one, are pushing for portable long service leave federally.

In Victoria, following an announcement last March, the scheme is extended to industries such as contract cleaning and security services. I guess the importance of that shows that this is something that is now widely accepted as being not just something that ought to be limited to the construction industry. For the reasons I outlined earlier, particularly given the fluctuating funding, the sorts of work that people are likely to be involved in, the fragility around the work they undertake, and that it impacts women overwhelmingly, these are really important in terms of providing certainty and financial stability for the workers who are likely to end up impacted by these measures.

The one point of contention raised by the Law Society, I think, and the Attorney can again confirm this, has been addressed in the final version of the bill, with clarification that proceedings may be brought in the SAET, with jurisdiction conferred on the South Australian Employment Court. I think overall, though, this bill is a good indication of moving with the times.

We have all been there and worked and had to earn our seven years previously—or 10, whatever it is—in terms of long service, or perhaps stopped just shy of those entitlements, and I guess many of us have sort of sat and thought about how this is not how it worked historically. It was your commitment to one employer as opposed to many, but that really does not reflect the modern-day working world, the sorts of jobs that people are doing and the areas they are working in, and this bill certainly intends to address that.

In terms of the GPs and the nurses that I raised earlier, I will note, and I will ask the Attorney to elaborate if he has any information, in terms of the health crisis itself this is something that again the AMA and the RACGP have seriously raised in South Australia as a means of retaining GPs in the state. We have a GP specialty which has dropped from about 40 per cent to about 13 per cent in this state, so people are not choosing a GP specialty.

These sorts of entitlements and the remuneration attached are actually having a bearing on the number of people who choose that as a specialty. The peak bodies are certainly of the view that having portable long service leave would go a long way to addressing doctor shortages, GP shortages, so I am keen to hear what the government has in relation to that.

With those words, I indicate my support for this bill and commend those individuals, and particularly SACOSS, who have worked hard to get here. That is not to dismiss the concerns that have been raised by others, but I go back to the point that I made earlier: these are workers' entitlements, they ought to be sitting in a bank account somewhere quarantined now, and it should hardly come as a surprise that you may be liable to pay that employee their rights and entitlements after seven or 10 years of service.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:24): I rise to speak in support of this bill. I am pleased to see steps being taken here in this parliament to ensure that South Australians will have pathways to more secure working conditions if they work in the community sector. The expansion of portable long service leave recognises that increasingly people are more likely to work for multiple employers during their working lives. The Greens are really pleased to see the community sector workers being included, finally, along with construction workers in such a scheme.

Community sector workers carry out critical frontline work for our community every day. This includes support and service workers in areas including disability, domestic and family violence, community development services, mental health services, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community services, to name just a few. We are very pleased to see that the definition of 'community services' is quite broad. We want to see as many workers as possible captured in the scheme.

While members have seen amendments filed in my name that seek to add sexual assault and sexual violence services to the list of services included in this bill, I note in a briefing from the minister's office that I was assured that that is already covered by the definition. I will seek an assurance of that in the second reading conclusion or first clause of the committee stage so that I need not progress with that.

Sexual assault and sexual violence services of course are part of this sector and must be included when we talk about community service jobs. It is important to note that these services are not the same as family and domestic violence services and they do provide specialist dedicated frontline trauma-informed support and services to victims and survivors of sexual assault and sexual violence, and they are an important inclusion in this scheme.

The introduction of portable long service leave for community sector workers will see tens of thousands of workers better off. They will be able to access this vital industrial right. I have a child who is now 16. Before her birth I worked in the community sector. I have just done the sums: I worked for two years for Amnesty International, five years for the YWCA and two years for the Mental Health Coalition of South Australia. If I had had this scheme around I possibly could have taken long service leave just before the birth of my child, which would have been very handy. I remember wearing a little pale green ribbon as part of the ASU campaign, back in possibly around 2006 or so, so this change is a long time coming and should come as a surprise to no-one in this place.

Not only was it a Malinauskas political promise in opposition to do this should they come to government, it is a long-fought and now hard-won campaign. Schemes like this already exist. One was established in the ACT in 2010, it has existed in Victoria since 2018, in Queensland since 2021 and in both the Northern Territory and New South Wales since 2024. It is high time South Australia caught up. A number of those jurisdictions have since gone further, with the inclusion of other workers such as cleaners, teachers and nurses in portable long service leave schemes.

Back in 2006 or so, I remember also that this was the sector that had to fight for wage equity. Being a heavily feminised sector, we have been paid less for the same work for a very damn long time. That changed and this can too. Ultimately, the Greens would like to see portable long service leave extended to all workers. There are industries that have high rates of casualisation. Contract workers and those who work within the gig economy seem to be those who I think would greatly benefit from being included in portable long service leave schemes.

I note the words of Connie Bonaros: this is already an entitlement the employer is required to accrue on behalf of the employee. It is just that quite often these employees—in jobs where they support those in the community at that coalface and are often literally paid not much more or even sometimes less than those they are supporting—are on very short-term contracts. Often that is entirely within the remit of the government to have controlled, and they are often left between jobs, waiting to see if their contract will be renewed, waiting for the government, in particular, to make up their mind and certainly subject to far too short-term arrangements and precarious employment.

It is no wonder that this industry sees a high turnover of workers and many within the sector not only struggling just to get by but struggling with that uncertainty of those short-term contracts. This is the least we can do to support them. There are workers who have contributed to this industry well in excess of the required seven years and yet, due to the nature of their employment, have no entitlement to long service leave although their employer has been required to accrue it across the various jobs they have held.

I am pleased that this legislation will change that and we will see further support for those who support vulnerable and marginalised people in our community, those who do very valuable work and who deserve better not just from this parliament but from their employers. With that, I commend the bill.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (17:30): I rise briefly to support the government's proposal to secure long service leave benefits for workers in the community services sector in South Australia via the Portable Long Service Leave Bill 2024. I will also be supporting the amendments that will be put forward by the Hon. Heidi Girolamo .

Long service leave is a minimum entitlement under the National Employment Standards and is regarded as a benefit that recognises an employee's service and commitment. I acknowledge our valuable community services workers, who support the most vulnerable in our community. They carry out demanding work and are often required to shift between employers to maintain their employment.

I also acknowledge and appreciate feedback provided to us by industry stakeholders that outlines some of the concerns regarding the Portable Long Service Bill 2024. The spectre of increased labour costs was notable among these concerns, particularly at a time when providers say they are waiting on much-needed price reviews. Providers are anxious about what this change and the additional long service leave provisions could mean to their sustainability and viability amid an environment that saw 49 per cent of South Australian providers record a financial loss in the past financial year, according to a recent survey.

In addition, stakeholders note that a transient workforce is an undesirable feature of the system from the point of view of NDIS participants, given that accrued knowledge of clients is regarded as essential to providing the best care. Giving providers additional time to sort through these challenges is desirable in that it will ultimately lead to better outcomes, and it is for that reason that I stated I will be supporting the Liberal amendments that are being put forward.

The Hon. R.B. MARTIN (17:32): It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Portable Long Service Leave Bill 2024, which will create a scheme for workers employed in the community services sector to have the opportunity to access this important entitlement on the basis of their length of service to the sector rather than their length of service to one particular employer in the sector.

For the benefit of anyone who is unconvinced that long service leave should be given the opportunity to evolve as an institution, I hope the chamber will indulge me in briefly examining its history. Long service leave is understood to be unique to Australia and New Zealand, and in debating its reform it is worth considering why that is the case.

Long service leave in Australia began during the colonial era. In fact, I understand from my research that it began in South Australia and Victoria when those two colonies passed legislation in 1862 to create it. The legislation initially provided between six and 12 months of paid leave to some public servants after they had completed a decade of service to the colonies.

Its specific purpose was to provide public service employees in South Australia and Victoria with a furlough that was long enough to enable them to make the long journey to visit the United Kingdom. The scheme was intended to offer respite for those relatively high in the colonial administration hierarchy who suffered a great separation of distance between the place they considered to be their home, the UK, and the place that was unequivocally their workplace, the colonies. This was, of course, during an era when it could take months to take the journey by sea from Australia or New Zealand to the United Kingdom and vice versa.

So long service leave during its earliest iteration was essentially a painfully protracted version of fly-in fly-out to the tune of 10 years on, one year off. Of course, we no longer have these arrangements, because we recognised that long service leave provisions needed to change.

In 1911 the first amendments were made to commonwealth long service leave benefits. They enabled access for a broadened range of purposes, including as an additional form of retirement savings by enabling those who had completed 20 years of service to take a lump sum payment on retirement in lieu of taking the leave, and as a death benefit for dependents of public sector employees. It is worth noting that this occurred before the nation's retirement incomes policy had blossomed and well before the introduction of the compulsory superannuation guarantee in 1992. It is also worth noting that after the advent of those institutions, long service leave stuck around.

Long service leave as an entitlement was limited to the public sector until the 1940s, from which time it began a gradual extension into the private sector. This occurred through its inclusion in private sector awards. Entitlements under these provisions were based on continuous service with one employer. State-based entitlements to long service leave emerged in legislation during the 1950s, a time when the Australian economy was experiencing a postwar boom. It is evident that the thinking was to offer benefits that might assist employers to attract and retain workers.

New South Wales, as the first state to introduce legislation to mandate long service leave entitlements, made this purpose fairly apparent when the then Minister for Labour and Industry identified that the reduction of labour turnover was amongst the aims of long service leave. The minister also identified that the entitlement would reward long and faithful service with a single employer.

So from not later than the 1950s there is form in respect of government taking action in recognition that, as an institution, long service leave must adapt to changing circumstances, not just because it is beneficial for workers but because it promotes staff retention, which is beneficial to employers—and, we can presume, to productivity.

Further evolution in long service leave arrangements has continued, including the introduction of the Construction Industry Long Service Leave Act 1987, which was brought in to create a portable long service leave scheme whereby workers' long service leave entitlements could be carried between employees in the construction industry. It was recognised as necessary and important, and has been operating successfully for nearly 40 years.

Can we take inspiration from those who have come before and again make changes to long service leave such that our provisions better reflect the circumstances of our time and the needs of certain cohorts of our workforce? We can, and we should, because across our industrial landscape things have changed, and they continue to change. As the Attorney-General has observed, 'The days of working for one employer for your entire career are gone.' This is a phenomenon we can observe right across our sectors of industry, not just here in South Australia but around the world. Our industrial laws must be supported to adapt in recognition of the evolving requirements of the workforce.

It is worth mentioning that it can be a good thing for workers to have mobility within and across workplaces and sectors of industry; to have the opportunity to try something else if you are not sure if what you are doing is the right fit, to have the freedom to seek a better offer if you feel that the value you bring to your current workplace outperforms your level of remuneration. However, these are opportunities and freedoms that are not afforded equally to all workers across our economy.

Not all mobility of work happens by choice. There are significant cohorts of workers who, through no choice of their own, have no option but to move from employer to employer over the years. One sector wherein we see this happening commonly, in part due to the way funding arrangements tend to shift, is the community services sector.

This is a crucially important sector to the collective wellbeing of South Australians. From social housing and homelessness services to disability support services, to family and domestic violence services, to mental health support services, to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community services, our community fundamentally relies upon the work done by the good people who are employed across the community services sector.

Workers employed within the community services sector often have challenging and demanding jobs, both physically and mentally. They give their all to those the services support, often the most vulnerable amongst us who are in the greatest need of support. Community services sector workers are often underappreciated or unsung, but their work is crucial to our society.

It is in our community's clear interest to look after these essential workers. We need dedicated, skilled people working in our community services sector and this means that the sector must be able to attract and must also be able to retain them. Equally importantly, it is unjust for workers within one sector of industry, such as construction, to have the benefit of portable long service leave while others, whose sector of work features similar involuntary mobility of employment, cannot access that same benefit. It is unjust for any worker to lose out on entitlements just because the industrial landscape shifts around them.

The South Australian Labor Party announced its intention to extend portable long service leave beyond construction to the community services sector a number of years ago. This bill represents the fulfilment of that intention, extending the entitlement of portable long service leave to workers who might otherwise never be able to access it. Despite pioneering long service leave over 160 years ago, we now follow the great majority of other Australian jurisdictions in taking this particular step to extend it.

I recognise and thank those who have contributed to the extensive process and consultation that has informed this legislation's development, in particular the Australian Services Union, along with the South Australian Council of Social Service, SA Business Chamber, the Ai Group and the Law Society of South Australia. I commend the bill to the council.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (17:40): I want to thank all the members who have contributed on the second reading stage of this bill. I will just address a couple of issues that have been raised in the second reading stage that might answer some questions, but I recognise there will be many more questions during the committee stage. I suspect that, depending on the level of detail, there may be some questions we do not have answers to. I will say now that, and I am happy to place on the record again, if we cannot answer anything now we are happy to take that on notice and provide a written response to questions we cannot answer at the moment.

In relation to a couple of contributions from those who have raised concerns about finances and the businesses or non-government organisations that these obligations will apply to, other members on the other side of the debate have rightly pointed out there is an obligation to provide for long service leave entitlements already. It is something that businesses already account for. I accept that there is a rate of people who do not get up to seven years, so businesses in working out their entitlements factor that in, but it is something that is an obligation on businesses as it already stands.

Certainly, for funding decisions in relation to NDIS providers in particular, that will be something that is considered if there is a need for extra funding in budgetary processes outside this bill. To the extent that the state government funds community service organisations, if there are representations made that is something we will no doubt take into account. The state government itself also runs an NDIS provider, so it is something that as a state government we all have to take into account as well.

Schemes very similar to this have operated in other jurisdictions, including the ACT, Victoria and Queensland, as contributors in the second reading debate have pointed out, and they still have a community service sector. Catastrophising that this is going to destroy the community services sector has not come to fruition in all those other jurisdictions that have run similar schemes. Even within the sector in South Australia, there have been representations made that this may well help keep people working in the area of the community services sector by creating the incentive to stay in this area even though you might switch between employers—in fact, people who work for numerous employers at the same time.

In relation to amendments that have been filed, we will not be supporting the opposition's amendments to delay the implementation of this scheme. This is something that has been, I think for two election cycles, a commitment of this Labor government. We are keen to get on with this. We think it is an important step forward, so we will not be supporting an amendment that seeks to delay its implementation.

In relation to the amendment that has been foreshadowed by the Hon. Tammy Franks, it is our advice that almost all the people who work as sexual assault and sexual violence services workers would be covered within family and domestic violence services. However, there may be a very small cohort of people who are not covered, so if the honourable member did move her amendment we would gladly support that just as an assurance that, if there were some that fell outside, they would be covered.

Having said that, I commend this bill to the chamber and I look forward to the committee stage. As I said, for almost half a century largely men in the construction industry have had the benefit of a portable long service leave scheme, and we think it is high time that largely women who work in the community services sector have that same benefit.

Finally, there have been some members who during the second reading stage have made suggestions about how this could further be expanded. I note that in other jurisdictions that have a portable long service leave scheme it has generally started with the community services sector. There has been expansion in other areas and it is something that we are absolutely open to.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Following on from the Attorney's comments, have there been any discussions that he is aware of with the allied health professions that I referred to, specifically GPs, nurses and midwives, in relation to potentially expanding long service leave in the future?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. I am not aware, off the top of my head, of any discussions with those sectors. As I have said, other jurisdictions that have started with the community services sector have expanded into other sectors, often lower paid sectors, and that is something that we are not closely looking at.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: What is the expected rate or administration cost that will be levied against employers for the purpose of the scheme?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. My advice is that in the legislation it is a maximum rate of 3 per cent. It is lower than that generally in the construction industry sector that has a very similar scheme. There is good reason to believe it would be similar to what the rate is in the construction industry, but in any event it is a maximum legislated rate of 3 per cent.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: How many organisations in South Australia do you expect this will cover?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. We do not know for certain. We do not have a definitive list of employers in this sector. As a rough guess, my advice is it might be somewhere around 4,000 employers, but as I said we do not have a definitive list.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: Is it the same in regard to the number of employees this is likely to cover?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes. My advice is that is a very rough approximate number of employers. Of course, some employers will employ multiple employees, so it would cover more than the number of employers in terms of employees.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: Who has the government consulted with on this bill and how many of those consulted were employers or representing employers within the community services sector?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. This has been, certainly since my involvement as the Minister for Industrial Relations since March 2022, one of the most consulted about pieces of policy and then legislation. There have been many rounds of consultation, including preliminary consultation about the policy and how it would work, stakeholder consultations hosted by SACOSS, sector updates published by the government, second sector updates by the government and legislation briefings. I have personally been involved in quite a number of briefings that have involved a range of people from employer and employee groups. There would be dozens and dozens when you take the number of different consultations that have occurred and the number of individual organisations or businesses that have been consulted with.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: Are you able to take on notice to provide a list of organisations that were consulted during the process?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised it is over 100 people, representing employer and employee groups. It is not something that we typically do, to provide a list. I am happy to take that on notice but I foreshadow it is not something that we typically do. I am advised it is over 100 people representing employers and employees in the community services sector.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: Can the Attorney outline the views expressed by those organisations during the consultation process?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: To outline the views of more than 100 different people representing various organisations I suspect would take an exceptionally long time.

The Hon. H.M. Girolamo: I am happy for you to consolidate.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think it is fair to say there are a range of views. There are views that probably represent the range of views that have been expressed in this chamber today already. Certainly, in the consultations I have been involved with, I would say there was broad support but with some expressions of concern about the cost this may have on individual businesses. However, in the consultations I have been involved in, there is broad support for what we are putting forward, including some of those particularly in the not-for-profit and the for-profit sectors.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: Does the Attorney think the changes outlined in the June 2024 update paper resolved the concerns raised by stakeholders during the consultation? Are you able to outline what consultation has been done specifically on the revised paper? So not the original consultation but on the revised paper?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that one of the main concerns that was provided in the more recent sector update was in relation to eligibility: who was covered and who was not covered. Some of the additional things we took into account in relation to that feedback was making sure that it was someone who was covered by an eligible award, which in large part resolved who was covered and who was not covered.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: When does the government propose this scheme would come into effect and employers would begin paying this levy?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is, should this bill pass both chambers of parliament, to have a scheme come into effect what we are working towards is 1 July 2025.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: To get some clarity around that timeframe, we have had an indication that the board is likely to be appointed and commence its work in the fourth quarter of this year, that on 1 July 2025 community sector schemes come into operation, on 30 September the first reporting period ends and in late October 2025 the first payments of levies become payable. Is that the timeframe that the government is expecting to see if this bill should pass?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, that is the timeframe that we are working towards and that we are hopeful of. Of course, it is a provisional timeframe that will ultimately be heavily guided by the board in terms of the readiness to implement that. Quite understandably, particularly for the sector, we have outlined indicative timelines of what we would like to work towards but, as I said, they are provisional and we will be guided by the board in terms of the ability to roll out those timeframes.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: Has the government addressed the concerns about the pressures and the potential low margins that some of these providers are facing? Has that been raised with the federal government in regard to the gap between the NDIS, what they are providing, and what additional cost may be required to be paid under this scheme?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. As I outlined in my second reading sum-up, this already applies in a number of jurisdictions around Australia. We have not seen the collapse in Queensland, Victoria and the ACT of this sector. My advice is that there is dialogue with the federal government and the NDIS, and that will continue.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: Does the government anticipate scenarios in which service providers will need to have two systems operating—one where employees may be under a disability award and one where they are under aged care—so having to operate two different systems for long service leave?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Potentially, yes, but one of the other things that has been raised, certainly in the consultations that I have been involved in, is that many employers who operate across state borders already do that and have to cover two different provisions. Particularly as most states seem to be moving towards this, for those who operate across jurisdictions, having some consistency, and particularly as we look to be consistent with Queensland in particular, has some benefit.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: Will the government provide any initial funding or support to industry to allow them to establish systems and set up?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is it is not the intention to provide funding directly to industry for their administrative purposes.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: What support will the government be providing to help industry, who are going to have to make significant changes to the system and processes involved here?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is it is anticipated that, particularly through the board, materials, information and education will be provided to industry.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: Will employers in the community services sector be any worse off under this scheme?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is, given that this is operating in jurisdictions around Australia and that employers already need to make provision for long service leave, we do not anticipate there will be significant adverse consequences.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just bearing in mind that there is an amendment that deals with the timing and the Attorney's contribution around the consultation that has taken place already, is it fair from the Attorney's perspective to say that there are no surprises here in terms of the timeframe or, indeed, the ability to set up for this given that it has been on the cards now for two years as something that is coming, so stakeholders have been made aware of the relevant timeframes that we have spoken of?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. We have been quite open about our intended timeframes, if we can get there, as we traversed a couple of questions ago. I do not think this is a surprise given this has gone over two election cycles as a commitment by a Labor government and a Labor opposition.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Is the Attorney concerned at all about any potential perverse outcomes of the bill when it comes to the practicalities of the scheme? For example, is there a concern that employers, when faced with a decision to employ someone who has worked for, say, two years within the sector or someone who has worked in the sector for five to six years, may be far less inclined to employ the latter due to the potential added costs of backfilling that person's portable long service leave?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Just to be clear on the question, is the question: are we concerned someone who is getting close to getting to seven years across various employers in the sector might be discriminated against or not employed in favour of someone who has worked fewer years?

