HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2024-09-12 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Portable Long Service Leave Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Heysen, I think you had the call when we last discussed this.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (15:44): That is right. I sought leave, the house was gracious enough to grant it, and here I am. Thank you for your service today, Mr Deputy Speaker. On that note, I was addressing the deliberate structure of the bill so that no-one might be left to say, as I tested the proposition, might it be characterised as a Trojan Horse for the rollout of portable long service leave in other sectors?

Two things should be said about that, neither of which are controversial. One is the bill is deliberately structured to facilitate such further establishments of boards in other sectors. Secondly, the government has given an assurance that there is no plan to use the passage of the bill and the establishment of the structure as the kick-off point for an as yet undisclosed agenda to roll this out to sectors where there has not been a case made or any desire for the implementation of the scheme.

I think I have flagged adequately that there is a real question therefore about assurance in terms of that remaining the case. There is very significant concern that has been expressed in a range of sectors not affected by the passage of the bill, and assurances that they are not going to somehow by stealth get caught up in some broadranging agenda is now very much a question for the government to provide satisfaction on.

Meanwhile, the core point of concern for those within the community services sector the subject of this scheme when it comes into effect is this question of—leaving aside a certain amount of reticence about the scheme itself—the capacity for the sector to respond, hence those calls across the board for the government to provide assurance that it will not come into effect before a considerable amount of lead time has been provided. That can easily be legislated, and that will be a matter for the committee.

I hope I have otherwise adequately identified the process by which the bill has been brought on not just in this place but in the other place just a couple of days ago. While it might be said that the sector was aware of the first iteration of the draft bill back to December last year and that a certain amount of feedback was provided in those following months, the bill in its present form—which comes off the back of 14 pages worth of changes, responses to feedback and so on—has been brought into the parliament really at next to no notice and then it has been jammed through the parliament from start to finish at less than no notice, effectively the subject of a guillotine.

All of that is a recipe for a loss of faith. It is all very well to speak to the choir. It is all very well to say, 'What a great thing we have done for those closest adherents,' but even for those closest adherents who might applaud the outcome there is a collective embarrassment that is at risk where those who have genuine matters to add are not able to do so because of the time that has been allowed, and those who might need persuading about the merits of these things are left saying, 'Our concerns are justified because we have been given hardly a look in in terms of the way in which this legislation has ended up being foisted on the parliament.' So, that by way of foreshadowing what is to come in the committee.

I referred to the debate in 1987 on the establishment of the long service leave building industry bill and what the Liberal opposition at the time described as 'cautious support' for that particular bill. I think it is fair to say that the opposition's attitude to the bill might be characterised in a similar way. 'Cautious' is probably the understatement of the week, in circumstances where we have had not one or two but a dozen different guillotines and now this bill.

Again, it is important to put a few things on the record. Properly, the people of South Australia might expect to be the subject of some thoroughgoing scrutiny. It is a bill that runs to 48 pages, with its operative structure in a variety of schedules that sit off the back of 75 operative clauses. That is all going to have to be dealt with in a committee stage that cannot run for any more than two hours at the absolute most, and it is likely to be down to about an hour and half.

So, that is where we are at and, with that contribution by way of second reading, I look forward to achieving as much as possible that can be achieved in the course of the committee stage.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD (Reynell—Minister for Child Protection, Minister for Women and the Prevention of Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (15:51): I am really, really pleased to speak in wholehearted support of this bill and, in doing so, to speak in support of the thousands of community sector workers who work day in and day out, often year after year, supporting and empowering individuals, families and communities, often at some of their hardest moments.

The workers for whom this bill is being progressed work in domestic violence crisis accommodation, in youth services, in community legal centres, in Aboriginal community-controlled organisations, in women's advocacy organisations, mental health support and in a range of other settings. They are the people who are there when people feel most alone; when people need compassion, love, care and professional support.

These workers are around 85 per cent women. They are often employed on contracts, which may be linked to funding cycles and, despite their incredible campaign through their union, the Australian Services Union, to successfully deliver equal remuneration and much-needed wage increases as a result, their pay remains modest.

I was so very proud to represent these workers for many years. What shone through in every single conversation that I had with these workers over those many years was their unshakable commitment to people, to ensuring people were never alone. In the course of representing those workers I asked so many of them why they did the work they did and every single one of them, unfailingly, said that they did so because they wanted to contribute, because they wanted to make a difference in people's lives, to work with and for people, including at those difficult moments.

A number of these conversations were had with remarkable people who were in this place earlier today. Amongst them that were here this morning I saw Sandra Dunn. Sandra is an extraordinary woman who, for more than 30 years, worked in an earlier iteration of the Women's Safety Services of South Australia. Sandra did that work because she was deeply determined to support and empower women when they had an experience of domestic family or sexual violence. She was always there for those women, walking alongside them, empowering them, making them know that there was a new pathway to walk.

The other thing about Sandra is that she was also always there for her colleagues. As well as doing that incredible work with and for women experiencing violence, she did so much to urge governments and community to know that the work of those in the domestic violence and broader community sector should absolutely be valued and respected in every possible way.

What Sandra and all those workers do with and for people is inspiring and why they do it is remarkable, as has been the campaign that has been run for more than a couple of decades to secure changes to their employment conditions to ensure that these thousands of workers have access to secure jobs which will enable them to continue to do their extraordinary work with continuing compassion with the breaks they need to sustain themselves and their families.

Central to this campaign for improvements in how they are recognised and are able to access security and that ability to stay in the sector is portability of entitlements and, in particular, long service leave entitlements.

That is what this bill rightly delivers. This bill delivers on the Malinauskas government's election commitment to expand our portable long service leave scheme to include those tens of thousands of incredible workers in the community services sector. In doing so, it delivers on what will make a difference to these workers, what will enable them to stay in the sector long term with the entitlements that they absolutely deserve.

This bill means that community services workers will rightly be able to access long service leave based on their total period of service in the sector, not just with one single employer. This recognises that employment in the community sector is so often subject to funding arrangements with workers frequently moving between many different employers during their careers. This bill recognises that community sector workers for too long have never had the chance to access long service leave because they have never been able to stay because of those funding arrangements with the same employer for the required 10 years or more.

It recognises that community sector workers provide absolutely essential support to people in South Australia and that their work can be physically, emotionally and mentally challenging. This sector is overwhelmingly made up of incredible women. This bill ensures that they are able to take that meaningful break during their careers, helping them to recharge and keep doing the incredibly valuable work that they do.

I will not go into the detail of the bill. My colleague and friend the Minister for Human Services has absolutely done that with distinction. What I will do finally is just say thank you to a few people. First of all, I say thank you to the Australian Services Union secretary, Abbie Spencer, and all of the organisers in the union for continuing this long-term campaign and finally getting to this point with such diligence and commitment.

I also want to say an incredible thank you and recognise those ASU workplace representatives. I have spoken about the incredible work that workers in this sector do. It is remarkable. It changes people's lives. What ASU delegates or workplace representatives choose to do alongside that incredible commitment is to also, as well as that leadership in our community, absolutely empower the voice of their co-workers, their colleagues and makes sure they are being heard.

Their leadership in the sector, as well as in the community, is remarkable. It is appreciated and I know it is through the many conversations that they have had in their workplaces that has helped us get to this really important point that we are at today. I say thank you to every delegate who stepped up both in what they do day in, day out and also absolutely as campaigners. This bill is for you and all those people whose collective voice you have strengthened. Thank you so much to all these workers for what you do and for the incredible work through your union and through that collective activity over such a long period of time that has got us to this point.

Thank you very much to the Minister for Human Services for her words and to the Attorney-General and his office for the work they have done to develop this bill and to get us to this point. I know that the Minister for Human Services will progress the rest of the bill in a very capable fashion and I very much look forward to its passing.

Mr ELLIS (Narungga) (16:00): I rise to speak on the Portable Long Service Leave Bill. From the outset, I make the point that it has been quite a difficult week for Independent members of this place to assess the merits of bills as they have been put forward. There have been multiple occasions this week when we have had bills or amendments lobbed on our desks, at best days before but more often hours before they are due to be debated in the parliament, and that has made it an exceedingly difficult thing to consider the merits of the bills and any possible side effects that they might contain.

My normal practice as an Independent member would have been, with more notice, to have a look at the bill, try to gauge my view on it and then take it to the electorate and to people within my electorate who I anticipate might well be impacted one way or the other by this bill to try to survey their thoughts on it and try to get a gauge on what the electorate thinks would be an appropriate way for me to vote when it comes to any particular bill. That has been an impossible task this week, I have to say, on more than one occasion by virtue of the fact that we have not had a great deal of time for a number of different bills and proposals to consider them, let alone take them to the electorate and ask for feedback from different people. So it has been a difficult week for that.

In that vein, I will theoretically be reserving my position—not that it necessarily really matters in this chamber—on the bill on the grounds that I have not had the opportunity to take it to the electorate to consider what they would think of it and what they would expect me to do with it. So I do not necessarily want to put my position on the record one way or the other, but I would like to note a couple of fears that I have after our briefing this morning and a couple of adverse outcomes that I hope are avoided, and I want to make sure that if they are not, they are on the record and the parliament can be considered warned.

The first concern I have is that it seems, by and large, that businesses and organisations that will be affected by this bill are government funded in some way. They might be an NDIS institution or they might be block funded by government to provide a specific service to the community. By and large, I think it is fair to say that most would be an altruistic, government funded or charitable organisation providing a specific service to the community. I suspect that by virtue of that fact and by virtue of the funding that they get, quite a few of these businesses have not had to necessarily plan for any exorbitant long service leave bills or entitlements that have come, just by virtue of the fact that they have been short-term funding models that have had to be renewed year on year.

That will be a significant change for those businesses, having to now submit quarterly reports along those lines, and I will be interested to see where that money comes from, particularly for those entities that are block funded to provide a specific service to the community. Will the levy that has to be paid to this new board come out of that block funding by necessity because that is the only source of funding they have? These are not businesses that draw any alternate income from any other streams. If it does, that is money that could have been used on the ground to provide services and that is now going to pay a board for a theoretical entitlement that may or may not come to fruition.

I hope that is not the case. I hope that we are not stealing from one worthy cause to pay another. I hope we are not taking away from the money that is intended to make its way through to the community to provide these essential services. I hope we are not taking that money to pay for long service leave entitlements. If that is the case, then I hope the government ensures that those funding arrangements are increased to cover that extra cost—because it is not just that cost that might be withdrawn, it is also the cost of the admin that these entities now have to enter into.

Will they have to employ someone else now to do the quarterly returns, keep track of the entitlements and make the submissions, or will it be someone who is qualified to provide on-the-ground community service who is reassigned to complete the admin task and the returns? That would be an adverse outcome too, I suspect, if we had a community service worker who had their time taken up filing quarterly reports for this new board. I think there are some questions about how the costs will be met for this. I hope the government has considered it and I hope that we will not see a reduction in community services to meet the costs of new admin and levy fees that will be in place to fund this service.

I also want to make the point that the creation of a new board to facilitate these changes is, I think, another unnecessary addition to the bureaucracy. Community service providers will submit their quarterly returns to this new board modelled on the construction industry board, and I have to admit—maybe embarrassingly for me—I was not actually aware that the construction industry have portable long service leave until our briefing this very morning, so that was news to me, but it will be modelled on that board. The board will then track long service leave entitlements accrued on behalf of the employee and then, should that employee make the threshold that will trigger it being paid out, they will be responsible for paying out that benefit to that employee.

I suspect with the passage of time, and the continual payment of levies, that this board will end up being charged with the responsibility of quite a bit of money. It will accrue reasonably quickly, I suspect, and there will be a significant amount in the coffers at some point in the not too distant future. At that point, I think it is reasonably foreseeable that this board will come back to government, will come back to this chamber and this parliament and whoever populates it at the time, and they will request more responsibility, more capability. They will say, 'We've got these full coffers, we can do more, we've got more capability. Will you empower us to do more?' Then we will have the continual snowballing and the possibility that we will just continually build on the bureaucracy.

Ostensibly, once that money builds up, we were told this morning, it should result in the reduced levy payments for these businesses and entities, and hopefully that is the case. Hopefully, once it gets to a critical point their assets can match their liabilities, and it might well be there is a zero levy for the entities to pay. I can see a situation where that might occur as well, and we are not just charging for the sake of charging. But I am a bit worried that again it is increased bureaucracy: it is another board, another subcommittee, another working group that this government has formed that will cost us money as taxpayers and perhaps fill a role that might not be necessary or could be filled by someone else.

Finally, the last point I want to make and perhaps the scariest—although 'scariest' might not quite be the right word—is the possibility that this proposal could be rolled out further and further into other industries. The justification that was given to us this morning was that it is so exceedingly difficult to keep staff in the care industry that this would be an incentive for them to stay longer. Even if they changed employer, they would be incentivised to stay within the care industry and provide those wonderful community services.

I think that is a problem across many different industries at the moment. The hospitality industry, for example, has a transient population. Will they be subjected potentially or possibly to a similar sort of scheme? There are other industries where people are struggling to hold on to employees, and this incentive might be rolled out there as well.

If it came to be that this was an extra impost on the private sector, on for-profit businesses, it would be an undesirable thing, and I hope that that is not the case. I hope that this is not the start of something that will be rolled out across our entire economy. So I wanted to raise those couple of points; I do not necessarily do so to outline any opposition to the bill. I have only had a briefing this morning, so it has only been a matter of hours that I have had to consider it.

I certainly am appreciative of all the community service workers that we have in our electorate and the wonderful work they do providing those services to our community. I can only imagine that it is a difficult thing to keep employees in that sector. Once you have them and train them, to lose them before you have had the opportunity to fully realise their benefit would be a devastating thing. If it does result in improved retention of workers and a more highly skilled workforce in that sector it will be a good thing, I suppose. If the board are able to keep those levy fees at the lowest possible rate to cover their liabilities that would be advisable as well. I just wanted to get those few concerns on the record. It will clearly pass this house, and we look forward to seeing if it has the intended benefits.

Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. A. Koutsantonis.

Mr TELFER (Flinders) (16:09): I rise to add a few comments from my perspective on the Portable Long Service Leave Bill 2024. In doing so, I reflect the concerns and comments that have already been put forward by my colleague the member for Narungga on the process that has been followed in the house during this week, and the ability for individual members to be able to fully ascertain and understand the impact of legislation that the government is ramming through, guillotining debate on and, from my perspective, ignoring the ability for communities to be able to have been input on their bill. What do those ramifications actually mean—and to achieve what?

We look at this bill and we know that it was quickly introduced within the Legislative Council only earlier this week, passing there and today coming to us. This is a bill of 75 clauses, a bill of several schedules, and a bill that has had a guillotined timeframe for us to not just consider but debate and to ask questions of the minister on some of these details.

When it comes to portable long service leave, I as a business owner or operator would have concerns about some of the aspects of this as a general concept, because what it means in a point of time for an organisation or a business that is an employer and their long-term financial sustainability should not be underestimated.

We have many questions that I hope we get time to consider in committee, because the ramifications—like I said, not just for now for a point in time but for provider businesses and organisations throughout the years—need to be fully understood. We can have a situation around some of the timeframes of these organisations with long service leave in general obviously being within the name 'long service' and the periods of time that need to be accrued before someone is eligible as an employee to access long service leave.

It may well be seen across several businesses that the concept behind this piece of legislation—and it is an admirable one—is to try to keep the ability to hold employees within a sector for a longer period of time. As in the name itself, 'long service leave' traditionally is about service to an organisation or business for a long period of time, not across a sector. This is why I am cautious when we are considering expanding a concept such as this as a whole.

Consider the potential situation where we have a business that is making contributions to a levy for several years—one, two, five, six, seven years—and the impact and impost on that organisation over a long period of time. That provider may finish up and close, and I am sure another one will come and fill the void that is left by the closing or removal from the sector of that provider organisation.

As has already been mentioned, there is the potential for a reduced levy over time. If it is something that as a fund builds up and accrues, then the need for those funds to be at a certain level will mean that there could be a potential for a reduced levy. What does that mean for those businesses, those organisations that have made contributions in the first two, five, seven years at a potentially higher level compared with an organisation coming into a sector with an established fund that potentially could be contributing a lesser amount to that fund?

These are the dynamics that I certainly have a lot of questions and uncertainties about when considering a bill, as I said, as complicated and complex as one with 75 different clauses. It is not just about a point in time; it is about the sector as a whole and the organisations that employ these individuals throughout this process. Where is the end point for that fund? Where is that tipping point? What is the fulcrum of funds that are going to be needed within that industry fund to be able to fund the long service leave? When is it going to reach a tipping point where potentially there could be a reduced levy, as the member for Narungga has already spoken about?

There is also uncertainty, which I have started to hear. Once again, it is challenging to fully get an understanding from within the sector of the impacts of a bill like this when there is only such a short period of time for us to be considering it. The detail that is in this bill takes a long time for us as individuals, but obviously also for the sector, to get our heads around. We know that there was our original consultation that went out, I believe at the start of the year, and changes that could be made to that original bill, which was then presented.

What is the impact on perhaps some of those big organisations that we may well know, the NGOs, which provide not just disability care but also aged care, for instance? Are they going to be in a scenario where they are running two different, parallel payroll systems: one with a contribution to a portable long service leave fund, such as has been put through in this bill, and one with a traditional payroll arrangement such as they currently have?

What is the burden of administration for these organisations if that is the scenario that we are considering? What is the impact, the flow-on effect, as has really been pointed out by the member for Narungga, the potential flow-on for services that are being delivered? Is this an extra added administrative cost which, in a confined pool of funds, is going to mean that there will be lesser outcomes on the ground? These are the sorts of questions that I hope we can start to unpack a little bit within the committee stage, although we will be limited in the time that we will have to do it.

As I said, as a concept and as a whole, portable long service leave is one that I am very cautious about. Any sort of mind to having this expanded out across industries that are not 100 per cent government funded, or that have other structures in place that small businesses are involved in, could have significant ramifications. This is why I want to put on the record my perspective that I would vehemently oppose any scenario where this sort of scheme for small business that is going to be detrimental to them is considered. The cost pressures currently being faced by business, and especially small business, in this state are already challenging—they are already getting to a point where businesses are being challenged in terms of their long-term sustainability.

I respect the fact that, at the moment, within this Portable Long Service Leave Bill, there is confinement to a point, and there is obviously reference to another industry, which, potentially, with additional legislation, could be included in a structure such as this. This is why I think it is important that we vigorously dissect what the impact is going to be—not just in the short term but, as I said, in the short, medium and long term—on the sustainability of organisations who are providing a service that will be included within this scheme, and then what potential further industry scheme development is being considered by the government.

When we have a situation where we are being given what is a matter of hours to consider a bill, a bill which is substantive and significant and is one where the minister and colleagues have spoken of its advantages—I respect that. Like I said, this is a situation that we are trying to understand fully. It is always my observation that when ministers are putting bills forward they see the advantages absolutely.

The advantage for us as a community and as a state is in having perspectives from all different sides of parliament to dissect bills, to highlight challenges and potential deficiencies, and to highlight where there could be changes in which adjustments could be made to bills that would provide better outcomes for South Australians. That is what this process should be all about. To confine that, which we have seen over a dozen times this week, is distressing.

As someone who values not just democracy but also proper, informed decision-making, I have been somewhat distraught this week at the way that the government has been pushing through. Those on the other side can chuckle all they like, because they may have had the opportunity to understand this legislation. Well, the rest of us have not: the crossbench have not, the opposition have not, and we are all here representing our communities and making sure that we are standing up for those communities and voicing not just concerns but opportunities for those communities. To have the scenario presented to us in this way I believe is watering down that representation. I do not want to take any more time because I want to make sure we have good time to be vigorous in the committee stage and to try to dissect some of these 75 clauses and several schedules which will make a significant change within the industry.

The Hon. N.F. COOK (Hurtle Vale—Minister for Human Services, Minister for Seniors and Ageing Well) (16:19): Thanks to all the members for their thoughtful contributions to the debate in whatever form they have come to me in this chamber. I particularly mention the Minister for Child Protection, the member for Reynell, who has for many, many years campaigned with the community sector on a range of issues. This one is very welcome. I am sure we will deal with additional matters in committee, but I note the opposition raised concerns during the second reading about wanting to have this legislation passed 'pronto'. It is important to pass the legislation soon so we can establish the board that will work with the industry and workers to procure critical systems, establish processes and consider any individual requests for different implementation times.

The minister in the other place responded to the proposed amendment about a delayed start. I do not need to repeat all of the arguments about an amendment that was defeated. I do wish to add that having a not-before date that is almost two years away, as proposed by the opposition, would remove the ability for businesses and workers to benefit if they are ready before that time. In saying that, I notice the legislation provides flexibility for start dates to respond to particular circumstances. To the extent there is any doubt, we will not be commencing any earlier than 1 July 2025.

The opposition has also raised concerns about this being 'a Trojan horse' for further expansion and the risk of expansion by stealth. The shadow minister appears to answer his own questions when he notes the government has clarified there are no plans for expansion at this time. However, I note we are engaging in the first expansion to portable long service leave in more than 40 years and we gave notice of our intention to do this more than six years ago.

I want to reassure the member for Narungga, who always contributes thoughtfully in this place, that all organisations who employ people in the sector should already have long service leave contingencies. If they do not, that is a problem. There will be the benefit of long service leave to thousands and thousands of regional and rural workers for the first time ever. This is really, really important, when we talk about longevity in a system that is very stressful and puts a large burden on people who work and operate within it. Many of the other things the member for Narungga has asked can be simply explained around the procedures of the board and the implementation and delivery and the role of the board, with commentary already around that ability to have an exemption to your start date within the scheme, if that suits, in regard to funding cycles.

Hopefully, if there are any more questions we can provide some clarity. The member for Flinders talked about the levy that is being paid, and if you have paid too much or—I cannot remember the exact words he used. The member for Flinders should be reassured that you are paying the levy into the scheme for your own workers who are registered in the scheme only. Your money does not pay other workers. Your money is for your workers. I am happy to answer other questions about that.

I also want to say that over lunch I managed to have a good chat with Rebecca, who we spoke about in the speech earlier, and the contribution around this particular youth worker who has worked for decades in the sector, currently working with Aboriginal young people, who will benefit and have a decent break paid by long service leave provisions for the first time ever.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr TEAGUE: I will perhaps take the opportunity at clause 1 to foreshadow two overarching questions that I addressed in the course of my second reading contribution. The first is: can the government give a guarantee that it will not move for the establishment of any other board in the term of this parliament, and can the minister give an assurance about the kind of threshold that would satisfy the government in terms of accepting a move to do so from any particular sector?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: We have no policy that talks to expansion at all. We have the commitment as is stated within the legislation around the establishment of the board, and we would not consider any expansion before we have had the scheme up and running for a reasonable length of time and been able to seek feedback from the community. Also, there is a three-year review built into the legislation as well, which will assist with that type of feedback.

Mr TEAGUE: Perhaps just to seek some further assurance in relation to the threshold matter the subject of my first question, the minister might be glad to address this in terms of what has been navigated in terms of the community services sector by way of illustrating the kind of threshold that would satisfy the government and perhaps, by doing so, to give an indication that there is absolutely no remote possibility that this might be rolled out into hospitality or other sectors—shearers have been mentioned at some stage—bearing in mind at the outset that the government has made clear, and it is a sensible point to be understood, that this is framework legislation and therefore it has the capacity to slot in additional boards.

Indeed, the government has made a virtue of the capacity for there to be economies in terms of the secretariat response that has been inherited from construction and so on. As I say, I invite the minister to reflect on the kind of constituent parts that have satisfied the government that it is embarking upon this legislation with the community services sector being the subject sector, and if that provides the means by which to provide assurance that it will not go elsewhere, then that might be a useful way of addressing it.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Again, just to reinforce, we do not have a policy on expansion. We obviously have a commitment to consult and listen, but this is not a scientific bunch of parameters that we are setting or establishing around this particular bill. We have prescribed the cohorts that will be considered within it, and they are absolutely predominantly short-term, contracted, cyclic, low-paid workers.

When we look at what has happened in other states in terms of changes and expansion that may have happened, it again has been those short-term contracted low-paid workers like those in cleaning and security. We have not seen anything like what I think the member is alluding to. With the background of a massive 10-year campaign to actually secure this for this cohort of low-paid short-term contracted workers, this is the result.

Mr TEAGUE: I indicated that there would be two overarching questions, taking the opportunity at clause 1. Those two questions and answers are perhaps the best that we might get for the time being on the guarantee and threshold, if we want to call it that. The second overarching question is in relation to the cost. Obviously, we are moving from a provisioning environment, which is across the board, absent such a scheme. Leaving aside the portability, we are moving to a levy-based environment. That seems to be one of the necessary ingredients of providing portability. There needs to be a means of contributing not just in terms of provisioning, in the main that is.

There are various provisions that will provide for following up and clawback and so on, but in the main we are addressing a new environment that provides for portability by applying a levy-based scheme rather than a provisioning scheme. It might be said by those who have the relevant expertise in accounting that you can apply accounting standards to the provisioning and you can therefore put a realistic monetary value on the provisioning that goes on for long service leave at present.

Those who would promote a portability scheme might, regardless of the portability aspect of it, promote a levy scheme for the reasons that those who are proponents of it might say, 'Actually, that leads to a lower cost burden because of the efficiencies, the management, the investment return, etc.' I am not doing the minister's job or the government's job for it in doing my best to identify broadly the difference between the two. However, while we are seeking guarantees and assurances, can the government give the committee an assurance that the contributions that will now be made in real cash by employers the subject of the scheme will place no greater burden on those employers than what is presently the case?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I did make some comments in my speech in regard to this, and the honourable member in the other chamber has also done that. To give you a simple answer on this, it will be different from one organisation to another as to how they feel in terms of whether that is of benefit or whatever to them. But, at the end of the day it may well be that this actually is less burdensome and less trouble from an administrative point of view.

We will be getting feedback as the scheme rolls out in terms of how that is going. I think you can go down one path to criticise or say that there may be problems, but you can go down the other one to say that there will be organisations that are very grateful for this because it is easier.

Mr TELFER: There are a couple of points that the minister has made in answers to the last questions that I just seek clarification on. Minister, when you were talking about the review or expansion, there is not an intention of the government to expand. You said 'for a reasonable period of time'. A reasonable period of time for me might be different to you. Can you give me some sort of measure point? What would be envisioned to be a reasonable period of time before the government would be considering expansion? Through this process we seek to provide some clarity to our community and industry.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I think when we would take into account and consider that notion of change or expansion, we would want to see this scheme up and running for a number of years and there is a three-year review built into the act, so that is what I would understand to be happening, with consultation happening in between.

Mr TELFER: As a point of clarification, my colleague's third question was quite verbose and uncovered a number of different aspects and there was one critical aspect which he covered at the end that you may not have answered fully: is it the expectation or is there a guarantee that the minister can provide that organisations that have a current financial obligation to long service leave, that that obligation will not be increased with the structures under this arrangement? So the amount that they are having to pay in per employee, or as a whole, is not going to be greater than their current financial obligation for long service leave?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: To keep it brief, this scheme is designed to mirror what is currently in place, in terms of the contributions that are required by employers, but SACOSS also provided us with advice that, in fact, this may be a lower cost than what employers are currently provisioning for.

Mr ELLIS: I would like to take this opportunity to follow on in reply to the closing remarks that the minister gave. It is fair enough that businesses would currently be making an allowance for long service leave entitlements and theoretically have an amount there, but that is different from actually proactively making a payment every quarter. If you are a business and you make an allowance for long service leave and someone departs, you can shift the money that you nominally have set aside for their long service leave entitlements over to a different liability that may arise. If you have paid out that money already to the board there is no getting it back. That is money that has gone. The business has paid out the theoretical entitlement that they have lost forever.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I thank the member for the question, but it is a bit swings and roundabouts. Honestly, there are other things that you need to take into account as well in terms of having that liability on your balance sheet for a long term, but also the cost of recruitment and training of staff. If you do have a scheme in place that has an ability to attract and retain loyal workers within the sector, then that there should be an incentive as well and taken into account when you are considering the large picture financial burden.

Mr McBRIDE: With the 29 service groups that we were presented with this morning when we had our briefing, would the minister recognise that these service groups run under a budget that comes from the state or federal government and there are constraints on budgets and funds to provide the services that they are meant to?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I thank the member for the question. I have made reference to this in my contribution earlier as well. Of course, the government will have to take this into account in future funding cycles. We are aware already that there are obligations within the NDIS to have these provisions for long service leave set aside. I have also written to federal Minister Shorten and asked him to consider this as well as they plan for the future in their payment schemes. We know that we will need to take this into account in future planning.

Mr McBRIDE: If these 29 service groups we were presented with are under a budgetary constraint, does the minister recognise that long service leave is an impost on those services by the fact that if an employee reaches 7 years and then leaves, they are entitled to, and if they work until 10 years they then receive, but under the old provision if an employee only works 4.9 years—not months but 4.9 years—those funds would have stayed within that service group and then it does not have to be paid to a board that you have now created. Is the minister aware of this?

Then I am going to ask the minister, so she is forewarned: what will be the losses made because of this and the funds that are going towards a board that has no bearing on the rollout of the services that these service groups are meant to provide?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Thanks for the question. The current scheme ensures that you set aside money, as you have said, and that money will remain with those businesses or organisations, charities, not-for-profits, PBIs, whatever they are. That currently is already provisioned. That money will stay with them, so you will hold on to that money in order to be able to make the contribution for that pro rata amount of service that is accrued before the rollout of the scheme.

Then, in the future, it is the levy scheme, post that rollout. In the future you then will not have to have that liability on the books. That is the levy that then gets paid from the rollout time into the future. The money that has already been provisioned under long service leave arrangements that has been in place under awards—for, I don't know, since Jesus played fullback for Jerusalem and all the thing—has been in there and that money will remain.

Mr McBRIDE: Minister, you have said yes to my answer in a roundabout way. I know you are being well advised there from someone who works for the Attorney-General to help back you up on this, but I think with the changes that have been imposed here, the minister should know, and with the 29 service providers that have been outlined here, as I have learned this morning, there should be some understanding of the moneys they are now going to lose by paying a levy to a board that covers this long service leave, and if the government had decided not to pursue this, would have stayed with the service group and then those funds would have been rolled out for services that they are meant to provide.

Now, if someone works for 4.9 years—so the first five—actually if you go to nearly seven it is actually 6.9 years—anyway, four does not matter. If they go to 6.9 years, that long service leave entitlement is lost by the employee if they choose to leave the sector, leave these service groups altogether—and I am going to give an example—and want to work in the hotel industry, that long service leave is returned, it sits within the service group or industry that employee worked for, that is lost now because of this infrastructure and board that has been created.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Again, as said before, the current money will sit provisioned. They have obligations under the act to do that already for employees. In the future there is the cut-off date. The levies will be paid, as we have said, over time because the board will then make those financial decisions to invest the moneys paid into those. Over time, we would foresee the levy amount coming down significantly and the estimate would be then that, in fact, it is lower as a burden than the current scheme is on employers.

Mr TELFER: Minister, I seek some clarification. Once again, it comes from a place of not being able as an opposition to go out on any sort of level to consult with organisations that are going to be impacted or involved in this process and thus not fully understanding those potential impacts. I envision there could be a scenario where some of the more significant NGO service providers involved in the sector are actually involved cross-sector. There is a scenario that I can foresee where you have one of these big NGOs involved in delivering services to the disability sector and you have that same NGO, as an organisation as a whole, involved in delivery of services in the aged-care sector, for instance.

Is there a scenario here where there is the potential for simultaneous parallel payroll systems to be in place with one side involved in this portable long service leave scheme and the obvious administrative burden, whether that is lesser or greater, and the other part of the organisation—an established, significant NGO or the like that is involved in the aged-care sector, for instance—having to run their conventional payroll system with the existing leave arrangements that are currently in place and the costs that go with that?

I can foresee there is an opportunity and a risk for those businesses that the administrative burden is potentially going to be greater, because the advantages and the savings that could be made by this scheme coming into place will still have to be in place for the other aspects of that organisation. Is this something you as minister or your department have received any consultation feedback on from these organisations as part of the process and, if so, has there been some sort of understanding about what those financial, operational or administrative impacts could be?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: There are a couple of things in that question—you have wrapped up a few bits—but the short answer to multiple payroll systems is: possibly. The expanded answer on that is that many of these larger organisations that you are talking about already operate across the country and they already operate on multiple payroll systems because the majority of states already have portable long service leave, so they are already working in an ecosystem where there are two different types of long service leave and portable long service leave payments happening: levy versus those others.

In terms of aged care, we consulted on the scope of how to deliver this scheme and we absolutely were advised that we should keep it within this tighter parameter at this point, make sure it is functioning, get the board in place, get the governance in place and get the procedures, the processes and the systems in place, and then within that timeframe we have an opportunity to review up to that three-year point as well when we can actually then consider any different changes in how the community services delivery sector is functioning.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

Mr TEAGUE: So the rubber does not actually hit the road commencement-wise in the most relevant sense until we get to schedule 3 is the proposition. With that, I address this commencement clause. The subject of the amendment is at schedule 3, because that is all about the designated day, which is about the commencement of the scheme itself as opposed to the commencement of the bill. So we have that.

The occasion here at clause 2 to address that question comes off the back of—and if I have misrepresented the minister, then I am sure the minister will correct me—the sentiment from the government of 'look folks, get onboard now; it's happening', which seems to be what the government has been telling the sector, and the second part of that is it is important to pass the bill right now—and this house got that message loud and clear—because there is all this work to do before you can set up the scheme.

I am not in the business of consulting to government about how to communicate with the broader South Australian public but I would suggest that that is a message that might have just been given a bit more time to get out there so that there could be some sort of reassurance in response. For example, this is in the response of NDS SA. In particular, I think the contribution of Janine Lenigas has been recognised in the other place, expressing the concern of NDS albeit it at the draft stage. But as I understand it maintains now—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: It is her job to represent the—

Mr TEAGUE: Yes, sure. So far as the NDS is concerned, the introduction of portable long service leave will result in significant impacts into already stretched and stressed organisations in South Australia. I started to quote for Hansard's benefit, and I may as well pick up that quote:

With particular respect, the workforce and disability services highly casualised and transient, 39 per cent of the workforce working casually, NDS has spoken to our members about the casualised workforce which appears to be increasing mainly stating that the support workers are choosing to remain casual and often work across several organisations.

And here is where I think NDS remains:

The administrative burden on organisations needing to report on dual systems across this highly transient workforce will be very significant.

While we are on the topic, it might be a most convenient point to put on the record—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I am ready to answer.

Mr TEAGUE: Sorry?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I am ready to answer.

Mr TEAGUE: Yes—the contribution of the—

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I am keen to get on with it.

Mr TEAGUE: Sorry?

The CHAIR: The member for Heysen has the floor.

Mr TEAGUE: The letter of the Business Chamber, dated 17 May 2024, said that:

A portable long service leave scheme for community services shouldn't be introduced at this time as it would be highly damaging to the sector, its business workers and the very people it is set up to look after.

I am happy, with leave, to put the balance of the letter on the Hansard for the benefit of the committee. I am not endeavouring to take time; time is very short.

The concern, I suppose, just by reference to those two particular contributions, is about the administrative burden dealing with the change and so on. That informs, in turn, the urging on this side of the house that on the one hand you are jamming through the passage of the bill over a matter of a couple of days, and surely a counterpoint to that can be to say, 'We're serious about the reassurance; we're actually happy to adopt an amendment that will give the sector the necessary reassurance that this is not coming in before a date that can be actually identified in the legislation.' At least there would be that expression of commitment in the legislation with respect to this first scheme.

It seems to me it would be in the government's interest to do so. Will the minister provide any assurance in respect of the commencement of the bill relevantly and, with the approval of the committee, addressing the broader point about the work to be done post commencement?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: We have been very clear about the intended timeframes. We have spelled them out repeatedly. We will not be commencing before 1 July next year. On this side of the chamber, we have made very clear to the public our intention in regard to portable long service leave at the 2018 election and the 2022 election.

We have been consulting with the sector; SACOSS have been supporting that consultation as well. There are provisions at clause 7, if I understand correctly, where there can be exemptions made in terms of individual organisations and their commencement into the scheme, if it can be justified that there would be hardship based on payment cycles. People are welcome to make those applications, but we are running on the same timeframe as New South Wales and the Northern Territory.

Mr McBRIDE: Could you inform the house, in regard to these 29 service groups, how many employees we are talking about who will be affected by this process and perhaps supported—I really mean that, supported positively—with the intentions of what the government is trying to do here by obviously awarding a greater wage and salary by the use of the long service leave being captured over any sort of transitions from one service group to another?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Sorry, can you just repeat the second part of the question?

Mr McBRIDE: The number of employees in these 29 service groups who will be affected by these changes. Obviously, as I said, I am positively putting this—they will probably be better off and that is why it is important. Can you inform the house of the numbers please?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: The number of employees? There is no absolute definitive number but the estimate is somewhere up to 60,000 employees within the groups we are talking about at this stage.

Mr McBRIDE: In regard to those possible 60,000 employees—I am not holding you to exact numbers and that is fine, this is just to get clarity—what sort of turnover and recruitment do we see amongst those 60,000? How would we know that this change you are advocating here today is a positive change and that recruitment and longevity of staff in these service sectors is better off, with a better outcome, because of what we are doing here today?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I would like to give you an exact number and I cannot. Can I make a commitment to endeavour to actually get some information to the member from a number of sector reports that are available? Anecdotally, and directly to us, we are informed on multiple occasions in all of the meetings we have and the sector forums that turnover is significant.

Turnover means a huge burden in terms of education, training and support. It is really difficult for clients to have to keep telling their story over and over again, so the cost is not always about dollars. There is a human cost to turnover. We are absolutely looking forward to this being one of the opportunities to prevent that from happening. But I do make that commitment to have a talk to you with some information.

Mr McBRIDE: That is a good answer and I appreciate it. The third question on clause 2 is about the commencement date, and that is why I have just asked the two earlier questions. I am picking up, minister, on the points where you talked about early in this new board development it is going to be almost starting up from scratch. The levies will come in as employers pay. You have alluded to the fact that there could be a cost, but later on, as the fund builds, as the funds come towards this new long service board, that will obviously help to capture and hold these employees in these service groups—I get that; I understand why you are doing this.

There are two things, minister: one is that you have alluded to the fact that there will be a cost to start off with because they are starting from ground zero perhaps—unless you have been given a bankroll for a sum of money to start with. Secondly, in that scenario, when do we find ourselves in a position where the board is self-sufficient in being able to meet the demands of long service leave, to pay what we would like to see going out to these employees?

Thirdly, minister, as this fund grows and is making money, do you ever foresee that the funds that are captured are well above what is required? Then what happens to those funds? Do they actually go back into more wages and into capturing more staff, or do they go into a bigger board and, dare I say it, more expensive paid board directors?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I have a point of clarification: when you say 'a cost', you are saying a cost for the board to administer. Is that what you are saying?

Mr McBRIDE: No, I picked up on your words, minister. You talked about very early days, when the fund is actually in its early infancy and you do not have the funds there that will be as advantageous as they will be in five years or 10 years down the track. Are you going to have an investment pool? Are you going to have a greater pool of funds that will help fund this process? But on day one you are not going to have that pool, and year one you might not have a very big pool. So that is what I asked about the cost compared to where we are in around five years or 10 years' time.

The Hon. N.F. COOK: Sorry, member for MacKillop, I know you are genuine in your questions. Yes, over time obviously more and more money is getting paid into the fund, so it increases, and the return on investment—bonza—will increase also. That is the expectation. Then the board will be tasked with making those decisions about how much payment and levies need to be done. Our best advice is that these levies drop over time with the increased return on investment in the investment fund.

But it is not true to say that the board positions will just go up, or what have you, because they are capped. We have three business representatives, three worker representatives—however that is selected through the minister's discretion—and also a process and a chair, and that is a capped board. We would have to amend legislation in order to be able to change the board, and it may be done in a bipartisan way if that was required, desired, needed or proven in order to make this as successful as possible for the most amount of people.

Clause passed.

Clause 3.

Mr TEAGUE: I just give an indication to the committee that we are at clause 3 of a 75-clause bill with three schedules. I have been at pains to make it clear that I was afforded, a little over a week ago, a particularly valuable and reasoned briefing in order that I might assist my colleagues in interpreting this bill, a bill that has been sent to multiple members and runs over some considerable length. It is establishing a whole new scheme of industry interaction with long service leave in the state. It ought to be something that the government is happy to have aired in the appropriate way.

Indeed, I was given to a clear understanding, that the minister has heard from me in real time, almost exactly a week ago actually, that it took me by surprise that there was some indication—I think I heard it first from the minister—that, contrary to what I was told at the briefing the day before, this had come on at some point in the medium-term. Contrary to that, no, it was the government's intent, it looked like, to bring the matter on for debate, to go through all stages on the Tuesday of sitting and then it would be in this place for a debate here.

What we have seen then is a whole series of guillotines that have led us to effectively another guillotine on debate on this bill. Not two clauses into the committee, albeit by a disorderly interjection from the Manager of Government Business, I have been accused of filibustering on this bill. That is the attitude of the government with respect to this bill and the way that it treats the members of this place and the people of South Australia. It is important to put that on the record in the course of this committee. Of course, that is no personal reflection on the minister, but it is a very clear indication of the government's approach to what in every respect actually ought to be legislation that we can navigate fully and completely.

I have referred positively to the document described as an update document from the government. It runs to 14-odd pages of changes in response to stakeholder feedback over the course of the early part of the year. That ordinarily would have had an opportunity for airing, and yet here we are. There is no time, it would appear, for anything remotely resembling a thoroughgoing committee process. I do not know if the government wants to claim some sort of credit for shutting down the committee process de facto, but there is an amendment on file and the amendment reflects what has been put in the second reading. The amendment does not arise until schedule 3 for reasons that have been aired. So what are we all to do, really?

Far from a meaningful committee process, we have a bill being jammed through under a guillotine and in circumstances where I have been singled out as a member of this place who is really somehow a second-class citizen. When I get up on my feet I am doubly told that somehow there is no possibility. I am happy to leave it to others, if that is the best way that I can represent my community and my party, but there is an important purpose to be served in analysing what the government is bringing to this place. I make that observation.

I am here to facilitate the process. I just indicate that the amendment that we have on file is not until schedule 3. If we are going to have that put, then we are going to have to do it by basically not having any analysis in committee at all of the balance of the bill. I think that is where we are. I do not speak for other members of the place, but do not be surprised if the result of all this is that there is no stakeholder confidence, there is no real capacity for members to say that they have had an opportunity to participate, and whatever defects arise as the result of the passage of the bill will just sit very firmly at the feet of the government.

Mr McBRIDE: Minister, in regard to this interpretation, it talks about CEOs and board industry groups. Could you give us any clarity around the fact that this board is going to be responsible for a pool of funds gathered by a large workforce of, as you have alluded to, 60,000 employees? One of the things that I have seen in government is that when boards are created and CEOs are put in place to look after and manage boards and particularly funds, wages and responsibility usually go up with the size of the funds that they are looking after.

One of the things I am really interested in is that when you have 60,000 workers and there is a large turnover—and dare I say it, but these 60,000 workers you are trying to address are not the highest paid service workers in the workforce. They are not the highest paid. If there is a board that captures these funds, there are no limits on the funds that they can collect and they keep on collecting these funds, by pure nature, as I have described, we have a lot of workers who work for one year, two years, three years but certainly do not go all the way to seven years, and they forgo that entitlement of funds.

Minister, do we have any limits around the amount of money that they could collect, and what happens when those limits are exceeded? Again, my concern is that with the exceedingly high amounts of funds collected, does the government come in and pull some away and put it back into the coffer, or do we roll it out to roll out more services, which I know that the service sector would really like to see? I am just wondering if you can give us any clarification around the board and its collection of these funds. Do we have a total imposed, and what happens when we reach a maximum?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I think the short answer to that is that there is an annual actuarial review that is tabled in the house of parliament. If there are any circumstances where there is for any reason any indication that there is any false or improper inflation of that fund for whatever reason, you can imagine there would be a swift response on that, but there are safeguards in that in terms of its annual reporting to the parliament.

Mr McBRIDE: Thank you, minister, for that confidence and the fact that you have considered and you have an answer as such. In clause 3, it talks about the construction industry board. Do you know if there is any feedback that comes back for the construction industry board, its operations, its funds? Does it report to parliament now? Has it collected funds that are in excess of what it requires and, if so, what sort of sight does parliament have over those funds from the construction industry board today?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: That is an excellent question. I can assure you that the construction industry board has the same annual actuarial report to the parliament. There are Auditor-General reports also. So it is subject to that review and that reporting process. This is designed to mirror that. In fact, as the member may have picked up, the CEO of that same industry board will be the CEO for this, so there is that collective continuity and governance similarity that is going to happen.

Mr McBRIDE: In regard to these funds and the collection of these funds, with the positive creation of a fund and the growth of this fund to help support and look after these 60,000 employees that have been talked about, I am asking about interpretation. How much better off will these staff be with this type of process and fund in place compared to where we are today? Secondly, why do we not just pay these staff more money if they are so valuable rather than worrying about long service provisions?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: I will take this just to the place of the wellbeing of employees. These workers, who are amongst some of our lower paid workers, are subject to this contractual churn that happens because of a change of the framework of delivery of different services. You can be assured that these workers are not working for the money. The money helps, but it is not all about the money. These are dedicated workers who want to change and save lives. They are all working in an industry where they are absolutely committed and dedicated to improving the life, the lot and the outcome of the community that they are serving.

If it was a simple matter of wages, that would be under a different argument, but this provision allows for people to actually have an extended break after a commitment to a service sector for a long period of time. These people have not had that before. It is a very good question and it speaks to the heart of us here in the parliament understanding what community workers are doing. I in my heart believe that the industry organisations and businesses absolutely believe that too. Over time, I believe this fund will actually do what it needs to do to reinforce that by providing better outcomes for workers.

Clause passed.

Clause 4.

Mr McBRIDE: Clause 4 is about determination of weekly pay in certain circumstances. I really like the answer that the minister just gave in that the employees do not do this for money. I know where she is coming from, because most of these 60,000 represented do it out of human kindness. There are two things that I would bring to her attention. One is that a lot of long service leave never gets taken up because most people cannot afford to take it, stop pay, go on holidays and enjoy themselves for the full three months that they are entitled to after 10 years. This sector, not being on the highest end of pay brackets, would be no different.

My question to the minister regarding her comment that they do not work for money—and, minister, you are right in the real sense because there is a lot of compassion, kindness and love that goes with the job that these service workers do—is why would you be interfering in this and doing what you are if money is not involved?

I can tell you the service sectors that they are employed by right here are better off under the old system and not going back to the employees like you have just suggested, and the money would stay with the child safety and support services, or the home and community care services. When the employees leave early and do not take up their long service leave, that money stays with that service group and it can be rolled out as service money, out to the community as it is intended. If your argument here is that they do not work for the money, then I do not understand why you are even rolling this out.

The CHAIR: I am unclear, member for MacKillop, how your question relates to this clause.

Mr McBRIDE: It says 'Clause 4—Determination of an ordinary weekly pay in certain circumstances'.

The CHAIR: I understand that, but when you read the substance of the clause I am trying to link, not to the title of the clause but the substance of the clause, and I cannot see the connection.

Mr McBRIDE: In remuneration terms, it is mentioned there at subclause (1)(d) 'remuneration' and 'payable', and so the money is here. This is about hopefully making these employees better off with this process we are moving here today. That is my question. Two points are being made. I hope that is the case and my question is to the minister: is it the case that they will be better off and, secondly, why are we interfering with this process if they do not work for money?

The Hon. N.F. COOK: To just clarify the interpretation of what I said, for the member, I think he means the same thing as what I am saying, but we are saying it in two different ways. The biggest incentive for these workers is not money. The biggest incentive for these workers is the outcome for the clients. What long service leave does is it provides the workers with the opportunity to take these extended breaks from the sector and the service that they are providing. This is important not just to provide the time away, but this is important to provide opportunity as well. People use their long service leave to help with parenting responsibilities and take time out to have families. It adds to that time that they can have away from the workplace to do all of those other things.

This happens across a number of industries. I am fortunate enough to have been working in health and nursing where long service leave did move across different organisations within the public sector and you could take those breaks and use them for a range of matters. It is not about taking holidays overseas or what have you. This is about taking breaks to recover, have respite, and then return to the workforce in a refreshed way and able to contribute in the best possible way you can.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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