Wednesday, 15 October 2025

 Danny PEARSON (Essendon – Minister for Economic Growth and Jobs, Minister for Finance) (10:43): In accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, I table a statement of compatibility in relation to the Labour Hire Legislation Amendment (Licensing) Bill 2025:

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (the Charter), I make this statement of compatibility with respect to the Labour Hire Legislation Amendment (Licensing) Bill 2025 (the Bill).

In my opinion, the Bill, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with the human rights protected by the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview of the Bill

The purposes of this Bill are to amend the Labour Hire Licensing Act 2018 (LHL Act):

•   to further provide for:

• the meaning of labour hire services; and

• determining if a person is a fit and proper person; and

• the Labour Hire Authority’s (Authority) monitoring, investigation and enforcement powers; and

• information sharing; and

• the subject matter for regulations; and

•   to make minor and consequential amendments.

The Bill also amends the Workforce Inspectorate Victoria Act 2020 to prohibit persons from causing or threatening to cause detriment to other persons in certain circumstances.

Human rights issues

The following rights are relevant to the Bill:

• right to privacy and reputation (s 13);

• right to freedom of expression (s 15);

• right to property (s 20);

• presumption of innocence (s 25(1)); and

• right to protection against self-incrimination (s 25(2)(k)).

Declaration of financial viability

Clause 8 of the Bill amends section 17 of the LHL Act to, amongst other things, add the requirement that an application for a labour hire licence must include a declaration by the applicant, or if the applicant is a body corporate then an officer of the body corporate, that to the applicant’s or the officer’s knowledge, the applicant is financially viable.

The Bill imposes a similar requirement to include this declaration with applications for the renewal of licences (see new section 29(1)(da)).

Relatedly, the Bill amends:

•   sections 24 and 29 (respectively, grant or refusal to grant a licence and renewal and refusal of application to renew a licence) to provide that the Authority must grant or renew a licence if, amongst other considerations, the Authority is satisfied that the person who made the application is financially viable at the time of deciding the application; and

•   section 34 (licence condition relating to information that must be provided annually) to add that it is a condition of a licence that the holder of the licence provide to the Authority a declaration that the holder of the licence is financially viable for each reporting period for the licence (clause 16 of the Bill).

These requirements will be subject to the existing powers of the Authority under section 21 to require an applicant to give further information and under section 47 to conduct inquiries and require a relevant person to provide further information or consent to the disclosure of information in considering an application for a licence, or a variation or renewal of a licence.

Further, the Authority retains the discretion to grant a licence even if a business may not be demonstrated as financially viable where appropriate in all the circumstances (for example, this discretion may be exercised for new market entrants who may not yet have the requisite documents to demonstrate viability).

Right to privacy

Section 13(a) of the Charter provides that a person has the right not to have their privacy unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with. An interference will be lawful if it is permitted by a law which is precise and appropriately circumscribed, and will be arbitrary only if it is capricious, unpredictable, unjust or unreasonable, in the sense of being disproportionate to the legitimate aim sought.

The right to privacy is relevant to the provisions governing licence applications. The amendments require a licence application to include a declaration of financial viability. While financial information is not required as part of an application, the Authority may request further information on the applicant’s financial viability if such information is necessary for, or relevant to, the determination of the application. This may include personal information that would come under the protection of this right. The right to privacy will only be engaged where the provisions affect the privacy of an individual (or an individual’s personal information), rather than the information of a corporation.

In my view, these provisions are compatible with the right. The addition of a declaration of financial viability helps to ensure that workers will be paid for their work, strengthens the labour hire licensing system and consequently supports the objects of the LHL Act, namely, protecting workers from being exploited and improving the transparency and integrity of the labour hire industry. A licence applicant (or renewal applicant) is required to provide a declaration that they are financially viable, and may be required to provide evidence in support of their viability if requested by the Authority. This may include financial documents such a profit and loss statements, balance sheets, or bank statements. The Authority is a public authority under the Charter and will be required to exercise its powers to require additional information compatibly with the right to privacy.

Further, applicants who are seeking to participate in a regulated industry have a diminished expectation of privacy. The licensing regime has been in place for a number of years already, it imposes various requirements on applications and is already subject to the Authority’s power to request further information. Consequently, persons who involve themselves in a business providing labour hire services are already aware of the existing requirements of the regime. Relevant persons are likely to have a relatively limited expectation of privacy regarding the information obtained and reviewed by the Authority in assessing applications. Given the aims of the licensing system, I consider the addition of the financial viability declaration and the Authority’s ability to request further information in relation to it under the LHL Act, to be lawful and not to be arbitrary in the circumstances. Accordingly, in my opinion, it is compatible with the right to privacy.

Amendment to the fit and proper test and compliance with legal obligations requirement

Clause 10 of the Bill amends section 22 of the LHL Act to strengthen the fit and proper test and introduce mandatory consideration that the Authority must have regard to in determining if a person is fit and proper to hold a licence. Clause 11 of the Bill amends section 23 of the LHL Act to require ongoing compliance with a broader range of laws specified in section 23(1A). These sections are relevant to the grant, renewal, variation, cancellation and suspension of a licence.

The transitional provision in new section 121 (added by clause 29 of the Bill) provides that these amendments (and other amendments made by the Bill) apply in relation to an application for the issue or renewal of a licence irrespective of whether the application is made before, on or after the commencement of the amendments in the Bill. The amendments will commence on a day or days to be proclaimed and if a provision has not come into operation before 1 October 2026, then it comes into operation on that day.

Right to property

Section 20 of the Charter provides that a person must not be deprived of their property other than in accordance with law. This right requires that powers which authorise the deprivation of property are conferred by legislation or common law, are confined and structured rather than unclear, are accessible to the public, and are formulated precisely.

By amending the criteria in sections 22 (fit and proper person test) and 23 (compliance with legal obligations) of the Act, the Bill amends the grounds by which the Authority may exercise its powers of variations, suspensions and cancellations of licences.

This could have the effect of exposing existing licence holders to variation, suspension or cancellation of their licence by way of no longer satisfying the amended eligibility criteria or ongoing obligations for holding a licence.

While the effect of these provisions could lead to a deprivation of property (ie loss of a licence), I consider the provisions to be compatible with the right. The amendments to sections 22 and 23 are formulated precisely and will be publicly available and accessible to licence holders and applicants prior to their commencement. Further, these amendments are not arbitrary (capricious, unpredictable, unjust or unreasonable), in the sense of being disproportionate to the legitimate aim sought. The amendments to the fit and proper test are in part a response to a recommendation by the Formal Review into Victorian Government Bodies’ Engagement with Construction Companies and Construction Unions and aim to strengthen the licensing scheme and address identified problems in the labour hire sector. Further, the amendments to section 23 to require applicants and licence holders to demonstrate continued compliance with an expanded set of laws are proportionate and legitimate in circumstances where these laws should be being complied with in any event.

Accordingly, I do not consider these amendments to be arbitrary and any deprivation of property (resulting from a cancellation, suspension or variation on the basis of the amended section 22 or section 23) will be ‘in accordance with the law’. Applicants are choosing to participate in a regulated industry and have a conditional right to a licence. It will also occur in accordance with the existing provisions of the Act, which provide for procedural fairness (in the form of a show cause notice and opportunity for the holder to give a written response to the proposed variation or cancellation) and the right of review to VCAT.

In conclusion, I do not consider that these amendments limit the right to property.

Publication of information

The LHL Act requires that the Authority keep a register of licensed labour hire providers that records information about licence-holders, licences and decisions of the Authority. The register is publicly available and includes prescribed particulars such as the name and contact details of licence-holders and each nominated officer, and details of any condition to which the licence is subject.

Clause 20 of the Bill amends section 49 to provide that the Authority’s power to publish certain information must be ‘in, or in connection with, the performance of a function or duty’ under the LHL Act and that it can be in any manner the Authority considers appropriate.

In terms of amendments to the information that may be published under this provision, subsection 49(1)(a) is amended by the Bill to provide that in the case of an application for a licence that is withdrawn or a licence that is cancelled at the request of the licence holder, the name and business name of the applicant or licence holder may be published.

New subsection 49(1)(b) provides that in any case the Authority may publish specified information. New subsection 49(1)(b)(i) provides that the Authority may publish the name and business name of a person against whom ‘the Authority has exercised, or is considering whether to exercise, a power’ under the LHL Act ‘in connection with investigating, monitoring or enforcing compliance’ with the LHL Act or the regulations. Under new subsections 49(1)(b)(ii) the Authority may also publish the particular power being exercised or considered. This includes but is not limited to an investigation commenced by the Authority that is currently on foot, consideration of whether to suspend or cancel a licence, a decision to suspend or cancel a licence, a decision to impose a condition to which a licence is subject, and a proceeding commenced under the LHL Act. Further, new subsection 49(1)(b)(iii) and (iv) provide that the Authority may publish the contravention that the Authority has formed the view has occurred or is occurring, and, in relation to conduct of a person who is not a licence holder, the matters the Authority was satisfied of before exercising that power.

