Page 253 - Week 01 - Thursday, 24 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
difficult, frankly, to dismiss employees in the Commonwealth Government service, and perhaps the ACT Government Service as well. In the private sector it may not be so difficult. But we must acknowledge that it is difficult. It is not a simple matter to say to an employee, "I consider that you are no longer capable of carrying out work to the standard that I require and therefore you will leave my employment". That is not an easy thing to do, and it may be that we give rise to a great many applications and claims in these circumstances under this Act. It may also be that many employers in the circumstances of this legislation will say, "I choose not to run up against the legislation. I will leave that employee in place, even though I would rather not have them continue to work". That is a problem which we give rise to and I think, Madam Speaker, that we need to monitor this matter with great care because the effectiveness of our working population is very important in this regard. We need to be aware that it is important for the efficiency of businesses and employers of all kinds if they are able to properly deal with problems in their work force in an appropriate fashion.
Talking of dealing with problems in a work force, there is, as members will be aware, a provision in proposed new section 57D which requires that, after a period of two years, employers in the ACT should not be able to have compulsory retirement. That two-year period is an acknowledgment of the fact that there are difficulties now in imposing a new regime which does not have compulsory retirement. Employees, for example, perhaps will need to adjust their allowances for superannuation to take account of that fact. There is a provision in there dealing with the Territory's work force, Territory employees, that effectively says that the Government is not bound by this provision. There will be, as members are aware - it having been circulated - an amendment to the Bill on that score.
Madam Speaker, there is also an exemption at the other end of the scale to do with youth wages. It is not illegal to pay somebody a youth wage, which obviously is less than a senior wage. I sense from the presentation speech of the Attorney-General that the Government had certain misgivings about this and that there was a little bit of friction, perhaps, between the Commonwealth Government provisions and what the ACT Government would like to have in force here. I think it is important to acknowledge that youth wages are very much a part of our industrial award system; and if they were not imposed by the Commonwealth they ought to be a feature of any ACT award, in my view. Mr Berry looks daggers at me for that comment, but I think it is extremely important that young people be given the chance to enter the work force on preferential terms in order that they may gain valuable experience which otherwise they may not be able to achieve. So I would strongly support the retention of any kind of exemption of this kind, and we need to consider, in the long term, how we deal with that. The Government has accepted the fact that the Commonwealth makes that mandatory and it cannot change that. The Government has gone along with that by saying, for example, that an employer can advertise to fill positions that are applicable only to people who would obtain the youth wage. So you could say, "I want youth wage potential employees to apply".
One effect of this Bill which was referred to by the Attorney-General is that it will be unlawful to dismiss a person because they are no longer eligible for a youth wage. So, when an 18-year-old turns 19 and becomes eligible for a higher youth wage, or when they turn 21, I think it is, and become eligible for no youth wage
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .