HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-11-25 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Labour Hire Licensing (Scope of Act) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (15:36): I rise to support the Labour Hire Licensing (Scope of Act) Amendment Bill 2025, which should come as no surprise to members. I voted to support it when the original Labor government introduced it first. I voted against the restriction of the scope under the Liberal government, and so restoring it is consistent, and I refer members to those particular speeches.

However, I note that I have some amendments that I feel will complement the bill and make it better. I raise these amendments particularly because of the use of labour hire within the public sector. My amendments will go to quantify the use of that labour hire where it occurs, and to ensure what should already be occurring, but to make it absolutely crystal clear that, should a labour hire worker be supplied to a public sector agency, they must at all times observe the Public Sector Code of Conduct and have the relevant training, not just in that code of conduct but in workplace health and safety regulations and laws.

It is important to ensure that the public sector does not continue to rely on labour hire workers to do the job that should be held by a public servant paid the appropriate wage for the role that they hold. When those roles are being held by labour hire—because they cannot be filled, as we are seeing at the moment with the EB currently underway, because the pay is too low and the conditions are not good enough, and the work and the expectations are too great—the person who scoops the profit there is the labour hire company, not the public, not the Public Service, and certainly not the government. In fact, we end up paying more for less and we have a public sector that is eroded. I do not want to see that trend continue so I note that I have consulted with the PSA on these particular amendments and I look forward to the debate in the committee stage.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:38): I rise briefly to indicate my support for the Labour Hire Licensing (Scope of Act) Amendment Bill. As has been articulated by other members, the bill proposes to amend the Labour Hire Licensing Act of 2017 to strengthen the South Australian labour hire regulatory framework. The Greens are certainly supportive of this. The Greens support improving the coverage of this act to cover workers in the horticultural, meat, seafood processing, cleaning and trolley collection sectors. Strengthening the labour hire laws for these industries will reduce the exploitation of migrant workers in particular.

I also note that the Hon. Tammy Franks will move amendments to require that state government departments, agencies and administrative units report annually on the use of labour hire workers. These amendments, as the honourable member has described, will include reporting on the total number and classification of labour hire workers, the total labour hire expenditure, and average tenure and conversion rates to direct employment.

I also understand that these amendments will mandate that labour hire staff be bound by the South Australian Public Sector Code of Conduct and that labour hire staff receive the same induction as public sector employees with respect to work from home and psychological risks, code of ethics, conflicts of interest and information security, and bullying and harassment policies.

These amendments are sensible inclusions and I will be supporting them. If a worker is performing the same role as a South Australian public sector employee, they should be afforded the same rights to a safe workplace, with the same safeguards against psychological risks, bullying and harassment. I will be supporting the substantive bill and also supporting the Hon. Tammy Franks' amendments. I see those as being valuable additions.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON (15:40): I rise to speak in support of the Labour Hire Licensing (Scope of Act) Amendment Bill 2025. The bill proposes to amend the Labour Hire Licensing Act to broaden the regulatory framework for the oversight of labour hire in South Australia. The amendments proposed in this bill will deliver on our government's commitment to strengthen South Australia's labour hire licensing laws by ensuring that all labour hire firms and workers are covered by the same laws and regulations.

Labour hire licensing is a regulatory measure designed to protect labour hire workers and ensure that labour hire service providers operate within fair standards. South Australia's labour hire licensing laws set minimum standards for labour hire providers, with the aim of protecting workers from being exploited.

Currently, labour hire providers are only required to be licensed in five sectors, which are horticultural processing, meat processing, seafood processing, cleaning and trolley collection. There is a concern that the current legislation leaves other labour hire workers without important protections and labour hire providers free to operate without needing to meet licensing criteria, criteria such as a police check and fit and proper person requirements for those responsible for the day-to-day management and operation of labour hire businesses.

This bill proposes to return the industry to largely the same arrangements that were in place when labour hire licensing first commenced in South Australia before the law was amended in 2020 to limit its application. The 2020 amendments effectively narrowed the scheme to only apply to labour hire providers operating within industries where workers were at particular risk of exploitation. The expansion of labour hire licensing laws will address the potential for exploitation of vulnerable labour hire workers in other industries and inappropriate labour hire business practices across South Australia.

The proposed changes will bring South Australia's labour hire licensing laws into line with corresponding labour hire licensing schemes in places in other jurisdictions, namely Victoria, Queensland and the ACT. The strengthening of South Australia's labour hire licensing laws addresses the potential for exploitation of vulnerable labour hire workers and inappropriate labour hire business practices and establishes a broadened mandatory licensing scheme for all labour hire service providers operating in South Australia.

The broadened scheme proposed within the bill has many benefits. It will promote a level playing field, so that no labour hire service providers face unfair competition from unscrupulous operators and labour hire workers are not subject to exploitation, while keeping administrative burdens to a minimum. It is likely to deter unscrupulous labour hire service providers from avoiding responsibility by creating a new company to continue the business of a company that has been deliberately closed to avoid paying its debts, including employee entitlements and taxation obligations, which is commonly known as 'phoenixing'.

Being licensed reassures hosts and labour hire workers that the labour hire service provider is held to higher standards, reducing the risk of unethical practices across the sector. For labour hire workers, it ensures fair wages, safe working conditions and legal recourse in case of disputes. It will reduce risks for labour hire workers who may experience job insecurity, poor working conditions and low pay compared to staff who work directly for any given business.

In addition to removing provisions that limit the application of the act to horticultural processing, meat processing, seafood processing, cleaning and trolley collection, the bill proposes to retain section 46 of the act. Retaining section 46 of the act will continue to provide for the ability to exempt certain persons or a class of persons through the Gazette.

To keep the use of exemptions to a minimum and ideally to avoid having to make use of exemption provisions at all, the bill revises the definitions of 'labour hire services', 'labour hire worker' and 'supply' to ensure clarity regarding the scope and coverage of the legislation. The changes to the definitions of 'labour hire services', 'labour hire worker' and 'supply' within the bill have been informed by a detailed benchmark analysis of related definitions contained in corresponding interstate labour hire legislation.

Overall, this bill proposes to strengthen South Australia's labour hire licensing laws by addressing the potential for exploitation of vulnerable labour hire workers and inappropriate labour hire business practices by broadening the licensing scheme to cover all labour hire service providers operating in South Australia. I commend the bill before the council.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (15:44): I would like to thank honourable members for their contributions: the Hon. Ben Hood, the Hon. Tammy Franks, the Hon. Connie Bonaros, the Hon. Rob Simms and the Hon. Justin Hanson. This is an important piece of legislation which delivers on the government's election commitment to strengthen South Australia's labour hire licensing laws by ensuring that all labour hire firms and workers are covered by the same laws and regulations. I look forward to the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am not sure if the minister was able to answer any of the questions that I asked during the committee stage—and I apologise if I missed it—but can she confirm whether any categories have been added to the regulations since the 2020 legislative changes were made? And what, if any, views, concerns or suggestions has the commissioner put forward in relation to these changes?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I can answer both of those questions as follows. There have not been any additional industries added by regulation since 2020. In terms of the second question, I have been advised that we cannot speak for why the former commissioner under the former Liberal government took the lead on government policy. This is something that the current government believes very strongly is important for fairness and safety for workers.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Sorry, I am not asking about the former commissioner under any government, because those commissioners are not hired to do the role of political parties and they are impartial. I am asking about the current commissioner. What, if any, views have been expressed in relation to the need for these changes? I might add that the former commissioner also worked under this government when they came in—just to be clear about their partiality or otherwise.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that the current commissioner is aware of the proposals to widen provisions within this bill and has not raised any concerns.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Did the commissioner make recommendations for the changes that are outlined in this bill, or is this a government proposal that is being suggested?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: This is a government proposal. We took it to the last election, and bringing this legislation forward is a fulfilment of that commitment.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Did the government seek the views of the commissioner and their office in drafting this bill in light of the previous comments that office has made about the need for this legislation versus a narrow scope?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I can simply reiterate my previous two answers. This is something that Labor took to the previous election. This is an election commitment that we are delivering. The current commissioner is aware of this proposal to expand the scope that this would apply to and, according to my advice, has not raised any concerns.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I will take all that as a no. Can the minister confirm what is the status of a national scheme and the trial between Victoria and the commonwealth?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I can advise that Queensland, the Northern Territory and Tasmania have indicated they do not support a harmonised approach to labour hire. The commonwealth has noted that, without the participation of all jurisdictions, the endorsed harmonised model will not achieve its intended outcomes, acknowledging the need to create a level playing field for business and reduce regulatory complexity. The commonwealth, Victoria, New South Wales, Western Australia, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory agreed to consider ways to achieve a consistent approach to labour hire regulation across state and territory schemes, including through model laws.

