Industrial Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
Hon Jon Ford; Hon Simon O'Brien; Hon Alison Xamon;
Second Reading
Resumed from 21 September.
HON ALISON XAMON (East Metropolitan) [8.32 pm]: I thank the Minister for Commerce for giving me that opportunity. I will not speak for very long on the legislation. I rise on behalf of the Greens (WA) to support the Industrial Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. I understand that many of the provisions in the legislation have been floating around for some time, that parts of the legislation have been subject to considerable discussion by many stakeholders, and that quite a lot of it also reflects case law that has emerged over the years. Obviously, I support the changes to make reference to the Fair Work Act and UnionsWA. It is an important technical tidy-up and is long overdue. It is important that that be done. I also note that there is some important clarification about the appointment of industrial inspectors.
Of particular interest to me, and obviously the main substantive changes to the legislation, are the proposed amendments to the construction industry’s portable long service leave scheme. It is a very important scheme. It has, in the main, functioned well. It recognises that the nature of the construction industry is such that workers rarely stay with one employer long enough to accrue long service leave in the way that other workers ordinarily do. Long service leave is particularly important to this industry, because construction work is arduous work. It is quite important that people are able to take this time out, because the work is also particularly hard on the body. I understand that the changes are largely designed to reflect the changing nature of the workforce and include provisions around labour hire companies; that is obviously important. A definition of “offshore” construction has been included, as well as the additional areas now classified as construction work—again, as I understand, to reflect case law—such as swimming pools and spas.
As Hon Jon Ford mentioned, there are changes to the membership of the board. I indicate that the Greens are happy to support Hon Jon Ford’s amendment and share his concerns about ministerial involvement, which has increased to a level that has not been the case in legislation to date. In the nature of the make-up of the board, ideally all relevant and significant stakeholders would receive representation, and the amendment proposed by Hon Jon Ford goes a good way towards achieving that balance.
I also note that the legislation extends the definition of employers who are required to register for the purposes of contribution, which is a positive step. I understand that this also reflects case law. It is an important amendment, and it is important that we are tidying up these provisions. It is good to see that, effectively, it will be easier to recover moneys that are owed. I also note that the bill will update the provisions pertaining to enforcement.
Overall, this is a fairly straightforward bill. When I met with the ministerial briefers, I noted that a lot of the changes seemed overdue. I asked why it had taken so long for some of these changes to come about. Some of these changes represent a good tidy-up. However, there will be more discussion, particularly about the make-up of the long service leave board and how that board is appointed. It has been a very important board because it deals with such an important provision, particularly for construction workers. It is important that we get that right. I appreciate the opportunity to speak. The Greens will be supporting this bill.
Hon JON FORD: On that basis, minister, it seems to me that the best solution would have been not to change the construction board, given its long history of working. Given that we are now being asked to change the board, I would like to propose the following amendment. As the minister said, it is a different way of looking at it. In this amendment the minister does not get involved in any way or form other than in the way or form that is currently available; that is, the minister of the day has limited discretion unless those groups actually fail to nominate somebody, and that is up to them. I imagine they could do that. If they were at loggerheads internally in their preselections, they might just say that they will give it to the minister.
On that basis I will move the amendment and test it in the chamber. I move —
Page 7, lines 4 to 26 — To delete the lines and substitute —
(b) 4 persons appointed from among persons whose names on a panel of 8 names comprised of —
(i) 4 names submitted by the Master Builders’ Association of Western Australia; and
(ii) 4 names submitted by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia (Inc);
(c) 4 persons appointed from among persons whose names are on a panel of 8 names comprised of —
(i) 4 names submitted by Unions WA; and
(ii) 4 names submitted by The Building Trades Association of Unions of Western Australia (Association of Workers).
Hon ALISON XAMON: As I indicated during my second reading contribution I generally support Hon Jon Ford’s proposed amendment. I thought I should clarify my position. I am not actually enamoured with the idea of widening the number of people on the board. I am confident that seven people is probably a manageable number. I agree that that sort of number has also contributed to the stability of the board, which, as has been pointed out, is one of its positive functions. Ideally, we want to ensure that the board remains apolitical in effect, as much as is practicably possible when talking about the sorts of organisations involved. I am prepared to support the proposed amendment because I particularly share the concerns raised by Hon Jon Ford about the provisions at proposed section 6(1)(d) and (e) in that it is a shift to the minister making the decision to appoint people. One of the strengths of the board to date has been that it has very much had ownership from industry and also from representatives of workers in that industry. I would hate to see a move away from that. Although the minister has made it very clear that it would certainly not be his intention to politicise this board, of course we are talking about legislative provisions that will potentially be around for quite some time. The interpretations that may be exercised by existing ministers may not be the same as that for future ministers. That is something that we need to be mindful of. I would have preferred a similar make-up of three and three, but I have not moved the amendment; therefore, I basically either take the point in the amendment that is presented or not.
I would like to reiterate my concerns that no minister, either existing or future, should exercise the provisions that have now been included within this legislation, effectively, to politicise the board and perhaps to impose on the board people who are not supported by either the industry bodies that have put forward names or the employer representative groups that have put forward names.
Amendment put and negatived.
Clause put and passed.
Clauses 7 to 61 put and passed.
Title put and passed.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Leave granted to proceed forthwith through remaining stages.
Report
Report of committee adopted.
Third Reading
Bill read a third time, on motion by Hon Simon O’Brien (Minister for Commerce) and transmitted to the Assembly.