The Hon. N.J. Centofanti: Yes, disadvantaged because of the backfilling.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think the answer is—and, again, I am happy to come back if there is any further information I can provide—employers pay into that central fund like they do in the construction industry. So whether you have worked for five or six years and are getting closer or one or two years, it is in a central fund. Once someone clicks over the seven years, even if it is for three or four employers, it is not that current employer who then has to pay the whole lot, because it has been paid into a central fund as they have accrued it over the years.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Perhaps a better question is: who is responsible then for funding the additional employment that is required to backfill the portable long service leave in the designated sector? If someone goes on long service leave, and you have a business, who then pays for the employment of someone else?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I think I understand, and I think the answer to the question is: the person who is taking the long service leave has that entitlement paid out of what has been accrued into that central fund, so if there is an employer paying for someone else, they are not paying the long service leave while the person is away. They will be paying the ordinary wage to someone else that they would ordinarily be paying to them if it is a new person who has been brought in.

It is not the employer at the time who is paying the long service leave while they are away, that comes from the central fund that has accrued the whole time. The employer that the honourable member is talking about, as I am advised, is only paying that one wage. They are not paying the long service leave while the person is away because that comes from the central fund. They are only paying that one wage for the person who is being backfilled.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Going back to my original question: if you have someone who has been in the sector for two years versus someone who has been in the sector for five to six years, do you not see that there might be a discrimination to employ the person who has been there for two years because you are not going to have to pay for that backfilling when they go on long service leave?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I understand the honourable member's question. I do not think that is the case because, as I have said, the payment for that person while they are taking long service comes from the central fund. It does not come from the employer at the time. That employer at the time is either going to be paying for the person who has been there for the seven years if they are not taking long service leave or, if they do, they are going to be paying for the one person who is backfilling them. There is no-one being discriminated against in the example that has been given because the employer is only paying once for that person, whether that person is taking money from the central fund or—

The Hon. N.J. Centofanti: But they will not be paying for that person for five years as opposed to, say, one year?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am not quite sure I understand.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No-one is being double charged.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: From a cash flow point of view—

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: It is just one wage.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I am talking about the backfilling of that wage.

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: It is the same wage.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Maybe if I can explain. Someone has worked for five or six different employers over a seven-year period. They come up to their entitlement for long service leave. That long service leave entitlement is not paid by the employer who has the last parcel that they are opening, it comes from the money that has been put in by those five or six employers over those seven years. If that person who is working takes long service leave, is being paid for long service leave, that payment is coming from what has been accrued centrally in the scheme.

That is not coming from that one individual employer. While that person is taking long service leave, that one individual employer is not paying them their long service leave. That is coming from the central scheme. They are only paying one wage to whoever is backfilling them, and they are not paying that long service leave.

