Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 9 Hansard (1 September) . . Page.. 2692 ..

MS CARNELL: Sorry, it is your Bill. We on this side of the house are after information about the impact on the costs of companies in the ACT and how that will affect jobs. How did those opposite determine that 2 per cent was the right level? Were actuarial studies or anything else done to determine that that is the right level for an industry that is fundamentally different from the construction industry? If the level is not right, as we suspect, will the funds be returnable; if so, how? How will the entity controlling long service leave be set up? How will the costs of setting up the administration be met? I heard Mr Berry make the comment before that they will be from the contributions to the fund. There is no money in the budget for it. How would that work in the first instance? I do not know, Mr Speaker. No work has been done.

Mr Berry: Read the Bill.

MS CARNELL: I have read the Bill. If Mr Berry can answer all of those questions and also can show - - -

Mr Berry: Will you support it then?

MS CARNELL: Actually, yes. If Mr Berry can answer all of those questions and show a need for the legislation - in other words, show us cases of people having been mistreated in the industry that we cannot fix it up in another way - I would have to say that this side of the house would look very seriously at it. We actually care about workers. The most important thing we care about, though, is people actually having jobs and jobs not being lost as a result of badly thought out, politically expedient legislation. It is easy for some members to say, "I will support that; it is nice", without thinking of asking Mr Berry to put on the table all of the information that we would need to ensure that it would not cost jobs. If people cannot be sure that it would not, more consultation needs to be had and more work needs to be done.

I find it fascinating that consultation is the most important thing in the world to Ms Tucker and those opposite on everything that they do not support, but on things that they do support they do not want to consult. The fact that major business organisations representing lots of people say that they have not been consulted adequately, that they have not had time to determine how this Bill will affect their industry, makes no difference to them in this situation. When it suits them, they want us to consult forever. It shows, I have to say, an enormous amount of hypocrisy.

MR OSBORNE (12.00): Before I start, Mr Speaker, I would draw your attention to the placard that a gentleman in the gallery is wearing and get a ruling from you on whether it is in breach of parliamentary practice. Perhaps you could let us know.

MR SPEAKER: It is not a placard; it is something that somebody happens to be wearing. Placards are out of order. The gallery will come to order.


: It is possibly a protest. Mr Speaker, I must admit to being a little confused as to why it has taken so long for those opposed to this legislation finally to come out of the woodwork. This Bill has been on the table for two months. I have to say that my experience is that, as soon as a piece of legislation supposedly of such a drastic

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .