Page 2727 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 28 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
community in general. I will be interested in particular to see how the whole plan fits together in terms of the underlying policy framework and the priorities and emphases given to service delivery to injured employees versus the administration, the plan.
Also, I am aware that the Long Service Leave Authority is a stand-alone self-funded agency and therefore not part of the government budget, nevertheless it is worth noting that this agency still comes before the estimates committee and it is worth noting the government’s agreement to the estimates committee recommendations in relation to the authority. That recommendation from the estimates committee calls on the authority to disclose the contribution rates that form the basis of the calculation of the revenue lines in all operating statement reporting columns for each of the industry sectors.
This information is of vital importance to employers in various sectors. Currently the building and construction, cleaning and community sectors are managed by the authority. It will assist them in their budgeting and give them a little more certainty for the future. It will also add rigour to the authority’s budgeting process, making the authority more accountable.
But, again, I wonder why the government, calling itself open and transparent, could not think of this measure by itself. One can only hope, perhaps it will be a vain hope, that this might be a sign of bigger and better things to come from the sensitive new age Gallagher-led government. We saw the sensitive “new-ageness” of the government this morning. Perhaps in future we will see a range of other more basic information to which the community can relate more directly.
In relation to the Long Service Leave Authority I notice that, although the minister has stated on a number of occasions that she would like to see the extension of portable long service leave and that the retail industry and the security industry have been touted as possible targets for future extension of portable long service leave, there is no indication of this in the budget.
We are running up to the election, and there is now one budget left between now and the 2012 election. I think it is incumbent upon the government to put all its plans on the table—I think we have heard that expression before—in relation to portable long service leave. It is an issue of some contention in the community. It is not a secret in this place, but I have considerable concerns about the impact of portable long service leave in the community sector in relation to cash flow for organisations.
I still find organisations who have always made provision for long service leave but are now cash poor because if somebody stayed in the scheme for five or seven or eight years but did not reach their eligibility for long service leave and then left the industry, that money which had gone into an account on behalf of that particular individual would return to the organisation and that money could be used for other purposes. It is not to say, as Ms Burch has tried to say on a number of occasions, that organisations were not making provisions for long service leave; they were but if people were not eligible for it that money returned to the community. The real problem, as I see it with the current scheme, is that for those people who still leave the sector that money now stays in the accounts of the Long Service Leave Authority and does not return to the employer that provided that money.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video