Page 5440 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 8 December 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
benefits of OH&S in the workplace and their legal entitlements in terms of pay, leave, sickness benefits and so on. These are important pieces of information for low-paid workers to have.
I note that the Greens will not be supporting these provisions today, and the question really needs to be asked: why not? Why won’t the Greens support a provision that ensures that low-paid workers are guaranteed to get information about their rights and entitlements in the workplace?
I note that Mr Rattenbury in his comments said, “Well, we’re not convinced that this is the best model to do it; employers should be part of the picture as well.” What about those employers that do the wrong thing, that do not pay award rates and conditions, that do not respect their employees’ rights under appropriate legislation? What about those employers? Are those employers suddenly going to stand up and say, “I’d better let you know about your occupational health and safety rights and responsibilities; here you go; you’d better have some information about how much you are meant to be paid for the award”? Of course they are not going to do that. But that is the sort of naive position that we have got from the Liberal Party and the Greens on this matter today—that the bad eggs, the employers that do the wrong thing, that exploit low-paid workers in the workplace, in the security industry, are suddenly going to, out of their own benevolence, tell their employees what their rights and entitlements are at work. No, they are not, and they do not.
The Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union have recently commenced a campaign to better represent the views and concerns of low-paid workers in the security industry. This is one of the issues that they want to see addressed—that workers in that industry have full access to their rights and entitlements at work. This is a provision that guarantees that. It is not compulsory unionism; it does not compel union membership on anyone. All it does is to ensure that those workers get information on how much they should be paid, what their benefits are for sick leave, holiday leave and overtime, and occupation health and safety obligations. What is wrong with that? These are important pieces of information.
I note the comment that has been made about consultation. If there was such a problem with consultation, why is it that representatives of one of the largest security companies in Australia, Wilson Security, are supporting the union in this proposal? One of the largest employers here in the ACT, Wilson Security, is supporting this proposal, and the union has worked closely with a broad range of employer groups across the territory to get their support.
The only objection that has been made, in that discussion that the union has had with those employer groups, is: “Is this going to cost us anything more?” The answer is no, it does not cost the employer a cent more in terms of the training. The training in terms of the provision of information will be provided by the employee organisation, the union. So there is no cost to employers.
Large firms like Wilson Security are backing the move because they want to see the cowboy operators out of the industry. They want to see the security companies, those cowboys that do not do the right thing, that pay below-award wages, that do not provide appropriate conditions, that do not inform their employees about occupational
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video