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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 10 Hansard (30 August) . . Page.. 3869 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

I think the point here, though, is that after a lengthy consultation period and a process that has been worked through with the support from the unions, the employers and members of the board, it is unreasonable that such an amendment should be given to us out of the blue. If Mr Berry's argument is that firms are forcing staff to be contractors, and that is bad, then that should not happen. But if people choose to become contractors, that is legal; it is within the law. It is a staff member's choice; they cannot be forced.

Mr Deputy Speaker, as soon as somebody is working in their own company, they are entitled to a host of new benefits such as tax benefits and contracting opportunities that are much wider than would be available to them if they were in an employer/employee relationship or contract. Anyway, Mr Deputy Speaker, what is wrong with the current definition? Mr Berry does not say there is anything wrong. This suggests that there are already other problems within the act. But as soon as somebody becomes a company, that company has many obligations. If that company then provides cleaning services, it would have to register employees and pay long service leave entitlements.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the 80:20 rule is proving very hard for the Tax Office to approve and administer, as the recent trauma for couriers has shown. The government will be opposing this amendment.

MR BERRY (10.07): Mr Deputy Speaker, the first furphy here is that this has got something to do with the taxation department. It has got nothing at all-

Mr Humphries: Yes, it does.

MR BERRY: Mr Humphries, our Treasurer, just interjected, "Yes, it has." Here we have a Treasurer interjecting and saying that an amendment which is designed to get people involved in long service leave has something to do with Australia's tax laws. Rubbish, and you know it. This is specifically designed to ensure that employers contribute to the central scheme so that the playing field is level. It clarifies the position for those employers who want out. It is nothing more than that and some employers think they can escape.

Mr Smyth just described the benefits of entering into arrangements as individual contractors. Does anybody know of an employer who would make sure that their employees could get more out of it by becoming individual contractors? Not me. Would employers do this so that they could become poorer and their employees could become wealthier? Come on-get off the grass.

This evening the media reported that an employer had declared he was going to do something about the high costs, undisclosed at that time, of workers compensation. We find out that, of course, some time ago he had forced all of his workforce onto individual contracts.

Mr Smyth: It was an assertion.

Mr Humphries: It was an assertion; it isn't true.

Mr Smyth: It was asserted. There is much on the media that isn't true.

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