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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Tuesday, 2 March 2004) . . Page.. 437 ..

9,100, were non-employing businesses; 8,000 employ one to four people; and 2,900 employ five to nine people. A total of 38,900 people were employed in ACT small businesses.

The Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which has approximately 1,000 members, is very much opposed to the bill, as is the Canberra Business Council, which I think represents 300 partner businesses in the ACT as well as an additional 5,000 businesses through membership in 39 kindred organisations. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry conducted a survey of its members and the responses indicated that 99 per cent were opposed to the introduction of portable long service leave. The Canberra Business Council said that long service leave:

is an extra loyalty reward, the fundamental provision of which should not be changed so that the incentive of staying with one employer is eroded to the extent that long service leave is seen not as a loyalty reward and recognition but as a normal entitlement similar to sick leave, special leave or recreation leave bonus.

The Chamber of Commerce and Industry locally and nationally is strongly supportive of that statement, as they are strongly supportive of flexible working arrangements.

There are some real concerns in relation to business. When asked in a survey conducted by the chamber what they would do if they had to pay an extra 2 per cent of business salaries to fund this particular scheme, 26 per cent of responses from members indicated they would pass that on to the consumer, 30 per cent said they would reduce salaries or forgo other award entitlements, 26 per cent said they would reduce staff, and 18 per cent said they would absorb the cost by reducing the income of the business owner.

So there are some real worrying concerns there. Small businesses and workers have some real worrying concerns. There are some real problems for businesses that feel that this is such a disincentive that they will not hire an additional worker when they would really like to do so. Because of the extra cost of another 2 per cent, businesses feel they will have to prune somewhere. It is possible that a worker who retires will not be replaced. Maybe a business will rationalise and a worker will lose their job because the business simply feels it cannot survive any other way.

I know what I would prefer if I were a worker—I would prefer the opportunity to keep my job or the opportunity to get into a job in the territory, the opportunity to see my children have a good chance of getting a job, rather than one additional entitlement of service such as this bill would bring. I think it is very important that unnecessary imposts—and I think this would be an unnecessary impost—are not placed on business. It is essential that we encourage employment, we encourage business, and that we do not drive business away from the territory.

Already we hear businesses complaining about industrial manslaughter laws. Again, that is an ACT first—no other jurisdiction has done it. No other jurisdiction, I believe, is going down this path either. What is being proposed amounts to a further disincentive to business. It is something that will make it more difficult for existing businesses. Businesses that might like to relocate to Canberra could think, “Well, we would be better doing it in Queanbeyan” or “Let’s go to Brisbane or Melbourne or Sydney.”

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