The Hon. N.J. Centofanti: They are still paying the one wage.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Yes, but if the person did not take long service leave, you would be paying that wage anyway. If this scheme was not in effect, and the person was not taking long service leave, you would be paying that wage anyway. You are still paying that one wage.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 6 passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: On what grounds can an employer apply for delayed participation in the scheme?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: It does not specify grounds. It leaves that discretion to the board. But an example, and certainly this has come up during consultations, is if there is a particular employer who is towards the end of a contract funding cycle from wherever they get their funding and there is one year to go, they can make an application to the board to ask, 'Can we delay it for that one year so we can include that in negotiations for a new funding cycle?' That is the sort of example that during consultation has been suggested, which is why we have given discretion in that clause for the board to do that. There is no set criteria but that is certainly an example that has come up and why that clause is in there.

Clause passed.

Clauses 8 to 33 passed.

Clause 34.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: What power does the board have to effect a refund to an employer if an employee is mistakenly registered as a designated worker?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is if a board is satisfied that a person has been incorrectly registered as a designated worker, the board may, in accordance with the policy that the board adopts, cancel that service and take such action as the board considers appropriate. That could include, for example, refunding anything that has been paid.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: In regard to the board, how is the board appointed and how much will they be paid?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The board is appointed by the minister responsible for the scheme, which is myself as industrial relations minister. Regarding remuneration for the board, I am advised that there is a cabinet circular used in determining remuneration that will be used in determining this remuneration.

Clause passed.

Clauses 35 to 40 passed.

The CHAIR: I advise the committee that clauses 41 to 45 being money clauses are in erased type. Standing order 298 provides that no questions shall be put in committee upon any such clause. A message transmitting the bill to the House of Assembly is required to indicate that these clauses are deemed necessary to the bill. These clauses are money clauses, so I will not put the question on those clauses.

Clauses 46 and 47 passed.

The CHAIR: Clauses 48 to 53 are money clauses, so no question will be put on those clauses.

Clauses 54 to 56 passed.

Clause 57.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: In regard to self-employed contractors and working directors, how will the scheme work from that perspective, and does the government foresee this applying within the community services sector? If you are self-employed or a contractor, how will this scheme work for the purpose of the community services sector?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that, similar to the scheme that applies in the construction industry, it allows for such people to register for the scheme, although they do not have to be, but provides that ability to do so.

Clause passed.

Clauses 58 to 63 passed.

Clause 64.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: In what circumstances will the powers of inspection be used? Are there any requirements for early request for information prior to the powers of the inspector coming through into an organisation?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that these are very similar to the powers that apply already for the ability under the construction industry scheme. I am advised that this is in relation to records that are to do with the scheme, not beyond the scheme, so they are the powers confined to things that are to do with the scheme.

Clause passed.

Clauses 65 to 75 passed.

Schedule 1 passed.

Schedule 2.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Franks–1]—

Page 43, after line 18 [Schedule 2, clause 2]—After paragraph (x) insert:

(xa) sexual assault and sexual violence services;

This simply ensures that those workers who are employed in sexual assault and sexual violence services are indeed covered under this portable long service scheme.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: For the record, I indicate my support for the amendment.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I indicated in my second reading summing-up, the government will be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: The opposition are also supportive.

Amendment carried; schedule as amended passed.

Schedule 3.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Girolamo–1]—

Page 45, line 14 [Schedule 3, clause 4]—After 'a day' insert:

(not being a day earlier than 1 July 2026)

This amendment is simply to allow organisations to have more time to be able to prepare by indicating that the commencement of this bill would be no earlier than 1 July 2026. It is fairly clear from the majority of organisations that they are gravely concerned about the timing of this and would like additional time to be able to set up systems and to ensure they are set up for success going forward.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can indicate the government will be opposing this. As indicated before, we have been very clear for quite some time about our proposed timelines pending the recommendations from the board—that they are achievable. This already applies in a number of other jurisdictions: Queensland, Victoria and the ACT. Many organisations span some of those jurisdictions as well. As has been pointed out, this has been an election commitment over two electoral cycles for the Labor Party, when previously in government and when in opposition. I do not think this comes as any surprise to people in the sector.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 8

Noes 12

Majority 4

AYES

NOES

Amendment thus negatived; schedule passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (18:22): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.