Page 2095 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 8 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
If the worker for whom the employer is paying the levy does not reach that entitlement, the employer, or the employers if the employee moves around, does not get the money back under the current proposal. The Long Service Leave Authority keeps that money for its own rainy day. That day in this scheme, and at the guesstimate levy, is likely never to come. That money has to come from somewhere. It will add to the cost of doing business in the territory. It may even reduce employment opportunities in the industry. Half a million dollars in cash withdrawn from the industry would threaten up to 25 jobs.
Then there is the minister’s assertion that workers who move between employers in the industry and who do not become entitled to long service leave do so because of “circumstances outside their control”. This is also false. In most cases the choice of employer and the decision to move from one employer to another lies completely with the employee.
Another false assertion in the minister’s introductory speech is that portability would provide employees with “greater prospects of promotion”. This falsity applies particularly to the security industry, which has a very high employee turnover, on top of a high percentage of casual employees, thus creating the sort of opportunities for advancement for workers with individual employers. This is yet another assertion of the Minister for Industrial Relations that has been proven to be false by any analysis. He says that most other workers in Australia are entitled to access portable long service leave. It would be interesting to see the figures on which he bases this assertion.
The government claims it has consulted widely on the bill. ASIAL begs to differ. It had one meeting of one hour and a few phone calls. On its own initiative it organised an information breakfast, which ORS and the Long Service Leave Authority attended. It made a written submission on the exposure draft and the discussion paper, and that submission was largely ignored.
Mr Speaker, that to me does not constitute consultation. But then, I am sorry, I forgot the advertisement in the ORS bulletin, no doubt a widely read publication, and a notice on the community noticeboard, again no doubt a much sought after piece of government communication!
This bill is being shoved onto the security industry. It creates business costs and increases business administrative red tape. It is being introduced without any idea of what the levy will be, apart from a guesstimate. It fails to be of any material benefit to the large proportion of workers in the industry. However, the cost that it will impose probably puts their employment at risk.
It was presented to the Assembly based on a series of false premises. To the smallest of credit, the government has recognised that the start date of 1 July 2012 is optimistic and it will be amended to 1 January 2013. I am sure that the industry is grateful for such small mercies. But those mercies are far outweighed by the burdens that this scheme imposes.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video