Page 5437 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 8 December 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The Greens will be supporting all of those elements of the bill, but I should address the area Mrs Dunne has already talked about in relation to the security industry. The Liberal Party will move amendments to omit these clauses, and the Greens will be supporting those amendments.
In part, the Security Industry Act requires bodyguards, crowd controllers and similar jobs to be licensed. The licence required is an employee licence. The amendments proposed by the government to the Security Industry Act would mean that, before an application for an employee licence can be approved, the applicant must have been provided with information about workplace rights by an employee organisation—in other words, a union. This change to how people become licensed as an employee in the security industry has raised concern amongst a considerable number of individuals and groups involved in the security industry. The chamber of commerce, the Hotels Association and ClubsACT have all raised concerns about the model in the legislation today.
The Greens fully support all workers being made aware of their workplace rights and responsibilities. All workers need information on matters such as minimum wages and workplace safety. We believe that unions play an important role in providing information to employees. However, it is an extraordinary step to make engaging with the union compulsory prior to commencing employment.
As the Attorney-General has noted publicly, the security industry is particularly exposed to breaches of workplace rights, given that they are often disconnected from organised representation. However, whilst the ACT Greens recognise the difficulties in organising security industry employees, we question whether the unusual step the government seeks to take is an appropriate response.
The Greens believe that introducing a model of better information flow can be achieved with the involvement of all parties. This includes employer groups as well as employee groups. We believe that unions and employers can go beyond bitter disputes and recognise that both the employer and the union have a role in protecting workplace rights.
To date, employer groups have not been consulted about the proposed changes. Because they were not involved in the process, they have feared the worst from these changes. We believe that employer groups and unions can sit down, discuss in good faith and agree on the information that workers should receive. The Greens urge the government to go back to employer and industry groups, as well as unions, and work out an agreed model where potential workers are given all the information they require.
It is on this basis that we will support the Liberals’ amendments to omit clauses relating to the security industry. We support better information for workers on workplace rights, but we also support better consultation with all affected groups before introducing legislation such as this.
However, we need to be clear regarding our reason for supporting this amendment. We are not—I repeat: not—opposed to unions being involved in providing
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video