Ministers tasked senior officials from participating jurisdictions, led by the commonwealth, to look at options towards a nationally consistent approach and report back to ministers at the next meeting of commonwealth, state and territory workplace relations ministers. However, the South Australian government is progressing its own bill, this bill, which is why we are here today. As I mentioned, this is something that we have been committed to for a long time. We consider it is incredibly important to safeguard workers who are within the scope of labour hire organisations.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: With respect, if that work has not been finalised yet, how do we know that this is consistent with those other jurisdictions that the minister has highlighted?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think the point is that we cannot guarantee that we will get harmonisation. We have already seen, as I mentioned, some jurisdictions saying that they are not keen to commit to having harmonisation. We want to make sure workers in South Australia are protected and covered in the ways that they should be. Having licensing laws that are consistent for all workers within our state is an important goal, and that is one of the things this legislation seeks to achieve.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: So just to clarify, for the record, it is not that every other jurisdiction is changing its position or indeed on board with what the government is proposing here. The minister is saying that in South Australia we are going back to the good old politicking days and going it alone.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: As I mentioned in my previous answer, a goal might be to have model laws. South Australia cannot and will not wait for other jurisdictions if it is something that clearly is not going to be achieved in the short term. We think this is important to protect workers, and that is something that as a Labor government we are very strong on.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: Can the minister advise the chamber what developments or problems the government can point to in the use of labour hire in South Australia that necessitate the changes that we see before us?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that a great deal of work has occurred nationally, which indicates that unscrupulous labour hire organisations may well tend towards those areas of employment not covered by laws such as these. There are a number of different sources in terms of noncompliance of industry. There are a number of different information sources available that talk about, for example, contemporary forms of slavery found in Australia. It is something that many South Australians would consider is simply the right thing to do: making sure that workers who are doing the same work have the opportunity to be covered by the same sorts of provisions. We know that not all labour hire companies are scrupulous; we want to make sure that our workers are protected.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: Minister, has the government received particular information from a South Australian context that it argues justifies such significant extensions from labour hire licensing obligations?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that some of the goals of this legislation are to ensure that kind of exploitation or vulnerability is not possible, regardless of what type of industry a worker is working in. It is also important to note that this will promote a level playing field so that those labour hire services that are doing the right thing do not face unfair competition from operators who are not doing the right thing, from operators who are subjecting their workers to exploitation, who are potentially underpaying them or not paying, for example, superannuation or whatever the case may be.

A wide body of work looks at the problems in terms of exploitation, and this legislation aims to ensure there is a level playing field, that labour hire workers are not subject to exploitation but also keep administrative burdens to a minimum for the labour hire companies.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: I thank the minister for her response. A final question at clause 1: given that it was an election commitment leading into the 2022 election, why are we only now seeing it in the last sitting week of the term?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My advice is that, because we have been trying to work with other jurisdictions and the commonwealth, everyone would agree that harmonised laws would be the ideal. It has now become clear that that will not be achieved, certainly not in the short term and potentially not in the medium term, and that is why it is important for South Australia to act.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Are there any carve-outs in the bill, for instance, for professions—the legal profession for instance?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised there are some exemptions, such as for people who work for themselves, but importantly there is also the capacity for exemptions through either section 46 or by regulation. I am advised that those provisions remain the same as in the existing law and it does allow exemptions, should they be warranted.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just so I can get this right: rather than use the regulations to add in extra categories of workplaces, the government is relying on regulations potentially to exclude. Given we have not added any in, we can probably bank on the fact that we will not exclude any, either, but that is what the government is relying on?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: What I am saying is that there are provisions in both the existing legislation and in the legislation that is before us which will enable exemptions if they are warranted. I think as a principle it is fair to say that the government considers that it should not simply be limited to five industries, in terms of who should be protected through legislation to ensure they are not being exploited, underpaid, etc. It should be across all industries, and then in the event that there is an industry or some other organisation that can demonstrate why they should not be included or there should be some sort of exemption, then that mechanism is there.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: A perfect segue to my next question. I refer back to the previous commissioner's advice that narrowing in on the worst offenders actually allows them to do their job effectively, whereas a broad scope will be much more difficult to manage and identify the behaviour of wrongdoers. Given the government is pressing ahead with the latter and not the former, what additional resourcing is the government going to allocate to the commissioner's office to be able to undertake the very broadened scope of work that is proposed in this bill?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the commissioner will have the ability to determine on which areas to focus, whether they be considered higher risk or to have a particular problematic environment at any particular time, and the resourcing will ensure that there is appropriate resourcing for the tasks that are required.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just to be clear: has additional resourcing been allocated for this broadened scope of work?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Essentially, the situation is that if there is a need for additional resources whenever there is a particular prioritisation or focus, then obviously that will go through the normal mechanisms to seek those extra resources.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can the minister provide any detailed statistics on the number of times that these existing mechanisms have been used under the existing model that is in place at the moment?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised we do not have that information before us at this time.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Sorry, I struggle to understand how it is that we could come into this debate without that sort of data. Will the minister undertake to provide that data to this chamber, given that that is the essence of this bill before us? There should be some data available to back up what the government is promoting today.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I can certainly take that question on notice, but what I would point out also is that this is a piece of legislation which has a goal of preventing people from being exploited. We want to be proactive in that, and therefore it is entirely appropriate to be moving this legislation, in the opinion of the government.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Respectfully, there is a debate that has happened in this place now two times where that issue has been resolved, and exploitation has been front and centre of everybody's considerations when considering this legislation, not just the government's. My next question is: does the minister have anything that can be tabled in this place regarding those discussions that she alluded to earlier around harmonisation and why that is not working? Is there anything that rests with the government or any commissioner that can be tabled here in relation to that outcome that the minister referred to?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I would refer the honourable member to the communiqué that was issued on 31 October 2025 from the meeting of commonwealth, state and territory workplace relations and work health and safety ministers.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can the minister table that document, please, so we can all have it?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: It is a public document.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Well, can I have some more details of the document, so I know where to find it? I have looked; I could not find it.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am happy to provide that, but communiqués from these sorts of national ministers meetings are there to communicate the outcomes of the meetings. But I am happy to provide information about where that can be found, if that is appropriate.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: Can the government confirm that it intends for group training organisations to continue to be exempt from labour hire licensing?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that there are currently no proposed exemptions for group training organisations, but I will also refer to the fact, as I mentioned in an earlier answer, that there are provisions or mechanisms for exemptions, should they be considered appropriate.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: What transition arrangements are intended to be put in place to support any shift to much wider labour hire legislation obligations and the expanded liabilities for both labour hire providers and hosts, if any?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I refer the honourable member to schedule 1, which is the transitional arrangements. I would also put on the record that there will be a six-month period from proclamation of the legislation whereby labour hire businesses will be able to seek advice and support from CBS, etc., and to apply for their registration. That is a period where they can ensure that they can operate in a way appropriate for all, both businesses and workers in South Australia.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: Just to clarify that then from the minister: there will be an education piece within CBS for businesses during this transition?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Yes, the education and communication piece is considered extremely important for this to be successful.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can the minister indicate what the cost will be to those businesses who are not captured by the scheme but will become captured by the scheme?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the application fees and the annual fees are the same as currently exist for the five industries that are captured under the current legislation.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: What are those fees?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised an individual application for a natural person is $973, an application for a company or body corporate is $2,212, an application to change a responsible person is $152 and an application to apply for a substitute responsible person for a limited period is $152. The periodic fees, which I understand are annual fees, are for a natural person $278 and for a body corporate $1,517.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: During that six-month transition period will there be opportunity not just for education but to consult with industries? Is there any consultation required under this bill in relation to the development of regs or anything else?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that obviously through the education and communication piece, communication indicates two ways. The government is always interested in hearing feedback and, if there are any difficulties being encountered, seeing whether they can be ironed out. But on further advice, at this stage there is not expected to be a need for new regulations—remembering, of course, that five industries are already captured under the existing legislation and so the regulations that are in place would likely continue.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am hoping that the minister might say that the education works both ways, and that if there is scope for stakeholders or industry groups to mount an argument that they should be exempted from the scheme they will be able to do that in that same window.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: As I have outlined several times, there is the mechanism to apply exemptions should they be needed. Obviously, any bodies can put forward that case.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can the minister outline what that process is, please?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that there is currently a process in place. That process will be reviewed, with an expectation that there may be a need for the application form to be developed or reviewed or additional guidance provided.

Clause passed.

Clause 5 passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: There is a deletion of, I think, prescribed information; is that right? Can the minister outline the reason for clause 6, which should answer my question?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the existing legislation refers to 'prescribed work', which of course relates to those five industries that are captured under the current bill. Given this legislation, should it pass, includes all labour hire workers, there is no longer 'prescribed work' as such, and therefore there are a number of times where the word 'prescribed' is removed.

Clause passed.

New clause 7.

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

Amendment No 1 [Franks–2]—

Page 4, after line 13—After clause 6 insert:

7—Insertion of section 45A

After section 45 insert:

45A—Labour hire workers in public sector

(1) If labour hire workers are supplied to a public sector agency to undertake work in a financial year, the agency's annual report for that year must include the following information:

(a) the number of labour hire workers supplied to the agency in that year;

(b) the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) positions filled by labour hire workers supplied to the agency in that year;

(c) the amount of money expended by the agency in connection with labour hire workers supplied to the agency in that year.

(2) If a labour hire worker is supplied to a public sector agency—

(a) the worker must, at all times while undertaking work for the agency, observe the public sector code of conduct; and

(b) it is taken to be term of the contract between the public sector agency and the person who supplied the worker that the worker will observe the public sector code of conduct.

(3) A public sector agency to which a labour hire worker is supplied must ensure that the worker is given the same induction into the workplace as employees of the agency in relation to—

(a) work health and safety (including psychosocial risk); and

(b) the public sector code of conduct, conflicts of interest and information security; and

(c) the agency's bullying and harassment policies.

(4) In this section—

public sector agency and public sector code of conduct have the same respective meanings as in the Public Sector Act 2009.

New clause 7 inserts two requirements in two parts; that is, that labour hire workers who are supplied to a public sector agency be part of that agency's annual reports each financial year, and those reports need to include the number of labour hire workers who are supplied to the agency, the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) positions that are filled by labour hire workers in each agency in that year and the amount of money that has been expended by the agency in connection with that.

Additionally, the amendment goes on to ensure and provide clarity that what, in effect, should already be happening will happen, and must happen, namely that the worker must at all times while undertaking work for the agency observe the public sector code of conduct and also comply with work health and safety requirements that we would expect to be present in the public sector.

I raise this because of my meetings with the PSA just recently, who raised their concerns, and quite rightly so, about the increasing use of labour hire within the public sector. We know that the state government went to the election promising, for example, in the DCP (Department for Child Protection) to stop their reliance on private providers when it came to children in state care and residential care and the like. We know that those numbers are going the wrong way.

We also know that most recently a former worker is now going through the courts. He was not a public sector worker, but public sector workers had raised their significant concerns around his behaviour. This man is now facing significant child abuse related charges and going through the courts. These are the sorts of examples we certainly do not want to see in our public sector.

Public sector workers work hard. They should be paid a fair day's wage and have not just good conditions but good wages. What is happening, however, is that the money is going to labour hire companies at the expense of good jobs for public sector workers in this state. This quantification will ensure that we turn that particular ship around. I want to thank in particular the new General Secretary, Charlotte Watson, and the Assistant General Secretary, Celia Brougham, for all of their lobbying on this particular issue, and I wish them well with the rally that is happening in the City of Adelaide tomorrow for better conditions and a better EB for the public sector union.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Just before I respond to the amendment, if I could provide a clarification to an answer that was provided to the Hon. Ben Hood earlier. It is true that there are no new proposed exemptions for group training organisations. That is because they are already exempt under the current act, and there is no proposal to change that. I may have been ambiguous in terms of the answer I provided.

In terms of the amendment moved by the Hon. Tammy Franks, the government is supportive of these amendments. The inclusion of reporting requirements in this act will produce data allowing the public sector's reliance on labour hire to be quantified. Additional requirements in relation to compliance with the South Australian public sector code of conduct and induction training provides additional assurances that labour hire workers who perform work within the Public Service would adhere to ethical practices and receive adequate inductions relevant to their wellbeing in the workplace.

New clause inserted.

Schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (16:20): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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