Page 5434 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 8 December 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
matters not otherwise covered by appropriation. There was a power previously held by the Energy and Water Consumer Council which was removed by the establishment of the ACAT. These amendments are reasonable and in the most part restore previously existing arrangements. The Canberra Liberals will be supporting them.
We will not be supporting the amendments to the Security Industry Act 2003 and the Security Industry Regulation 2003. These amendments will create a new prerequisite application requirement for employee licence applicants. They will be required to seek information from an employee organisation about workplace rights and responsibilities relating to the security industry. They will also be required to provide a certificate to say that the information has been provided before they can take up employment.
As I have said before in this place, omnibus legislation should not be used to get new policy through the Assembly by stealth. In supporting the JACS 3 bill last month, I noted:
… it is good to see that the Attorney-General has finally taken in the message that I gave in relation to the two previous JACS omnibus bills dealt with last year. That message was that omnibus legislation should not be used to introduce major policy changes or otherwise deal with substantial matters.
I noted that it was “a positive step forward for a slow-learning Stanhope government”. Regrettably, there has been one step forward but three steps backwards with this government. Out of the four JACS bills dealt with by this Assembly this year, including this one before us today, three have attempted to make substantive legislative amendments. In the case of the JACS 4 bill, the amendments to the Security Industry Act and regulations implement new government policy. This has significant implications, not only for employees in the security industry but also for employers in that industry, and it has implications for consumers of the services provided in that industry. And that does not take into account, if we introduce this policy here today, the implications it would have for the whole of the ACT workforce.
What consultation has there been on this policy, Mr Assistant Speaker? None. When I took this matter to the chamber of commerce and the security industry, it was revealed to me that they did not know that this legislation existed. It was the Liberal opposition that raised this matter as a matter of concern with the community. There was no consultation with me and there was no consultation with the major players in the security industry in the ACT about this substantial and substantive change to policy.
What has emerged from the process of consultation that I undertook? Perhaps if we had time to think about it, we would have other ideas on how we might ensure that prospective employees can be well informed about their workplace rights and responsibilities. Perhaps it might have been revealed that information could be provided by registered training organisations as part of the training for security industry employees. This government did not know that, because it failed to consult with the experts—the people and the businesses in the industry. It will come as a surprise to the Attorney-General that the security industry and its consumers do not support this new policy.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video