Page 3767 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 24 August 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
stocks of a particular union. The Canberra Liberals reject this approach, and we will reject this legislation.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (10.53): I just wanted to speak briefly in response to the comments made by Mrs Dunne about the approach of the Greens on this legislation. It is true that when this matter came before the Assembly last December, on behalf of the Greens I did express some concerns about the bill. I would like to elaborate on the comments that Ms Bresnan made about why we are now in a position to support this today.
Certainly, our previous concern was that this was introduced as part of a JACS bill, and we believe that that was an inappropriate way to introduce what is a policy change. We agreed with the Liberal Party at that time that such amendments should not come to this place as part of an omnibus bill; they should come as a bill in their own right, and that that would enable a more transparent process where members of the community were able to observe what was going on in the Assembly. I think it would be fair to say that most people do not pay a lot of attention to the average omnibus bill, as disappointing as that may be for some of us in this place who are fascinated by them. That was the first concern we had.
We did then take the approach of seeking additional information and undertaking further discussions ourselves once it was clear that this bill was coming back. We also know that the government has conducted wide-ranging consultations. We have sought that assurance from the government, and I am sure Mr Corbell will clarify those points when he stands to speak. But the government has indicated to us that they have had consultations with industry peak bodies, including the Australian Security Industry Association, the Security Providers Association of Australia, the ACT chamber of commerce and industry, the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Hotels Association. Certainly, in our own right, we have met with the LHMU and held discussions with representatives of ASIAL and the industry.
In our meetings with the LHMU, we sought and secured alterations to the proposed curriculum, and we received assurances that there will be no coercion or any other undue influence on individuals receiving a licence, which is certainly the suggestion that those in the Liberal Party are making—that that is what the true agenda is here. For myself, in thinking about this issue, it really does come down to what is the bottom line here. I think that a report this year from the Fair Work Ombudsman for me underlines what the real issue is. That report showed that up to 50 per cent of employers were not complying with award or industrial relations requirements.
Although many of these noncompliance issues were minor and unintentional, a substantial percentage of them were major, involving sham contracting arrangements, phoenixing—where a company dissolves to avoid paying its liabilities and then another company forms to take its place—or underpayment of award rates. This wide-ranging noncompliance does hurt the honest players in the industry and implies that we cannot rely upon the employer to provide even the minimum information to staff. Similarly, the very limited resources of the Fair Work Ombudsman to conduct audits means there is little incentive from enforcement. As such, the Greens accept that one of the most effective means of enforcement is having the information provided by independent registered employee organisations or unions.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video