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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 9 Hansard (1 September) . . Page.. 2697 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

I am very happy that Mr Smyth no longer attempts to rely on shifting this matter to the Industrial Relations Commission so that it can be cleaned out of the awards by Reith's legislation. I am glad that he has dropped that one. I think he was served a bit of a dud there, perhaps an embarrassing one as well.

An issue was raised about the people who operate in New South Wales. The cleaners that operate in the ACT are covered by ACT awards and this scheme would apply to people covered by an ACT award. Under this scheme, they would be required to pay the levy set by this legislation while they were working under an ACT award; it would be as simple as that.

The effect of this legislation on the Territory was raised as an issue. (Extension of time granted) It may have been Mr Smyth who said that we ought to be concerned about the effects on the Territory of employers having to pass on the costs to them of this provision. I am surprised that they are not doing it already. I would say that they would be already including 11/2 or 2 per cent for costs in their contracts for the ACT. Is it not right that the Territory should be paying for this anyway? What is wrong with paying for an entitlement that workers have under a piece of legislation established by the Territory? It makes sense to me. So far as effects on the Territory are concerned, there should be none.

Let me go back to the issue raised earlier of long-term contracts. Mr Smyth made the point - Mrs Carnell might have made it, too - that some of these contracts were for seven or 10 years. Under the current Act, in seven or 10 years workers who work under those contracts would be entitled to long service leave, so the contractors should be making provision for it. If they are not making prudent provision for their long service leave commitments, then it is their intention to try to manipulate the system to ensure that these workers do not get the leave.

Under the current scheme, the Long Service Leave Act 1976, there is an obligation on employers to provide the benefit to workers and they would certainly become entitled to it in the period of these contracts, certainly a 10-year contract. Why would the contractors not be making provision? Mrs Carnell says that some of them make provision only when they have to pay. I would like to have that sort of money sloshing around. It would not be very prudent of a businessman not to make some provision for long service leave benefits. In fact, I have heard of there being long service leave accounts and those sorts of things to cover it. If they are not providing for it, it is their intention to get out of it. That is what this piece of legislation sets out to prevent.

I think I have answered every question that has been put to me here today.

Ms Carnell: No, you have not.

MR BERRY: Tell me which ones I have not.

Ms Carnell: I do not interject.

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