Page 3762 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 24 August 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
impost to either employees or potential employers in the security industry. It is our understanding that the LHMU have already held discussions with training providers in the ACT in preparation for this training being put in place.
As implied earlier in this speech, effective enforcement in this instance is not simply about protecting workers. It is about protecting responsible employers as well. Informed security employees will gravitate towards the best employers and avoid those that violate award conditions, allowing good employers to pick the best staff.
The expected increase in compliance amongst employers currently not complying will reward those employers who do act appropriately by giving them an even playing field and more opportunities to win contracts. I would also like to note that the minister’s office provided my office, upon request, with a list of the individuals and groups consulted in the process of developing this bill, and I thank the minister’s office for providing this information.
This bill is a win for workers in the security industry. It will benefit those employers who do the right thing by their workers and it will enhance equity and effective enforcement of entitlements. The Greens will be supporting this bill today.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (10.33): The Liberal opposition will be opposing this bill for exactly the same reason we opposed it in December last year. This Attorney-General has presented a bill which is almost exactly the same as the one he tried to sneak through this Assembly in a JACS omnibus bill last December. The only change is to provide for a review of the operation of the new legislation in 12 months time.
Under this bill, a person wanting to apply for a licence to work in certain fields within the security industry will have to get information about their employment rights and responsibilities from an employee association. Who is that employee organisation? The explanatory statement tells us that it is the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union. Anyone who wants to work in the security industry would have to march themselves off to the LHMU. This includes people who want to work as patrol guards, to watch or protect property, to act as bodyguards or to act as crowd controllers.
The information to be provided is prescribed by legislation. But the proposed regulation is quite broad, simply requiring that relevant information be given about workplace rights and responsibilities under territory laws. Examples are given, such as minimum wage, employment conditions, employment agreements and termination thereof, and work safety.
As proof that the worker has marched himself or herself off to them, the LHMU has to hand over a certificate to say that the information has been provided. The scrutiny of bills committee raised the question of whether this requirement for a person to take themselves off to the LHMU amounts to a breach of privacy and whether it amounts to arbitrary interference in freedom of association by the government. The Attorney-General in his response does not address these questions. He seeks to justify his attack on individual rights to privacy and freedom of association by talking about what options he considered.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video