CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LONG SERVICE LEAVE (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 November 2012.)

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (16:44): I note that I am not the lead speaker for the opposition on this, but I do intend to make a brief contribution while we are waiting for the member for Davenport, who is the lead speaker, to enter the chamber. I rise with some pleasure, and I do it willingly, because one of my first jobs as a young man joining the workforce was to do payroll. So, I have a bit of interest in how annual leave, long service leave, and all those types of accrued leave and payroll are calculated. I have read this bill and the second reading contribution from the minister with some interest, and note that it is a good idea.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: So you are speaking on behalf of the opposition, then?

Mr GRIFFITHS: No, that is not what I said.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am just clarifying.

Mr GRIFFITHS: It is a personal position. I am sure that the lead speaker will indicate the position of the opposition, but it will not be different to what I am saying, though, except that he might go into more detail.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm very surprised!

Mr GRIFFITHS: That is alright. I will just talk for a little while. It is only a relatively short bill but it is actually quite an important one. I note that in the construction industry it is a rather challenging one where you have the highs and lows of a lot of business, and sometimes when there are more challenging times there is therefore a movement of employees across different employers. However, it is important that this bill, as I understand it, allows for a recognition of continuity of service within the industry—not necessarily for a particular employer but across the industry—therefore giving those employees access to very important long service leave entitlements, be it for 10 years of service, which I presume is the case here, or in some of the industries where it is 15 years of service where they are entitled to a 13-week paid period of leave.

The fact that there were some amendments made, as I understand it, with considerable consultation across the industry to allow for this to occur to give some security of long service leave payment to employees is actually a good thing.

The Hon. J.J. Snelling interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: No. When I talk about 'amendments', I mean your bill.

The Hon. J.J. Snelling interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes; not amendments that we are proposing, no. I know that, having spoken to industry sector operators in the past, there are occasions where people who have got great skills are poached from construction industry employers and businesses to work for other people. Sometimes a lack of incentive for a movement of a particular employee might be the fact that they might lose their long service leave entitlement because they have not reached that critical cut-off period where that liability transfers to a future employer.

The fact that this bill is coming in allows for that recognition of that service to be accrued, which is a good move. I did note that the bill provides the opportunity for the board to make movements within the levy amount up to a maximum of 3 per cent. Indeed, if you do a simple calculation, that 13 weeks over a 10-year period calculates to 2.5 per cent, therefore I can understand why it has been 2.25 per cent since 2008 and has only ever been a maximum of 2.5 per cent.

Yes, it is a pleasure to see that the industry has actually worked on this. The government has supported it. The industry importantly recognises that it wants to provide some additional value to its employees. It has brought this bill before the house, and I am sure that, in making a longer contribution for the opposition, the member for Davenport will certainly confirm our final position.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Davenport, I understand that you are the lead speaker.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (16:47): I have listened to the member for Goyder and I am convinced, so we are supporting this bill. This is the Construction Industry Long Service Leave (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. The member for Goyder has accurately reflected the intention of the bill so my contribution will not need to be long. For the officers here, we do not have a committee so you can head back to your other activities, if you wish.

It was kind of the Minister for Industrial Relations to send an email to my computer about three-quarters of an hour ago offering me a briefing; given that it was being debated in the next few minutes, I politely declined. However, given that it was introduced on 18 October, it took only six weeks for the minister to get around to emailing me offering a briefing, so maybe next time we could be a little earlier. The reality is that I rely on the Hon. Rob Lucas in the other place to provide an accurate briefing on the matter.

This bill seeks to extend the board's power to vary the levy rate within the prescribed parameters. The levy is defined in the act as a percentage of the total remuneration of employees and construction workers. Currently, the levy rate can be adjusted on the advice of the actuary who must be a fellow or an accredited member of the Institute of Actuaries of Australia. Any adjustment is then subject to the board providing a report to the minister recommending a change to the levy rate. The levy rate is then prescribed by regulation, and a copy of the report to be laid before both houses of parliament.

The bill gives the board the capacity to vary the levy rate upon the recommendation of the actuary so long as the variation does not take the levy above 3 per cent. This will increase the efficiency in changing the levy rate which would provide greater flexibility for the board to protect the fund from potential losses of levy income and ensure that employers are paying levies appropriate to the relevant financial position of the fund.

The board will be required to inform the minister of its intention to vary the levy rate, and there will be a 14-day grace period to allow the minister to seek any clarification from the board if necessary. Since 1 January 2008, the levy rate has been fixed at 2.25 per cent and has never been higher than 2.5 per cent. Under the bill, the levy rate can go up or down, but it cannot be above 3 per cent.

The bill also seeks to remove uncertainty surrounding the predominance rule so that its intention is clear. The predominance rule determines whether an employee is liable for paying into the fund on behalf of the particular employee because that employee is deemed to work predominantly in the construction industry. Those who do not meet the requirements of the predominance rule still accrue long service leave under the Long Service Leave Act 1987.

The bill also amends the list of industrial awards and occupations contained in schedules 1 and 1A to update the act in the context of modern awards. The bill is supported through the industry associations generally, which we consulted. For those reasons and because no-one has objected to the bill, we are supporting the bill and in this house have no questions for the minister.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Treasurer, Minister for Workers Rehabilitation, Minister for Defence Industries, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (16:50): I thank the member for Davenport and the opposition for their support for this bill.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Treasurer, Minister for Workers Rehabilitation, Minister for Defence Industries, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (16:51): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.