Statutes Amendment (Budget 2010) Bill
28/10/2011
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (11:05): I wish to speak briefly to this bill which, as I understand it, makes the necessary changes required to current legislation so as to implement the budget. I have a number of concerns, as you can imagine, in relation to the budget that was handed down in September this year; however, I will save those comments until I speak to the Appropriation Bill. I wish to now focus on the negative ramifications of this bill. Of particular concern are the proposed amendments to the Public Sector Act, the Education Act and the TAFE act, which will reduce the long service entitlements for our longest-serving public servants without any consultation. I am not saying that public sector work should necessarily receive more long service leave than that provided under the Long Service Leave Act: I just believe that it is not fair to take a worker’s entitlements without first taking it to the bargaining table.
I am also concerned that the 17.5 per cent leave loading will be taken from public sector employees and replaced with an extra two days of annual leave. I have perused a number of federal awards, and I note that every one I looked at provided employees with a 17.5 per cent leave loading. I do not think it is fair that our hardworking public school teachers, for example, will now receive less than their private school counterparts or that public sector clerks will receive less than those who work in the private sector.
Not only have these workers been robbed of their entitlements: they have also been deceived and treated with disrespect by a Labor government that purports to champion workers’ rights. I am no historian, but my understanding is that the Labor Party was indeed established to achieve a better deal for workers. Sadly, it seems that the government has all but forgotten its core constituency.
We have received correspondence from the Motor Trade Association, which has raised concerns about the burden placed on motor industry employees who are expected to take reasonable steps to ensure that a vehicle is registered. I understand that the Motor Trade Association has provided the government with a proposed amendment which effectively exempts motor industry employees from prosecution and I, like the Hon. Mr Lucas, would like to know whether the government has considered the Motor Trade Association amendments and the associated cost of such amendments.
To be frank, I am not comfortable with the government’s decision to do away with registration labels. While it may signal a $5.7 million saving over three years, I am concerned about the burden placed not only on motor industry employees but also on every person who becomes a designated driver by default; for example, the support worker who drives their client’s car or the mate who agrees to drive a friend because the friend has had too much to drink. Is it reasonable to expect these people to call a hotline every time they drive another person’s car?
While my concerns with this budget bill may seem minor in the larger scheme of things, I believe they are worth mentioning, obviously. However, that does not mean I have nothing else to say regarding the budget in general, and I advise my fellow members that I will make further comment when we debate the Appropriation Bill later in the week. I look forward to doing so.