New subsection 49(1)(b)(v) is also added by the Bill. It provides that the Authority may publish any other information about decisions made under Division 4 of Part 3 (grant, duration and renewal of licenses), Division 6 of Part 3 (conditions and notices to comply) or Division 7 of Part 3 (variations, suspensions and cancellations) of the LHL Act.

The amendments to section 49 provide the Authority with the power to publish contextual information about its licensing decisions. Publication of this information is limited in order to avoid the publication of information that may be protected by other legislative regimes relating to information privacy or secrecy (as provided under new subsection 49(2)). Further, the Authority’s exercise of the power to publish the information specified must be in, or in connection with, the performance of a function or duty under the LHL Act.

Right to privacy and reputation

As noted above, s 13(a) of the Charter protects the right to privacy from arbitrary or unlawful interference. Section 13(b) provides that a person has the right not to have their reputation unlawfully attacked. An ‘attack’ on reputation will be lawful if it is permitted by a precise and appropriately circumscribed law.

The publication of information about applicants involves identifying individuals and may negatively affect the reputation of those individuals.

In my opinion, any interference with the right to privacy and reputation resulting from the amendments to section 49 is neither unlawful nor arbitrary. The details of what may be published under amended section 49 are clearly outlined. The Register is already publicly available and in operation pursuant to existing sections 48 and 49. The scope of amended section 49 will be a known condition of any person seeking to be licensed as a labour hire provider after the commencement of this Bill.

Further, the publication of information listed in amended section 49, including contextual information, is appropriate and limited to being in or in connection with, the Authority’s performance of a function or duty under the LHL Act. It will not include information that is otherwise protected by the operation of another Act relating to privacy or secrecy. This provision is precise and is appropriately tailored to ensuring compliance with the licensing scheme and promoting transparency, and accordingly does not constitute an arbitrary interference with privacy or reputation. The publication of this information helps to ensure compliance with the licensing scheme, which in turn protects workers.

Production of documents

Clause 24 of the Bill adds new section 67A to the LHL Act. It provides an inspector with the power to request, by written notice, that a person produce a document or provide information. This power is additional to the existing power in section 67 for inspectors to require holders of licences to produce documents.

An inspector may make a request to a person to produce a document or provide information under new section 67A if they reasonably believe that the person is in possession of the document or the information is known to the person, and the document or information is reasonably required for the purposes of investigating, monitoring or enforcing compliance with the LHL Act or regulations. The written notice must state that a person may refuse to produce the document or provide the information.

If a person refuses to produce a document or provide information requested under this section, an inspector may, by written notice, direct a person to produce the document or provide the information to the inspector in the form and manner specified in the notice, and before the date specified in the notice. Such a notice directed to a natural person must inform them that it is a reasonable excuse for them to refuse or fail to give information if giving the information would tend to incriminate them. A failure to comply with such a notice, without reasonable excuse, is an offence.

Right to privacy and right to freedom of expression

The exercise of this additional power may interfere with the privacy of an individual in some cases; however, in my opinion, any such interference will be lawful and not arbitrary. The purpose of this additional power is to assist inspectors in enforcing compliance with the licensing regime. While this power will apply more broadly than just to licence-holders, it is limited to information or documents reasonably required for the purposes of investigating, monitoring or enforcing compliance with the LHL Act and regulations, and consequently will be limited to information relevant to the provision of labour hire services. Licence-holders and persons with information relevant to the labour hire regime will have a diminished expectation of privacy in the regulatory context, and it is reasonable that they can be required to produce information for compliance purposes.

Further, existing section 89 protects the confidentiality of information provided to inspectors by making it an offence for an inspector to give such information to any other person unless authorised, and existing section 91 preserves the privilege against self-incrimination in relation to the provision of information to inspectors.

The provision may also engage the right to freedom of expression under section 15 of the Charter, which can include a right not to impart information. In my view, this provision furthers appropriate oversight and monitoring of compliance with the licensing regime, and is reasonably necessary to protect labour hire workers. Therefore, to the extent that the freedom of expression is engaged, I consider that this provision falls within section 15(3) of the Charter, as reasonably necessary to respect the rights of other persons.

Right to protection against self-incrimination

Section 25(2)(k) of the Charter provides that a person charged with a criminal offence is entitled not to be compelled to testify against themselves or to confess guilt. This right is at least as broad as the common law privilege against self-incrimination. It applies to protect a charged person against the admission in subsequent criminal proceedings of incriminatory material obtained under compulsion, regardless of whether the information was obtained prior to or subsequent to the charge being laid.

At common law, the High Court has held that the protection accorded to pre-existing documents is considerably weaker than that accorded to oral testimony or to documents that are brought into existence to comply with a request for information. The compulsion to produce pre-existing documents that speak for themselves is in strong contrast to testimonial oral or written evidence that is brought into existence as a direct response to questions. Accordingly, any protection afforded to documentary material by the privilege is limited in scope and not as fundamental to the nature of the right as the protection against the requirement that verbal answers be provided.

The right in section 25(2)(k) of the Charter is relevant to new section 67A in light of the operation of existing section 91 in respect of new section 67A. Existing section 91 provides that it is a reasonable excuse for a person to refuse or fail to give information or do any other thing that the person is required to do under Part 5, if the giving of the information or the doing of the thing would tend to incriminate the person. Under new section 67A(4) a notice under new section 67A(3) given to a natural person must inform the person that it is a reasonable excuse for the person to refuse or fail to give information if the giving of the information would incriminate the person.

Section 91 does not apply to the production of a document that the person is required to produce under the existing provisions in Part 5. New section 67A will be part of Part 5 of the LHL Act and so section 91 will operate in this way in respect of new section 67A.

Accordingly, section 91 is a limited abrogation of the privilege against self-incrimination. A document required to be produced under a provision in Part 5 may contain evidence that would tend to incriminate the person with respect to certain offences under the LHL Act and, as section 91 does not apply to such documents, such documents will need to be provided under new section 67A. However, section 100 (evidence given in proceedings for pecuniary penalty) will continue to apply in the same way that it applies to the existing provisions in the LHL Act. This means that new section 67A does not alter the position that information produced in a proceeding for a pecuniary penalty order against a person for a contravention of a civil penalty provision, will not be admissible in subsequent criminal proceedings against that person on the basis of the same conduct (except in respect of the falsity of the evidence).

As has been previously discussed in relation to those existing provisions, the purpose of the abrogation in relation to documents is to facilitate compliance with the licencing scheme, and there is significant public interest in ensuring compliance by labour hire providers. There are no less restrictive means available to achieve the purpose of enabling inspectors to have access to relevant documents to facilitate and ensure compliance.

This limitation is related to this purpose, appropriately tailored and is reasonable and justified under section 7(2) of the Charter.

Presumption of innocence

Section 25(1) of the Charter provides that a person charged with a criminal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. The right in section 25(1) is relevant where a statutory provision shifts the burden of proof onto an accused in a criminal proceeding, so that the accused is required to prove matters to establish, or raise evidence to suggest, that they are not guilty of an offence.

Clause 24 of the Bill which adds new section 67A makes it an offence for a person, without reasonable excuse, to refuse or fail to comply with a direction in a notice to produce documents under new subsection 67A(3) that are reasonably requested by an inspector for the purposes of investigating, monitoring or enforcing compliance with the LHL Act and the regulations (see new subsection 67A(5)).

In providing that it is an offence for a person to refuse or fail to comply if they do not have a ‘reasonable excuse’, this exception may be viewed as placing an evidential burden on the person alleged to have refused or failed to comply with a direction in a notice provided under new subsection 67A(3). The Supreme Court has held that evidential onus provisions on an accused to establish an exception does not transfer the legal burden of proof and do not limit the right to the presumption of innocence. Once the accused has pointed to evidence of a reasonable excuse, the burden shifts back to the prosecution who must prove the essential elements of the offence to a legal standard. Further, the exceptions relate to matters which are peculiarly within an accused’s knowledge and would be unduly onerous for a prosecution to disprove at first instance.

Accordingly, I do not consider that an evidential onus to show a reasonable excuse such as this provision limits the right to be presumed innocent.

Public interest disclosure

Clause 28 of the Bill introduces new section 103A into the LHL Act and provides that, despite the secrecy provision in section 103(2) of the LHL Act, the Commissioner may disclose any information acquired under or for the purposes of this Act relating to a labour hire provider or the labour hire industry if the Commissioner is reasonably satisfied that it is in the public interest to disclose the information and the disclosure is to a person employed in a department or agency of a State or Territory or of the Commonwealth, or to the Minister.

