Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Amendment Bill 2009. I say from the outset that the coalition does not oppose this bill. This bill will, if passed by both houses, ensure that the existing sector-specific long service leave arrangements for the coalmining industry can continue beyond 1 January next year. Currently, the sector-specific long service leave provisions to which this bill relates are contained in industry-specific awards. These awards require the payment of a levy to the relevant fund by an employer from which the employer may seek reimbursement where they have made a payment of long service leave to an eligible employee. This bill is necessary as from 1 January next year Labor’s system of so-called ‘modern awards’ will apply. These awards do not contain a provision for long service leave. It is the understanding of the opposition that the government intends that long service leave become one of its national employment standards.

We were told, during the debate on the Fair Work Bill and subsequent legislation, that the government, in conjunction with the particular department and state governments, will be developing standards provisions for long service leave entitlements around the country. On this point, a question that looms large in my mind is exactly how these standardised provisions for long service leave will apply. I ask this question as, when you take even a cursory glance at the various long service leave provisions around the country that are currently contained within state legislation, you can easily see that they contain different entitlements and different provisions with respect to the taking of long service leave. I want to list those differences to give the House some sort of idea about why this is a difficult process and why we have concerns that the government will handle it as badly as it has handled other national standardised policies, such as the ‘modern awards’ process, which has been completely botched and bungled from the very outset.

I will move firstly to the New South Wales situation. In that state the entitlement is for two months leave after 10 years of continuous service. Thereafter, there is one month of leave for each subsequent five years of continuous service. I note that the entitlement on termination in New South Wales is that if an employee terminates for any reason then they will receive a full payment of their entitlement after 10 years of service. A pro rata amount applies for the five-year period immediately after the 10-year service trigger. I also note that for between five and 10 years of service an employee might be eligible for pro rata long service leave on termination of employment if that termination occurs at the initiative of the employee—on account of illness, incapacity or domestic or other pressing necessity—or where an employer terminates an employee for any reason other than serious or wilful misconduct. And I note that in New South Wales, unless the employee has had five years of service, there is no obligation for an employer to pay any entitlement to long service leave.

In Victoria, the system is reasonably similar, but there are still some minor differences. For example, in Victoria there is no entitlement for long service leave for any employee that has had less than 10 years of service. For between 10 and 15 years of service, an employee can receive a payment for their accrued long service leave on termination for any cause and for any reason, other than if the employer terminates the employee for serious or wilful misconduct. And, after 15 years of service, an employee who terminates for any reason will receive the payment of long service leave.

In Queensland there are differences as well. In that state, the Queensland Industrial Relations Act provides that employees will receive over 8½ weeks—8.6667 weeks, to be precise—on completion of 10 years continuous service. Further leave is available for each additional five years of continuous service. On termination after 10 years, an employee is entitled to receive the payment of their long service leave entitlement for any cause. However, in relation to an employee who has completed less than 10 years of service but more than seven years of service, they may be eligible for pro rata leave should they be terminated by their employer for any reason other than the employee’s conduct, capacity and performance, or by death of the employee for whom the entitlement has accrued. However, where an employee has completed less than seven years of service there will be no entitlement. This is different to the Victorian and New South Wales systems.

In South Australia, the entitlements to long service leave are different. In my home state of Western Australia, there are also subsequent variations. The same goes for Tasmania, as it does in both of the territories. So in all of the eight jurisdictions around Australia there are slight differences in how an employee can accrue long service leave. I bring these differences to the attention of the House because, based on what we have seen about how Labor operates in government, we hold concerns, given this existing patchwork of legislation that currently exists throughout Australia, about how the government will go about standardising a system of long service leave.

In particular, the opposition is concerned about what guarantee the government will give in relation to either employers or employees going backwards with respect to long service leave entitlements and conditions. As I have detailed, there are substantial differences between the amounts of accrual, the circumstances upon which the entitlements can be paid out to workers and in particular the pro rata provisions applying in each state or territory. We are concerned that, if the government seeks to standardise long service leave arrangements across the country, it will result in a situation akin to the intentions and the promises made by Labor with respect to the bungled and botched modern award process.

I need not remind the House that, after introducing the fair work legislation into parliament, the minister gave us a promise that workers would not be worse off as a result of those changes. Subsequently we were given a promise, or the Australian people were given a promise, that the aims and intentions of the modern award system would include a requirement that no increase in labour costs would be borne by employers. There was a dual promise given to this House and to the Australian people, firstly, that no employee would be worse off as a result of the changes through the modern awards and, secondly, that no employer would face increases in their cost base.

We have seen, since these promises have been given, that they have been nothing more than hollow and false promises that the government has failed to deliver on. Australian workers and business have every right to feel ripped off as result of the award modernisation process and the outcomes it has delivered. We have seen business, particularly small business, very concerned about the increased labour costs they will be facing as a result of the award modernisation process. Retailers in New South Wales will have increased operating costs of up to 22 per cent per year. The pharmacy sector have indicated that they will have to curb trading hours for that sector, resulting in reduced services to the community and reduced service for people seeking access to medical assistance and the advice of a registered pharmacist.

The hotel sector in Western Australia is predicting that as a result of the modern award process it will lose, within that sector alone and within the one state of Western Australia, between 300 and 400 employees. The Queensland Newsagents Federation has stated that as a result of modern awards a newsagent employing just one casual employee will have a cost increase of over 31 per cent per year. I can continue to list these adverse results from the award modernisation process, but I have detailed those concerns extensively in the House before. However, I wanted to highlight them again in relation to the government’s desire to standardise long service leave arrangements around the country and to say that the opposition remains very concerned about how they are going to go about this. We remain very concerned that they will not go down the same path that they have adopted in relation to modernising the award system.

We would be very concerned, as an opposition, if the process of standardising long service leave entitlements resulted in further spin and further hollow promises about the effects that it will have on workplaces. We are very concerned on behalf of business, particularly small business, that their costs may increase as a result of seeking consistency regarding the application of long service leave. We would also be most distressed if Labor’s attempts to standardise these provisions resulted in workers being worse off. To this end we call for the government to make it clear to the Australian people, and everybody in Australian workplaces, exactly what their intentions are with respect to the standardisation of long service leave. We seek from the minister some guarantees and an undertaking that the botched and bungled approach that she has taken to modernising the awards system will not be repeated in relation to such an important entitlement as long service leave.

These concerns aside, I note that this bill continues the existing scheme applicable in the coalmining industry for workers and employers. Had this bill not received the support of the opposition, it would have resulted in a circumstance from the beginning of next year where employers and employees might not have been covered by an appropriate system of long service leave regulation. It is likely that they would have had to revert to their relevant state systems.

We are pleased that this bill is a result of discussion between industry representatives—the Minerals Council and the relevant mining unions. I am also pleased that other stakeholders potentially affected by this legislation, including the Australian Mines and Metals Association and the Australian Industry Group, have not indicated that they hold any concerns about this legislation. However, our position on this bill should not be taken to represent any future view that we have with respect to long service leave generally and, in particular, any system of portable long service leave. Whilst we do recognise that in this particular sector there have been longstanding arrangements and agreements between stakeholders about long service leave arrangements, they are specifically applicable to this industry and it is not the case for all other sectors. We will reserve our position in relation to any future development in that area. However, we will not be opposing this bill.

We do believe that it is necessary to reiterate the call to the government and the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations to make sure that when developing a standardised system of long service leave there is a degree of consultation and cooperation between stakeholders—including the opposition—at all levels. This is something the minister consistently fails to do. We see today she has run around expecting the opposition to make up for her inability to manage the government’s legislative program. There needs to be an underlying fundamental approach taken to this standardisation and it must be different from the bungled modern awards process. We do not want to hear more hollow rhetoric and spin from this minister. We do not want her to make promises to the Australian people that she cannot keep, and we will be watching very closely as her proposals to develop standardised long service leave arrangements are developed.

See this speech in context