Page 3904 - Week 12 - Thursday, 23 November 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
no-one being consulted much in relation to this bill? The act states that the costs of long service leave are met by contributions made by employers for each employee to the Cleaning Long Service Leave Board. Employers and their representatives should certainly be consulted about any proposed changes, even taking out the sunset clause.
There are some real problems in the very nature of the cleaning industry. I have mentioned this privately to the minister and would like to have received more information as to how it is going. I think everyone now is effectively entitled to some form of long service leave. With the transient and part-time nature of this industry, a lot of workers will come into it and work part time. Then they might move off and do something else. They may never, for whatever reason, be in a position where they can actually take their long service leave entitlements. They might move into another industry; they might be unaware of it; they might forget about it; they might not worry about it.
I would be interested to see how it is going. I would be interested to see whether there is any indication that workers who have been in the industry for a while are accessing any entitlements. They probably would not have too much entitlement yet because the scheme has only been going a little while. That in itself is an interesting point. I would like to see just how much money is in the scheme, how it is working, how it is accumulating and what plans there are for it in the future.
This scheme caused a fair bit of angst when it was put in. I recall the debates in the last Assembly and the debates around long service leave generally. Long service leave has been a factor in the public service for many years. In many ways it was almost confined to that particular body; it was not a feature in the private sector. The private sector is very different from the government sector. There are benefits in being in the government sector and there are benefits in being in the private sector. Hence, I suppose you ask yourself, “Is there any real need to extend schemes like long service schemes right across the board?” It is, however, history. Whilst industry groups are not happy at all with this particular scheme—they have fought the battle and lost it—given that it is law, it needs to operate effectively and properly.
We need to be given some indication of how the scheme is operating, what problems there are with it, whether this particular change will lead to any potential problems, and if it is going to make a big difference in terms of people opting to take leave after seven years. We need to know whether there are any indications one way or the other in relation to that.
In relation to costs, employers put money into the scheme. I would be very interested to see how all that is panning out—how much money there is in the scheme, whether people are accessing it, and what the signs are there.
Let me conclude by again reprimanding the minister for not consulting with the chamber of commerce. I would be interested to see who he did consult with, if anyone. I certainly hope he does not make that mistake again, even with legislation like this. Whilst removing sunset clauses is a very simple mechanism in legislation, it has very big implications. Obviously, the scheme that operates, which could have ceased in December, is an important one. That scheme is set to continue ad infinitum as a result
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .