Page 1942 - Week 06 - Friday, 6 May 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
is in even worse shape …
It is all about relevance. They are living in the new Jerusalem. For those who have not seen it, I suggest you look at RiotACT today because it talks about Jon Stanhope and his apparatchiks creating a new Jerusalem. That is why we are here; we are here to make the workers’ paradise in the ACT, new Jerusalem, on-tap, online in the ACT. But the minister will not release the work that justifies how this will help all stakeholders. She says in her speech that this will “take into account the interests of all stakeholders”. She probably should have added, “and then we’ll disregard business and we’ll probably disregard several other groups and we’ll just make sure that it’s the ones that we want to particularly look after that we will actually look after.” She said:
This provision will ensure that seasonal workers who work for the same employer year in, year out can share in the benefits of long service leave.
Well, they already do. If they are permanent employees, they are entitled to long service leave. If they are not permanent employees, they are paid at the casual rate. I am intrigued about the seasonal workers. Which crop of seasonal workers do we have here in the ACT? It might be the fruit pickers of Forrest, or the cherry pickers in Pialligo, but I have not seen the convoys of kombies coming down to the backpackers hostel with all the seasonal workers who work in the ACT.
There is some additional seasonal work—I guess you would call it seasonal work, although it is probably just peak demand—at Christmas and at some of the tourist events. But this is not a city overwhelmed by seasonal workers who work for the same employer year in, year out, and they do share already in the benefits of long service leave. If they are employed permanently, they get that money, that entitlement. If they are a casual worker, they actually pick it up in the hand. The casual rate of employment is a bit extra, about 25 to 30 per cent, depending on the award. They already get paid that, so I am not sure how the provisions of this bill will ensure that the seasonal work force, which is obviously huge in the ACT, will get the same benefit. The minister said that, whether they work in the agricultural, tourism or retail industries, there is no sound policy reason for denying these workers the same benefit. That is true, because they are not being denied it.
There is no justification in the minister’s speech for changing this legislation at this time. You can poke holes in her argument. She says it is to recognise the long-established principles. Well, the long-established principle was that it was a reward for 10 years of service. She says that we have got to get the underlying policy basis for long service leave and take into account the interests of all stakeholders—and I would add “except we will not release the business impact statement.” I assume it has been done, minister? The BIS has been done?
MR SPEAKER: Order! Address your comments through the chair.
MR SMYTH: Well, Mr Speaker, perhaps the minister will tell you, because she is obviously not going to tell me whether or not she has done a business impact statement and, from the tight-lipped look that we have got across the treasury bench, one can almost assume that there was not a business impact statement done. So they are either
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .