Page 3536 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 25 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I would also like to make some comments on the cleaning industry portable long service scheme, which commenced on 14 July in the year 2000. The cleaning industry is not a very visible industry. It is often undertaken after hours and out of sight. But we here in this building benefit from their service each and every day. The cleaning industry portable long service leave scheme arose out of the recognition that cleaners were amongst the lowest paid workers, worked primarily part time or casually, often at more than one job and with more than one employer, and rarely, if ever, remained with the one employer long enough to accrue long service leave.
A separate authority under a separate board, but with the same staffing resources, was created to manage this scheme. To date, only one other jurisdiction, Queensland, has followed the ACT lead in establishing a portable long service leave scheme for cleaners.
I would like to touch on the role of the authorities and their associated boards and the statutory administrative functions of the two authorities under their acts. The two authorities’ specific roles and statutory responsibilities include that they administer the scheme of long service leave benefits; they make long service leave payments; they maintain a register of employers, employees and contractors; and that they exercise any other function given to each authority under its act or by any other territory law. The authorities’ primary stakeholders are employers, employees and independent contractors engaged in the respective construction and cleaning industries in the ACT.
Public service staff manage both authorities and the registrar or chief executive is a non-voting member of both boards. Individual scheme-based assets and liabilities and operational and administrative costs are separately identified, while corporate or common overhead costs are shared in accordance with a formal cost-sharing arrangement formally approved by both boards on a yearly basis. These are some of the core issues for moving to an integrated scheme and board.
The boards, as will the new board, set the strategic direction of the authorities and closely monitor operational activities—in particular, the financial management of funds. Both authorities are run through funds received from employers’ levy-based contributions and income earned on these funds through managed funds or rural property investment. Neither authority receives any funding from the government. All staff costs, including the value of any services provided by the Chief Minister’s Department and Shared Services, are reimbursed by the authorities.
Robust and comprehensive accountability regimes are in place for both authorities requiring them to submit separate statements of intent, annual reports, audit reports and statements of performance. A key benefit of the integration of the two authorities will be a reduction in the duplication of much of the administration. Most importantly, high levels of fiscal and operational accountability will be maintained as the single authority will still be subject to all relevant ACT legislation, such as the Financial Management Act and the annual reports act. Additionally, separate yearly and three-yearly reports will be still required for each scheme.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .