HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-06-17 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Labour Hire Licensing (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (16:11): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Labour Hire Licensing (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2020 amends the Labour Hire Licensing Act 2017, which hereafter I will refer to as 'the act', introduced by the former government. Following consultation with various stakeholders and members of the parliament, the bill I introduce here proposes amendments to narrow the scope of the scheme to target vulnerable workers in high-risk industries, which have been consistently identified in government reports.

The act currently requires anyone who provides labour hire in South Australia to be licensed; however, since the commencement of the licensing scheme, the government has received numerous complaints about the scheme's broad scope and application. Numerous submissions have been made, including from industry representative groups and small businesses, outlining their confusion, angst and concern in relation to the scheme.

Following a review of the submissions, it became apparent that the licensing scheme applies to a range of businesses that were not intended to be captured, as opposed to focusing on the exploitation of vulnerable workers in high-risk industries. These laws create an unnecessary layer of red tape for a number of industries well and truly beyond what is reasonably required. Some examples of the businesses that are currently captured but would not be under the revised bill include:

IT consultants being outsourced to various businesses;

dental labour hire businesses providing hygienists, dentists and receptionists;

legal firms engaging in labour hire by providing legal practitioners to work with other businesses as in-house counsel or barristers being sent to work for various clients;

universities sending academic staff to other educational institutions, as well as medical professionals being sent to act as lecturers at universities; and

church ministers being sent to other parishes where the resident minister is unavailable.

Accordingly, we now seek amendments to narrow the scope of the scheme to ensure that these laws apply specifically to labour hire providers operating within high-risk industries where workers are more vulnerable to exploitation, rather than capturing industries where there is no suggestion of worker exploitation occurring.

The industries prescribed arise from findings from the Migrant Workers' Taskforce, the Harvest Trail Inquiry, and the Victorian Inquiry into the Labour Hire Industry and Insecure Work. Consistent with work identified as high-risk, the bill proposes that the following be prescribed work for the purposes of the licensing scheme: horticultural processing work, meaning a variety of activities relating to the production or processing of fruit, vegetables, flowers and nuts, which includes berries, grapes and vines; secondly, meat processing work; thirdly, seafood processing work; fourthly, cleaning work; and, fifthly, trolley work.

The bill has also been improved following amendments from SA-Best that were incorporated into this version of the bill. I thank the Hon. Connie Bonaros MLC, in particular, for her thoughtful and considered approach to this issue. The effect of her changes means that new industries and activities under prescribed work can be done by regulation so that the government can swiftly address instances of worker exploitation that arise. Other amendments include:

prescribing specific work activities focusing on low-skilled work within the prescribed high-risk industries;

excluding in-house employees where individuals are engaged on a regular and systematic basis, to avoid capturing genuine employee arrangements rather than labour hire work arrangements;

removing all imprisonment penalties;

requiring labour hire providers to disclose certain information to their workers;

refining prescribed information that is required annually to focus on information relevant to compliance;

differentiating between licensees and responsible persons when considering whether a person is fit and proper (in relation to insolvency);

an evidentiary provision in relation to proceedings for an offence against the act, where an individual supplied by a provider is deemed to be a labour hire worker in the absence of proof to the contrary; and

better aligning annual reporting periods and payment of periodic fees with existing legislation administered by CBS.

The SA Labour Hire Taskforce that was recommended by the Economic and Finance Committee continues to meet regularly and comprises representatives of the Australian Taxation Office, SafeWork SA, ReturnToWorkSA, RevenueSA, Australian Border Force and Consumer and Business Services. The task force is supportive of the proposed amendments and the industry-specific approach. The government anticipates that these amendments will align closely with the future introduction of a national scheme and will enhance protections for our most vulnerable workers.

As I have said in the house in the past, if we see that reform is needed we will advance it in our state. We do not always wait for the national agenda, which sometimes moves at a glacial pace. We consider that these matters need to be clear for the implementation now and not inadvertently capture parties that have been referred to.

I stress to the house that the government intends to implement these reforms as soon as possible to avoid businesses that will no longer be required to be licensed having to pay the periodic annual fee for the forthcoming year. Small businesses that do not need to be licensed should not be subject to these fees, especially during these challenging times due to COVID-19. In the circumstances, I commend the bill to the house and seek leave to have the explanation of clauses inserted in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

Explanation of Clauses

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Short title

2—Commencement

3—Amendment provisions

These clauses are formal.

Part 2—Amendment of Labour Hire Licensing Act 2017

4—Amendment of section 6—Interpretation

This clause amends section 6 of the Act as follows:

the definitions of labour hire services and labour hire worker are defined consequential on the amendments in clause 5 which substitutes the definitions currently in sections 7 and 8 of the Act;

a new definition of prescribed work is defined as cleaning work, horticultural processing work, meat processing work, seafood processing work and trolley work;

definitions of cleaning work, horticultural processing work, meat processing work, seafood processing work and trolley work are inserted.

5—Substitution of sections 7, 8 and 9

This clause substitutes sections 7 and 8 which provide for the definitions of labour hire services and labour hire worker respectively.

7—Meaning of labour hire services

This clause provides a broad starting point in subclause (1) for the definition of labour hire services in that a person provides labour hire services if—

in the course of conducting a business the person supplies, to another person (the host), an individual to undertake work; and

the individual is a labour hire worker for the person (the definition of labour hire worker is in proposed section 8).

However, the definition in subclause (1) is then narrowed by the exclusions in subclause (2). Subclause (2) provides that a person does not provide labour hire services in the following circumstances:

where an individual is supplied to a host to undertake work that is not undertaken as part of a business or commercial undertaking of the host;

where an individual is supplied to undertake work that is not prescribed work;

any other circumstances prescribed by the regulations.

Subclause (3) provides clarification on circumstances that might otherwise give rise to ambiguity.

8—Meaning of labour hire worker

This clause provides the definition of labour hire worker in subclause (1). An individual is a labour hire worker for another person if the individual enters into an arrangement with the other person under which—

the other person may from time to time supply, to a third person, the individual to undertake work; and

the other person is obliged to pay the individual, in whole or part, for the work (whether directly or indirectly through 1 or more intermediaries).

Subclause (2) then excludes the following from the definition—

an individual who is an in-house employee of the other person and is only supplied to a third person to do work on a temporary basis; and

an individual or a class of person prescribed by the regulations.

Under subclause (3), an individual is an in-house employee of another person if—

the individual is engaged as an employee by the other person on a regular and systematic basis; and

in the circumstances of the case, it is reasonable to expect that the employment will continue; and

the individual primarily performs work for the other person other than as a worker supplied to a third person to do work for the third person.

9—Meaning of supply

This clause includes a new provision that qualifies the concept of supply of an individual to undertake work for the purposes of the Act. Proposed section 9 provides that an individual is not supplied by a person (the first person) to undertake work for another person (the second person) where the 2 persons have entered into a contract for the performance of the work by the first person and the individual undertakes the work for and on behalf of the first person as an employee, agent or independent contractor of the first person.

This proposed new section also retains the current provision providing that the supply of a labour hire worker to do work for a person commences when the labour hire worker first starts to do work for the person in relation to the supply.

6—Amendment of section 10—Fit and proper person

Currently, section 10 of the Act provides that a person is a fit and proper person to be a responsible person if they are a fit and proper person to be the holder of a licence. This clause amends section 10 to separate the question of whether a person is a fit and proper person to be a responsible person. Specifically, this clause provides that a person is not a fit and proper person to be a responsible person if the person—

has been found guilty or convicted of an offence, or an offence of a class, prescribed by the regulations; or

is a member of, or a participant in, a prescribed organisation; or

is a close associate of a person who is a member of a prescribed organisation or is subject to a control order under the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act 2008.

7—Amendment of section 11—Licence required to provide labour hire services

This clause amends section 11 of the Act to remove the maximum penalty of imprisonment for 3 years that currently applies for the offence.

8—Amendment of section 12—Person must not enter into arrangements with unlicensed providers

This clause amends section 12 of the Act to remove the maximum penalty of imprisonment for 3 years that currently applies for the offence.

A further amendment makes it clear that the offence of entering into an arrangement for the provision of labour hire services where the person providing the services is not authorised by a licence to do so applies, without limitation, to a person irrespective of whether the person is—

the person to whom the labour hire services are to be provided under the arrangement; or

entering into the arrangement as an agent or intermediary of the person providing the labour hire services under the arrangement; or

the person providing the labour hire services under the arrangement.

9—Amendment of section 13—Person must not enter into avoidance arrangements

This clause amends section 13 of the Act to remove the maximum penalty of imprisonment for 3 years that currently applies for the offence.

This clause also inserts the words 'an individual to undertake work' consequential on the removal of the definition of worker by clause 5.

10—Amendment of section 14—Persons must report avoidance arrangements

This clause amends section 14 of the Act to insert the words 'an individual to undertake work' consequential on the removal of the definition of worker by clause 5.

11—Insertion of section 14A

This clause inserts a new section 14A which provides that the holder of a licence who supplies a labour hire worker to a host to undertake work, and any agent or intermediary who acts in respect of that supply, must, before the labour hire worker is supplied, take all reasonable steps to ensure that the host is provided with specified licence particulars (being particulars current at the time of their provision). Those particulars are the name and contact details of the holder of the licence, the name and contact details of each responsible person for the licence and the licence number.

12—Amendment of section 18—Conditions of licence

This clause amends section 18 of the Act to provide a mandatory condition for each licence, being a condition that the holder of the licence must comply with the requirements prescribed by the regulations for the provision of information to labour hire workers by persons who provide labour hire services. A penalty of a maximum fine of $4,000 for non-compliance with the new mandatory condition is proposed and an offence is expiable with an expiation fee of $300.

13—Amendment of section 19—Prohibition on licence transfer, sale etc

This clause amends section 19 of the Act to remove the maximum penalty of imprisonment for 1 year that currently applies for the offence.

14—Amendment of section 20—Duration of licence, periodic fee and report

Under section 20(2) as amended by this clause, the holder of a licence will be required to pay a prescribed fee, and to lodge a report with the Commissioner, at intervals prescribed by regulation. A new definition of reporting period is also inserted by this clause.

15—Amendment of section 21—Notification of certain changes in circumstances

This clause amends section 21 of the Act consequential on the new definition of labour hire worker inserted by clause 5.

16—Amendment of section 34—Authorised officers

This clause amends section 34 of the Act to provide that an authorised officer under the Fair Trading Act 1987 is taken to be an authorised officer appointed under the section.

17—Amendment of section 41—Evidentiary provisions

This clause inserts an additional evidentiary provision so that, in proceedings for an offence against this Act, where it is proven that a person, in the course of conducting a business, supplied an individual to another person to undertake work, it will be presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that the individual is a labour hire worker for the person making the supply.

Ms HILDYARD (Reynell) (16:18): I indicate that I am the lead speaker for the opposition and I rise to speak on this labour hire licensing bill introduced by the Liberal government for what seems to be the umpteenth time, a bill that follows a shameful attempt to destroy protections for labour hire workers altogether, workers who need our support, not to have their rights and protections extinguished in the name of red-tape reductions.

This Liberal government first tried to completely destroy the hard-won labour hire laws in South Australia in 2018. As such, we know what their true intentions are in this area. Their only goal is to dismantle and destroy protections for labour hire workers. Workers engaged through labour hire are often low paid and are almost always in insecure work. They are workers who need us and who need laws to ensure that they are treated with dignity and respect and able to work free of exploitation.

After the 2018 repeal bill was rightly rejected by the parliament, this government came back with a proposal to sever the vast bulk of the law with their 2019 amendment bill. After proroguing the parliament, this was one of the first bills that this government brought back to the parliament on 20 February this year, a move that speaks to this government's priorities and to the lack of regard that they give to hardworking South Australians engaged in insecure work.

The 2020 version of the bill includes some small concessions based on amendments proposed by SA-Best to secure its passage through the other place. Despite these small concessions, the 2020 bill still attempts to completely gut this critical legislation. Despite this government's clear commitment to killing off labour hire laws, it still took them four months to move it through the other place. This is reflective of their casual approach to legislation and of the deep suspicion that is afforded to them when they attempt to repeal protections for workers.

Having debated this matter literally for three years in a row, the opposition did not think there was much else to add. However, the COVID-19 crisis has created an alarming level of unemployment, underemployment and job insecurity, a situation that is incumbent on us to consider for those South Australian families who rely on a labour hire worker's wage. When the government drafted this bill, they did so with the wording that labour laws should only apply to vulnerable workers who undertake low-skilled work in high-risk sectors. Vulnerability, low skill and high risk is simply a hat trick of terms to narrow the scope and avoid providing critical protection to workers who deserve that protection.

I am pleased to report that in the other place the government's proposed changes to the objects and principles were defeated. In debating that clause, the Treasurer was not able to explain who vulnerable workers were, what a high-risk sector was or what low-skilled work was. The Treasurer could not explain why the objects should be changed and the other place reasonably rejected the government's proposal.

The irony here in relation to the objects and principles, along with other parts of the legislation, is that the words were written before the labour market underwent a major contraction due to COVID-19. Despite the government using the word 'unprecedented' an unprecedented number of times in recent months, they have done nothing to review this bill in light of the unprecedented emergency with which we now grapple. We saw growing industrial challenges before this bill emerged: unpaid superannuation, wage theft and unregulated work in the gig economy were just the beginning.

In the post COVID-19 environment with less employment and greater competition for scarce jobs, we may have swathes of new vulnerable workers, yet this government has not touched on the incredibly short list of workers who would be covered by this bill nor understood who they are. Based on a few reports, some dating back to 2016, the government cherrypicked a tiny list of occupations that would be covered in this legislation. These include cleaning, meat processing, seafood processing and horticulture work. A number of these workers would not welcome at all the government describing their work as 'low skilled' and nor should they.

Despite this government's antiworker approach, low paid does not mean low value or low skilled; it is offensive to deem it as such. More than ever, our community rightly sees and appreciates the deep value of a range of professions, including cleaning. They are amongst those who have kept us safe in our hospitals, schools and in the broader community throughout this COVID-19 crisis. As Malcolm Turnbull once observed, 'There are cab drivers out there who work harder than prime ministers.' I say there are many horticultural and other workers whose incredible skill and dedication make a difference in communities and regional economies across our state.

Without pre-empting the entirety of the committee stage, Labor strongly objects to narrowing the scope of labour hire laws; laws that need and should have a broad scope in order to protect the greatest number of workers engaged in this way. Reasonable people would expect labour hire laws to apply where labour hire practices are applied, and not in a tiny subset of this area. In support of this approach, Labor moved two groups of amendments in the other place. We will not move them again here but our views and the views of workers and their unions are a matter of record.

I also note that the Wine Industry Association supports Labor's approach. They wrote to the opposition to advocate for a level playing field across industries, and I think they object to the government describing them as high risk. They do not believe that the government should make assumptions about a small number of industries and subject them to reputational damage and higher standards when less reputable industries are exempt.

Winemakers produce one of our most recognised and lucrative exports, and by virtue of their link to horticultural work the government has tried to brand them as vulnerable, low skilled and high risk. This is an affront to an industry that we have fostered for more than 100 years. The Labor Party supports flexibility and productivity in our workplaces because this boosts jobs and wages but, unlike this government, the Labor Party deeply understands that flexibility and productivity can and absolutely must go hand in hand with decent minimum standards and basic positive legal protections. Without these standards and protections labour hire workers, their families and communities suffer; suffering and insecurity we will always stand against.

The opposition would prefer the three-year odyssey of the bill to end with its defeat or at least its substantial amendment. Workers deserve so much better than this bill. Employers who do the right thing deserve better than this bill. Nobody wins in a race to the bottom. The opposition opposes the bill.

Mr BROWN (Playford) (16:27): I rise to oppose this legislation, as I did the last time we saw the bill in this chamber. I think it is now a well-established matter of public record that a number of serious problems have arisen in the labour hire industry over the last few years. Various select committees and other investigative looks at the industry have found some harrowing tales, such as workers being pressured to provide sexual favours, many workers being underpaid and many workers who have come in from overseas being completely exploited by employers.

It was in the context of these allegations and other things being raised that the previous government sought to bring an element of regulation to the industry, which I think was sorely needed. All of us in this place have heard stories of people being exploited in this sector. As I said previously the last time I spoke on this legislation, I think one of the biggest concerns about the approach the government has taken of completely deregulating this sector means that not only workers do not have protection but also people seeking to do the right thing—who are actually employers in the sector—can be undercut by those people who are exploiting workers. I think that is also quite shameful.

