Page 2097 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 8 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The Liberal Party are effectively ignoring the plight of ordinary working Canberrans and seem to be concerned only with the interests of industry and of the big companies. Mrs Dunne’s speech is essentially a rehash of the industry’s position. If we want to talk about no analysis, as Mrs Dunne has, Mrs Dunne’s speech is an example of this; plus, Mrs Dunne is essentially placing the interests of businesses, which in many cases are based overseas and are multinationals, above those of Canberra people.
A few weeks ago when we were debating technical amendments to the portable long service leave act, Mrs Dunne said that the Liberals were fundamentally opposed to portable long service leave schemes and Mrs Dunne has again said that today. I think that fails to recognise the reality that exists in many industries. It fails to recognise the fact that some people dedicate their working lives to a single industry but with the way that industry operates it is difficult for them to get long service leave with an individual company.
Workers in the security industry often do the same work in the same location over a period of time. However, the company that is contracted to that location changes. So the workers’ employer changes and they lose the opportunity for long service leave. These workers should be able to get long service leave, just as we have recognised that cleaners, the community sector and construction workers, who all work in similar employment scenarios, should.
My office and I have had discussions with representatives of the security industry body about this legislation. I am aware of the concerns they have raised. I will also note that I was very up-front in my conversation with a representative in saying that the Greens would be supporting the legislation, so they did know that from the start.
I want to address the key points. Firstly, I do not accept the suggestion that this scheme will encourage sham contracting. Sham contracting is a problem in the security industry, as it is in other industries such as construction, but this should not be a reason to neglect entitlements for deserving workers. The focus should be on reforming the industry into one where sham contracting does not occur. The Long Service Leave Authority also explained to my office that the administrative arrangements for the portable long service leave scheme will in fact open another avenue to check for sham contracting which will actually help to eliminate it.
Secondly, a concern was raised about employers being able to recoup their extra costs under current government contracts. I understand that the government is favourable to the idea of remaking contracts to take into account the increased cost of the portable long service leave levy. I also understand the Chief Minister is going to request that the federal government do the same.
The other main complaint is that the contribution rate and administration fees need to be determined through a thorough investigation of the industry and all the relevant factors such as the number of employees and the number of employees likely to be eligible. I agree that this needs to occur, but some of the detail will be determined once the principal act is passed.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video