Page 3763 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 24 August 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
In doing so, he quite simply fails to explain why a person who may not wish to have anything to do with a union will be forced to present themselves to the LHMU. He has failed to explain it and I am waiting for an explanation here today. In his presentation speech, the Attorney-General also talked about “detailed consultation with key employer and employee representatives of the ACT security industry”. I have no doubt that he had detailed consultations with the union. Indeed, the union movement is obviously driving this whole issue. It is an excellent example of the way in which the union movement drives policy making in the ACT Labor government. But it is also clear that he has failed by any measure to have had detailed consultation with key employer representatives.
Certainly, from conversations that my office has had with the Australian Security Industry Association, the Australian Hotels Association and the Chamber of Commerce, there has not been any consultation. The conversations we have had with key employers in the security industry in this town show that there has been no consultation.
There was a letter written in January from the acting Attorney-General after the failure of Mr Corbell’s last attempt to sneak this through, but that is not consultation. What are we saying about this bill? There are a number of things. Firstly, the industry has not been consulted. There has not been a major employer who has been consulted. It is a way to give the LHMU access to employees without their having to go to their workplaces.
In addition, the COAG agreement of July 2008 intended that the Australian jurisdictions should harmonise their licensing criteria by January 2010. Although this has not yet happened, this bill would take the ACT further away from harmonisation because no other jurisdiction carries a similar eligibility criterion. Information statements are already required to be given to employees under commonwealth law and the one-year review period does not allay any of the above concerns.
It does not end here. My office has spoken to one of the top four security companies operating in Canberra. The representative we spoke to is also associated with the ACT branch of ASIAL, the Australian Security Industry Association. There has been no consultation.
This employer also confirmed that there has been no consultation with the ACT branch of ASIAL or his company. It is interesting to note that this was the company that Mr Corbell lauded as being right behind these reforms in December 2009. But at this stage the company has told me and my office that they are opposed to the reforms on a number of grounds and also that they are opposed because the attorney has not had the decency to consult with them on this matter.
I note that Ms Bresnan said the attorney was prepared to give her a list of all the people that he has consulted with. I would like the attorney to enumerate here not just who he wrote to but who he spoke to or who his agency spoke to, and what feedback they received, because it is clear from everyone that I have spoken to, with the exception of the union, that there is widespread opposition. There is unanimous opposition to this provision from everybody except the union. I do not know of any
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video