Page 875 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 20 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The other farce about this bill, which has come up this morning, is that the bill says there is no retrospectivity for existing members of the scheme. When I last had a briefing on this bill we were told, “Well, that’s the intention, but we’re not quite sure that we’re doing it, and we’re looking to see whether we need to do other amendments.” The advice came back: “PCO thinks that we don’t need to do amendments.” But I was still a little uncertain. So my staff rang Dr Bourke’s staff yesterday to ask them to point to the place in the bill—not in the explanatory statement—that guarantees that existing members will not have their terms and conditions changed. Dr Bourke’s staff pointed to a provision in the bill that relates to one small aspect of that.
My staff member, who is very across this piece of legislation and has pointed out the problems in the current bill, said: “No, no, no, that doesn’t do it. If we have missed it, can you point to the words in the bill that guarantee there is no retrospectivity for existing members? Because their rights will change if there is retrospectivity in this bill.” The answer this morning was, “We’ll get back to you.” Well, I am still waiting. I ask the minister when he speaks on this to close to point to the words. I will be happy to be shown where they are. At the moment, they appear not to be there, and I am relying upon the advice of the minister in his explanatory statement and a staff member who has not covered himself in glory on this matter. I want to put it on the record that, if it turns out that there is retrospectivity, that we have taken away people’s rights, it will not be for want of trying to clarify this on behalf of the Canberra Liberals. My staff and I have been diligent on this matter.
This should be a simple piece of legislation, and it has been brought down to high farce by incompetence in the minister’s office—not by the minister himself, but he needs to look to the way his staff do things, because they are doing him no service.
MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (11.55): The Greens will support the Long Service Leave (Portable Schemes) Amendment Bill. This legislation implements recommendations from a review undertaken by the Long Service Leave Authority board of the Long Service Leave (Portable Schemes) Act 2009. As the explanatory statement points out, the purpose of the review was to streamline and align requirements and entitlements under the various schemes and to improve transparency around administrative procedures and processes.
My understanding is that the amendments have the support of all the industrial parties that are represented on the ACT leave authority. I also note the important point that the leave authority believes that the changes in this bill will have positive financial implications for funds in the scheme.
The majority of changes are clarifications and improvements to the process of administering long service leave, including streamlining some of the processes. For example, new sections 67, 68 and 69 streamline the way that workers and employers access information in the long service leave register. This will help to shift from a paper-based system to an electronic system, which is a sensible modernisation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video