Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 9 Hansard (1 September) . . Page.. 2691 ..

MS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, I know those opposite and Ms Tucker do not like a reasoned argument, but it does not take a genius to realise that, if the cleaning companies based in the ACT have a significantly higher cost structure than their competitors in Queanbeyan and the industry is contract tender based, the likelihood of companies outside the ACT picking up the business is significant. It does not take a genius to work out what happens when that occurs - jobs are lost in the ACT.

I come back to my initial comment: If jobs are lost in the ACT, it is the worst thing that can happen to the quality of life of the people involved - significantly worse than a situation where long service leave is not transportable between companies. It is a damn sight better for that to be the case than not to have jobs. (Extension of time granted) Is the information available - we have not seen it and we would like to see it - and has Mr Berry done the work on it to determine just what difference in the cost structure this legislation will achieve between similar companies in Queanbeyan and the ACT? Will it add to the problem of workers compensation? What are the different cost structures for companies across the border? Will it make our companies less competitive? We have no such information; no work has been done. The people involved have not been consulted.

Mr Speaker, I have raised a number of concerns and questions. It is easy for those opposite and Ms Tucker to come into this place and say, "We will put this in because it is just, it is wonderful and it is great. We want everybody to have a right to their long service leave". We do, too. But the job in this place is not just to say, "That sounds nice. We will have one of those this week". It is to determine what might be the flow-on impact on jobs, the economy and, of course, small businesses in the ACT.

I would like to finish on one comment that Mr Berry made in his many interjections. Ms Tucker spoke about a situation that she believes occurs in schools with the use of casuals and Mr Berry made the comment that this sort of legislation would not make it worse. I have to tell you, Mr Speaker, that every time government puts a new impost on business, particularly the small businesses that use the sorts of employees that this industry uses, it inevitably makes it more attractive to employ people off the books. There is no doubt that it is the wrong thing to do, but it makes it more attractive to do so. It is just a reality.

Ms Tucker: Oh!

MS CARNELL: It is a reality, Ms Tucker. If it is not a reality, show us the data to prove that it is not.

Mr Berry: You show us the data that it is.

Mr Stanhope: You are making the case, make it.

Mr Berry: You have not made the case yet.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .