Page 2098 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 8 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The established process is then for the Long Service Leave Authority board to consider all the actuarial data and make a recommendation on the levy to the minister. All the factors can be taken into account during this process. The minister then determines the final levy. I have confidence that the Long Service Leave Authority board will do a thorough job. The work it did for the existing portable schemes has been very successful. The levy will also be reviewed after one year, which will ensure it is appropriate.
The cleaning industry portable long service leave scheme is a good comparison. Actuarial advice initially set the levy at two per cent and this was reviewed after 12 months and periodically since. This has confirmed that the two per cent levy is appropriate. Periodic reviews over the past 10 years have consistently confirmed this figure.
There is existing data about the security industry. Security workers have to be licensed, so we know that there are currently 2,706 employee security licences in place, and about 2,400 of these will be covered by the scheme. The ACT government has records showing that there are presently 369 people who have already held a security employee licence for more than eight years. I would expect that putting in place a portable long service leave entitlement will increase this number. That is also a win for the industry, which will have more long-term employees.
I am aware of the industry’s argument that there are not a lot of security workers that will stay in the industry long enough to receive their long service leave entitlement and therefore we should not have a portable long service leave scheme. I am not convinced by this argument. Firstly, the levy can take account of this and, secondly, long service leave is an employee benefit that will help attract people to longer service. I see it as an important step towards making this industry as a whole more considerate of the needs of workers.
I would also point out that the security industry is similar in nature to the cleaning industry in terms of factors such as workforce profile and the use of contracts and that the cleaning industry has had a successful portable long service leave scheme operating for several years.
In conclusion, I would like to congratulate the government on bringing this legislation forward. I do have a reservation about delaying its introduction—I believe it should start as soon as possible—but otherwise I believe it is a scheme that is needed and has been a long time coming. I would also like to thank the directorate for providing information about the scheme.
Lastly, I would like to congratulate United Voice, who have campaigned for some time for the scheme, and security workers in Canberra, who are most deserving of this entitlement. I hope this is the beginning of many positive reforms for workers in the industry.
DR BOURKE (Ginninderra—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Minister for Industrial Relations and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video