Right to privacy and reputation

New section 103A may interfere with the privacy and reputation of an individual in some cases; however, in my opinion, it does not limit these rights as any interference will be lawful and not arbitrary. Disclosure under new section 103A is limited to where the Commissioner is satisfied that it is in the public interest and is limited to only certain particular persons, who in turn are subject to existing information privacy obligations.

Further, this power cannot be delegated by the Commissioner. In my opinion, this provision appropriately balances the right to privacy and reputation with the public interest in ensuring compliance with the licensing regime and the protection of workers.

Hon. Danny Pearson

Minister for Finance

 Danny PEARSON (Essendon – Minister for Economic Growth and Jobs, Minister for Finance) (10:43): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I ask that my second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard.

Incorporated speech as follows:

The Formal Review into Victorian Government Bodies’ Engagement with Construction Companies and Construction Unions, led by Mr Greg Wilson (Wilson Review), has further highlighted a rotten culture in the construction sector and the Victorian Government is taking strong action to stamp it out.

That is why I am introducing a Bill to implement the Victorian Government’s response to recommendations 3–6 of the Wilson Review to strengthen Victoria’s labour hire licensing laws. Labour hire was identified as a particularly problematic area in relation to the allegations which led to the Review. Mr Wilson noted in his final report how important it is to ensure that the regulation of labour hire firms is effective and proposed four key areas of legislative change aimed at strengthening the regulatory scheme.

The Bill will also amend the Workforce Inspectorate Act 2025 (WI Act) to provide protection for people making complaints to the Workforce Inspectorate. A new offence will ensure that persons who make a complaint or provide information to the Workforce Inspectorate as part of its new construction industry complaints referral function are appropriately protected from reprisal. The establishment of the complaints referral function in the Workforce Inspectorate acquits recommendation 1 of the Wilson Review.

Background

In July 2024, the Victorian Government commissioned the Wilson Review as part of a range of actions responding to allegations of criminal and other unlawful conduct in the construction industry, to examine how Victorian Government bodies interact with construction companies and unions.

Mr Wilson’s Final Report was delivered to the Victorian Government on 29 November 2024. The review made eight recommendations about how the powers and processes of Victorian Government bodies can be strengthened to better respond to allegations of criminal and other unlawful behaviour. The recommendations emphasise collective action among employers, agencies and law enforcement to encourage complaints, share information and act on misconduct, as well as highlighting the need for a multifaceted approach involving cultural, regulatory, legal, policy and contractual changes.

The Government released its response to the final report on 18 December 2024, accepting all recommendations either in-full or in-principle.

The Review found that most relevant interventions sit with the Commonwealth under its broad industrial relations and regulation of employee associations powers, but that there are a number of actions Victorian Government agencies can take to enhance oversight and management to deter criminal and unlawful activity.

The measures the Victorian Government is adopting aim to complement Commonwealth reforms and the placement of the Construction Division of the CFMEU into administration, as well as actions already taken by this Government, which include passing anti-bikie laws in 2024 that make it easier to prevent certain individuals from associating with each other.

The Bill will amend the Labour Hire Licensing Act 2018 (LHL Act) broadly in line with recommendations 3–6 of the Wilson Review as well as introduce other amendments to improve the overall operation of Victoria’s labour hire laws.

The Bill in detail

Recommendation 3 proposes that the “fit and proper person” test in the LHL Act be broadened so that additional factors can be considered when assessing the suitability of an applicant for a labour hire licence.

The Bill amends the LHL Act to delete the current mandatory prescriptive considerations and replaces them with new provisions similar to Queensland’s mix of mandatory and discretionary considerations. The amendments incorporate the Wilson recommendation considerations that are not otherwise covered by the Queensland test and retain some elements of the current Victorian test.

The proposed amendments are broader than those in recommendation 3. This will provide the Labour Hire Authority (LHA) with greater flexibility to respond to practices by labour hire providers that may be unlawful, criminal, coercive and/or systemic at the licensing decision stage. Further, providing the LHA with a general discretion to have regard to any other matter it considers relevant in considering whether an applicant is fit and proper is an additional protective factor in response to the harms observed in the industry.

Recommendation 4 proposes amending the Labour Hire Licensing Regulations 2018 (LHL Regulations) to define certain activities connected to construction to be explicitly regulated under Victoria’s labour hire licensing scheme. The recommendation aims to provide clarity about which construction activities are covered by the scheme to prevent businesses from structuring themselves to avoid regulatory oversight.

This recommendation was supported in principle to ensure it could be acquitted without risking some forms of labour supply or construction activities falling outside of the regulations or conversely covering businesses that are not intended to be covered. This Bill broadly implements the intent of recommendation 4 with specific amendments to the general definition of ‘provides labour hire services’ in the LHL Act. Further amendments to the LHL Regulations in line with recommendation 4 will be prepared following the preparation of the requisite regulatory impact statement.

The Bill amends the general definition of ‘provides labour hire services’ to state that a person will be a provider where they enter into an arrangement with another person, the character of which is the supply of labour by the provider to another person (either directly or indirectly); and the labour is performed by individuals who are workers for the provider, or another provider, within the meaning of the Act.

The amended definition addresses identified issues and ambiguity about who is a labour hire provider under the current definition and, therefore, subject to regulation under the LHL Act as well as the practice of businesses deliberately structuring themselves to avoid regulation. It focuses on the character of the arrangement itself (being the supply of labour) rather than the business structure or requirement for workers to be integrated into a host business. Whether the character of an arrangement is for the supply of labour will be assessed on the basis of the real substance, practical reality and true nature of the arrangement. The amended definition focuses on what the arrangement is in practice, irrespective of how the business may describe itself, and makes clear that arrangements involving supply chains and intermediary businesses may be covered where they have the character of labour supply.

The amended definition is not Intended to cover genuine sub-contracting arrangements.

Recommendation 5 proposes providing the LHA with a power to request that a person provide information or documents that an inspector has a reasonable belief are necessary for monitoring or enforcing compliance with the Act (broadly referred to as a ‘notice to produce’ or NTP power). Currently this power is broadly linked to an entry power which first must be exercised before making the request for documents.

This recommendation is implemented by the proposed amendments in the Bill. They specify that the request should give the recipient the option to consent to providing the document or information at first instance (which preserves their right of refusal in line with the Wilson recommendation) and also includes protection against self-incrimination for individuals. The LHA can serve a notice to produce any documents that are not provided by consent. It is an offence to fail to comply with ‘notice to produce’ without a reasonable excuse.

Recommendation 6 proposes that the LHA be provided with expanded publication powers. It recommends that the LHL Act be amended to empower the LHA to publish additional contextual information about suspensions and cancellations of licences on the Register of Licensed Labour Hire Providers (Register).

This recommendation is being implemented by permitting the LHA to publish certain information in, or in connection with, the performance of a function or duty under the Act. This could include specified information about investigations on foot or proceedings commenced. The Bill also includes a broader power for the LHA to publish any information about decisions made under Part 3, Divisions 4, 6 or 7 of the Act and specified information connected to the exercise of certain powers. The amendments go further than the Wilson recommendation, in that they will permit the publication of information about a broader range of licensing decisions in any manner considered appropriate by the LHA. In doing so, the amendments will better equip the LHA to perform its functions under the LHL Act to promote compliance, and disseminate information about the duties, rights and obligations of persons under the LHL Act.

The Bill makes other amendments to”the ’HL Act which complement the changes arising out of the Wilson recommendations and strengthen the overall labour hire regulatory scheme. These include amendments to the hinder or obstruct offence to cover all LHA staff and the Commissioner; expanding the list of laws that licence applicants and holders must comply with; requiring licence applicants and holders to demonstrate that the labour hire business is financially viable; and providing the Commissioner with a power to disclose information to government departments or agencies, as well as the Minister, where the Commissioner is reasonably satisfied that the disclosure is in the public interest.

The Bill ensures that persons who make a complaint or provide information to the Workforce Inspectorate as part of their new complaints referral function will be protected from reprisal through the inclusion of a criminal offence in the WI Act. The offence prohibits detrimental conduct being taken (or threatened) against a person who makes a complaint or provides information about public construction to the Inspectorate (broadly referred to as the ‘detriment offence’). The detriment offence will have a significant maximum penalty of 1200 penalty units or level 5 imprisonment (10 years maximum) or both. The culture of coercion and intimidation which led to the Wilson Review has to stop and the maximum penalty for the detriment offence reflects the seriousness with which government views this conduct. The offence will be enforced by Victoria Police, reflecting the serious nature of the conduct.

Commencement date

The Bill will come into operation on proclamation or on default commencement. The commencement of the detriment offence in Part 3 of the Bill will align with the commencement of the complaints referral function provisions in the Workforce Inspectorate Act 2025.

I commend the Bill to the house.

 Cindy McLEISH (Eildon) (10:43): I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned for two weeks. Debate adjourned until Wednesday 29 October.