It is sad that the government has not taken on board the will of the parliament to defeat this legislation and has, in a very bloody-minded way, gone forward to try to achieve what it wants to do in this area. It is vital that this parliament stands up for those people who work in the sector, that it stands up for those small businesses that are trying to do the right thing and that those of us in this place do the right thing by the people of South Australia and oppose the bill.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (16:29): I thank members for the contributions made. Whilst I appreciate the opposition's position on maintaining a very broad brush in the application, I just wish to place on the record as a matter of correction that the South Australian Wine Industry Association Incorporated in fact wrote on 14 November 2019, and I quote, as follows:

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 regards 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 goes on to write:

We have also advised other parties in writing, including the opposition, of SAWIA's position.

Clearly, they did not wish to be incorporated in the unreasonable application of a provision which, frankly, under the Labor amendments, if they ever got up, would have been a nightmare for them. I just place that on the record.

Notwithstanding all that, I respect the opposition's position generally, that they wanted to legislate across the board. You would have to go along and beg to opt out, really, rather than actually have clearly identified nationally and across the board and with continued consultation in South Australia these key areas which we need to progress and provide the protection for. They have not identified the use of labour hire workforce. They have not identified the level of vulnerability. They have not identified the level of risk.

We on this side of the house want to make sure that we progress this legislation today to ensure, it having been comprehensively debated in the other place, that we have a framework by which we can relieve those who have been inappropriately captured and, if necessary, give them a refund. I think it is something like a $1,800 fee to be registered under this program. I just find it extraordinary to think that we would want to make many of these small businesses sign up to this further red-tape process when they are not even in an industry of risk.

We want to be able to give them relief, but we certainly want to be able to make sure that those who are not captured are not having to sign up and pay these sorts of moneys. It is the will of the government that the parliament address this matter today. There has not been any identified objection of that from the opposition. I thank them also for progressing that today for that purpose. With those words, I commend the bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The CHAIR: We are in committee on the Labour Hire Licensing (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2020. There are four clauses, the schedule and the title for the committee to consider. Can we have an indication from the opposition in regard to their first question? Is that in relation to clause 1?

Ms HILDYARD: Yes. I have just some broad questions, first of all, about consultation and data. Which labour hire workers were consulted on this bill and what did they say?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: There was not specific consultation with labour hire workers themselves but with the industry associations. I can confirm that they were the SA Wine Industry Association; the Recruitment, Consulting and Staffing Association; the Australian Industry Group (the AI Group); Primary Industries and Regions SA; Self Insurers of South Australia; and AUSVEG.

If the member has not already had it brought to her attention, I reiterated in the second reading that a number of reports were reviewed for the purposes of relying on the areas of industry that were clearly identified as at risk. What is very important about those reports is that they actually interviewed not just associations but employees as labour hire workers who are vulnerable and who have told them their stories. As a result of that, reports which were very comprehensive, including the Migrant Workers' Taskforce, made their recommendations that it should be a national scheme and what areas were at risk, and we have translated those into our bill.

I urge the member to look at the Victorian Inquiry into the Labour Hire Industry and Insecure Work report released in October 2016. Again, they have highlighted areas such as horticultural, meat and cleaning industries, which suggests that there was a significant focus on the Fair Work Ombudsman's need to focus on compliance activities as to payment. They are a couple. I referred to some others in the second reading speech that deal with that, but I think we have a very clear picture of repeated areas of risk, and we accept that.

In addition to that, during the development of the bill I had the opportunity to meet with the member for Cheltenham in his previous life as the—was it the director of SA Unions? Whatever it was, he was the boss of SA Unions.

Mr Szakacs: You've called me worse.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have called you worse. Whatever, he was obviously the lead advocate, I think, on behalf of the umbrella body for unions in South Australia. I remember we had a long conversation about areas of risk and concerns that he brought to that debate. So I think we have heard from people who have had direct involvement in unions who have represented industries where there may be some risk in the use of labour hire employees, and we have very comprehensive case studies to be the foundation of the recommendations in these very comprehensive reports. I am also advised an additional communication to all labour hire providers has been sent.

Ms HILDYARD: Attorney, I have heard about the reports, but what data specifically was used to justify the proposed changes made through this bill?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I cannot think of any immediate data. As I said, I had a conversation most relevant outside of the reports, which I think were compelling. We did not take issue with those areas. We thought that these reports were deemed to be spot on, they had been thoroughly investigated and would identify there was a major area of vulnerability and risk. We accepted that, so we did not look for other data from the areas of vulnerability.

In relation to the application of the implementation of that, we had meetings with Mr Soulio. As the head of Consumer and Business Services, he was responsible for the management of this new scheme. We received reports from concerned stakeholders to Mr Soulio and myself. They had complained, for example, of conversations they had with the former attorney-general that gave sympathetic indications that they did not really intend to be captured but then they were.

Obviously, we heard the plaintive cries of people who had to sign up to a scheme designed to protect certain industry workers where labour hire agencies' workforce was used, and suddenly they are stuck in it. As to data, I do not understand the question other than to tell you what we have relied on in that regard. I think I asked the member for Cheltenham a number of times whether he had any case studies. This was before the legislation was made. He referred to a Four Corners program, but otherwise I did not—

Ms Hildyard interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am simply making the point that I think we had positive indications from the former attorney-general, when this bill was originally debated, that there would be an opportunity to listen to industries, to be able to identify if they were to be carved out, and it did not happen. Unsurprisingly, a number of these people were saying to the CBS, and to the commissioner in particular, that they were looking for some relief.

In any event, as a parliament, it has been comprehensively traversed in the other place. I think we have hit on the most vulnerable and I would urge the parliament to get on with making sure that we provide the protections for them in this bill as promptly as possible.

Ms HILDYARD: Attorney, were there any functions of the act that were not operating as intended, and if so, were these not operating as intended because the act was intentionally not being enforced?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think the member is aware that the commissioner identified a period in which he had said he would consider what was progressing in the parliament under the new government but then identified a date on which he would get on with it. I am advised there has been a time line of events. The act commenced 1 March 2018; obviously, that was a few days before state election. The original compliance date was 1 September, and then on 14 June 2019, after a huge number of concerns were raised about the legislation, he commenced accepting and granting labour hire applications.

What we have to do now is work through and, if this bill is passed, see who may be eligible for a partial refund if they have been caught up in this. The commissioner also has other applications waiting to be processed and they may no longer need to be. I think the commissioner has done as responsibly as he can to identify a law that has been commenced. He understood there was some reconsideration by the parliament.

The commissioner has already collected some money. As I said, some might be eligible for a partial refund and new applications may not need to be processed, but it is my understanding that the new applications that do need to be processed required completion by 31 December 2019. As I understand it, there has been compliance with that time line.

Mr SZAKACS: Attorney, you have previously commented about a task force that you were seeking advice from. That was first mentioned in your public comments signalling your intention as Attorney to repeal the existing act. Have you sought advice from that task force for the purposes of this bill? Is that task force still meeting and who are the participants in that task force?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I refer the member to my speech I just made in introducing the bill which confirmed that the SA labour hire task force has continued. That was a recommendation of the Economic and Finance Committee. It comprises the Australian Taxation Office, SafeWork SA, ReturnToWorkSA, RevenueSA, Australian Border Force, and Consumer and Business Services. I think the commissioner chairs it, from memory, and they meet at a minimum every six weeks.

Mr SZAKACS: I take this as question 1.1 with your indulgence. Have you sought advice from—

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Cowdrey): I am not sure you have the authority to pre-empt the Chair's judgement.

Mr SZAKACS: It is going to be a long day. Attorney, did you seek advice from the task force in relation to this bill?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes. Again, I refer to what I have just indicated to the parliament, and that is that I have, and the task force is supportive. I also regularly meet with Mr Soulio, as commissioner, and he brings me up to date with any other advances. Yes, they support the amendments which were designed to become an industry-specific approach.

Mr SZAKACS: Attorney, has the task force, in its advice to you in respect of this bill, identified any other inadequacies in other legislation that would better be used to protect or enforce the rights of workers in vulnerable states in the industries captured by this bill? For example, have they advised any inadequacies or otherwise in the Fair Work Act or other pieces of legislation that deal with wage theft, workplace health and safety, work health and safety otherwise?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: They have not expressed any particular view in relation to that. However, in a number of the consultations I have had with members of parliament in the presence of Mr Soulio, the commissioner, firstly, other industry sectors have been raised. I think the commissioner has identified that there is a regime of regulation over them. For example, the aged-care sector, a highly regulated sector which provides services to aged persons, explained how that works. In the course of that, we have canvassed various processes through Fair Work. We even touched on the wage theft inquiry which is proceeding in this house. I do not think it has yet finalised its recommendations.

But to this extent, an area such as hospitality was raised in the consultation. What has been highlighted is that, whilst it is an area that does not use labour hire services, underpayment of wages has been an issue. That is comprehensively dealt with, by and large, by Fair Work. I think I had occasion to commend the processes in relation to underpayment of wages in the state system at SAET as being a process through which we have had happy satisfied customers after being able to promptly have their disputes resolved.

I am not sure that Fair Work, as a national body, is as efficient as what we provide in the state scheme, but then I was a strong opponent of the transfer of all those matters going to a national scheme and I remain so. I think we provide an excellent service of dispute resolution in South Australia, and to go to a clumsy Canberra option, frankly, is never something I have been all that overjoyed with. Even the former attorney and I agreed a few times on how those transfers were not necessarily in the interests of a smaller state, especially if you are a long way from Canberra, but I can only indicate in the context of those that have been raised.

Some industries have been raised in consultation. The commissioner has given his view and identified areas of regulation that they are currently subject to. He has usually excluded them as being a user of labour hire as a peripheral nature. Who resolves those disputes has been canvassed in those consultations.

Mr SZAKACS: It is heartening to hear your view that I share about the clumsiness of Canberra bureaucracy. I trust that you will use your particularly persuasive ability within cabinet to lobby for greater funding for SafeWork SA and the inspectorate here.

Attorney, I have a final question on this clause. In November 2019, in announcing your task force, amongst other matters you said the task force would be focusing on 'protecting vulnerable workers by sharing data that would more effectively identify, and potentially prosecute, those unscrupulous operators'. Have any referrals for prosecution arisen from the work that the task force has undertaken to date?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: During the times I met with Mr Soulio, who chairs this task force, on the occasions that we have discussed it he identified where a case has been referred. I cannot recall specifically what they were. They are not necessarily in the category of labour hire either. In other words, it may be a concern that is raised, but it turns out not to be within the charter of what they have received. I could probably get that information for the member.

I suppose it goes to the argument that was raised historically that there was no need for a national scheme, or things as comprehensive as had previously been introduced by the former government, because we already have processes to make sure that we protect the workforce in workplaces—a number of these agencies have a direct role in that regard—and we do not need a national scheme.

Having got over that issue, we tailored this bill to be for specific industries and, from time to time, he has advised me. I could not tell you specifically what action had been taken on those. For example, at the meeting, SafeWork SA identifies an area of risk. I usually only read about those things now when I get a Coroner's report that says someone had been locked in a freezer or should have had these sorts of things and they died. You find out about workplace situations that are very concerning. Obviously, the purpose of the Coroner is to then make recommendations. I now get them at the pointy end and sometimes when it is too late.

SafeWork SA is no longer under my remit, as such, as Attorney-General. It has been transferred to the responsibility of the Treasurer, so I do not have direct meetings with them anymore, but I think, as I am advised, they are much improved in their prosecution role, which I think was identified in some terrible circumstances where there had been an abandonment, for example, of a prosecution years after the death. One of them was a very famous one at the Royal Adelaide Hospital site.

From time to time, I was informed much more when that agency was under my remit, but I am advised that there has been some substantial improvement in the prosecution capacity, I suppose, of that agency. There are all sorts of bodies that reviewed it. Mr Lander provided a comprehensive review of that agency. It helps to get them into a state where they can be more useful to the role they have and that is keeping people safe at work.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 and 3 passed.

Clause 4.

Ms HILDYARD: Attorney, what is the reason for only covering these specific areas in the bill?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As per the reports that I have referred to, they have been clearly identified as areas of potential risk and vulnerability.

Ms HILDYARD: Attorney, are there any workers the government can identify who are at risk but will not be covered by this bill?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, I can provide that, and the answer is no.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (5 to 17) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (16:56): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I wish to place on the record my appreciation to the advisers on the matter and members of the committee.

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT