Page 1392 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 3 May 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
For a variety of complex reasons to do with the way our modern capitalist economy works, we have some industries where the workforce is relatively transient and people do not tend to receive long service leave. That does not mean they do not deserve long service leave if they continue working in the same sector of the workforce.
In fact, I think there is a real question about whether it is time for Australia’s long service scheme to go through a more fundamental, modernising transformation. All long service leave could in fact be portable, recognising that in the modern age people change employers and industries fairly frequently. Today’s working environment is just not the same as the days when someone might be a company employee for life.
The Senate, through a recent committee inquiry, has looked into the issue of a national portable long service leave system. I understand that some modelling has been done on the implications of such a scheme, and I will be very interested to see the results.
Returning to the issue before us today, the extension of portable long service leave to the waste and aged-care sectors here in the territory, employers in these industries might say that introducing a portable long service leave scheme will increase their costs. In fact, they have said that to me, as I have met with several representatives of the aged-care sector in recent weeks. Currently, by their nature, these industries have low costs when it comes to providing long service leave. This is because in their sector employees do move around at a high rate, either between employers or by virtue of the fact that their employer changes because a company changes.
Meeting with one aged-care company recently, I noted that they had amalgamated several other companies and their workers, an example where, because of the company structure changing, the employees could lose their entitlements. The costs to employers in these industries have stayed low because they are benefiting from the constant cycling of employees passing through. These employees provide the labour but do not get to accrue long service leave. So yes, costs may increase for employers, but they are increasing from what I believe is an unnaturally low base.
As I said, the bill will extend portable long service leave to two new industries, the aged-care sector and the waste sector. Aged care will be included in the existing community sector scheme and the waste sector will be included in the existing cleaning sector scheme. One of the benefits of including these sectors in existing schemes is that it will keep administrative costs low, thereby helping to keep the portable long service leave levy as low as practicable.
Think for a minute about the job that these employees are doing—the people who work in the aged-care sector and the waste sector. They are generally some of the lower paid occupations in our city. They do hard and necessary work, work that everyone in this city relies on. Everybody needs their garbage collected. We need our waste recycled. And we are all going to get old, and as we do we will need people to care for us. Or we have ageing parents and relatives who need care right now. Sometimes these can be tough and unpleasant jobs. On top of these difficulties, they are industries where it is very hard to accrue long service leave so that you can take a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video