Page 507 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 19 March 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
delay completion of projects, and the fees that ensue are more appropriate, being commensurate with the annual rates charge.
When it comes to long service leave provisions, I do not support Mr Coe’s call for a hold on any increases to the portable long service leave levy. I remain concerned that the Liberal Party continually fail to support the very notion of portable long service leave. They are on the record as attacking the concept of long service leave generally and also on the record as saying long service leave schemes are, “A pain to industry.”
I am pleased to say the Greens support long service leave, and we also support portable long service leave in the industries that need it. These are industries that have high levels of brief employment and mobility. For example, someone working in Canberra as a cleaner might spend 20 years doing the same job but move between different employers. Usually these changes in employment would mean that they would not be able to receive long service leave entitlements. Portable long service leave ensures such persons still receive long service leave. In the territory we support portable long service leave schemes in the building and construction industry, the contract cleaning industry, the community sector industry and the security industry.
The schemes are managed well by the Long Service Leave Authority board. In fact, just last year we passed legislation to improve the administration of these schemes. The board uses actuarial data to recommend appropriate long service leave levies, and it also regularly reviews the levies applied to the various industries. Denying any increase to the levies, even though they may have been examined and recommended by the Long Service Leave Authority board, would simply take entitlements away from workers who deserve them. Why should we say that workers in the building and construction or cleaning or security or the community sectors should be denied appropriate long service leave?
This is an unreasonable suggestion that Mr Coe has put forward, and it comes at the expense of workers and families in the ACT who the Liberals regularly purport to understand and support. Perhaps the real motivation here is to support security or cleaning firms. I simply do not believe this levy is having a crippling impact on the employers in these sectors.
When it comes to the government monopoly of land supply that Mr Coe refers to in his motion, the clause refers to concerns about private sector access to profits from land development in the ACT. The government have recently indicated that in the current economic climate they will be managing land releases via the Land Development Agency rather than through large englobo releases or joint ventures. This model allows the government to control its land release program and secure revenue for the territory budget. Of course, all construction is done through the local building industry, so there are opportunities there for the private sector.
I understand that the government is also looking at various models for land release, such as small scale englobo to local developers and models where the private sector looks after the project management of a development but without equity in the project. I encourage the government to explore these options.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video