HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-10-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

LONG SERVICE LEAVE (UNPAID LEAVE) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 16 October 2008. Page 332.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (18:16): On behalf of the opposition I rise to indicate that the opposition supports this bill, which is a relatively simple change to the act and which erases the ambiguity and clarifies the method for calculation of long service leave entitlements. There are three main aspects to the bill. Unpaid leave is ignored in the calculation of long service leave entitlements and paid leave is included in the calculations where a three-year averaging period applies and a rolling average method of calculation is adopted. The member for Morphett in another place (Dr D. McFetridge) was brief in his comments on this measure, and I wish to touch only on the main facets of the bill.

Payments for long service leave are already calculated, depending on the worker's ordinary weekly rate of pay at the time that the leave is taken. In many circumstances that rate has fluctuated over time and, as such, an averaging provision applies. Troubles have arisen from the current legislation when periods of unpaid leave have been included in the averaging period, thus creating an unfair financial penalty for the employee. The bill clarifies that where someone is paid on commission or has had a variation in the ordinary weekly hours, a 12-month or three-year averaging period is used, respectively. Previously, calendar rather than service periods have been taken into account.

I have been advised by the departmental staff that stakeholders are happy with the periods and see no need for review. Under the bill any periods of unpaid leave would be omitted from the relevant time frame, thus more accurately reflecting a person's employment profile. Unpaid leave is not defined in the act and it has become an accepted term of which the concept, no doubt, will evolve over time—hopefully, with some commonsense prevailing.

A positive aspect of the bill is that its implementation relies only on the current accounting records. One may ask why the total working records are not being taken into account. Understandably, this would place a significant burden on employers when calculating entitlements. I think this bill will be a positive move for the majority of workers, given that an employee is more likely to begin employment with a company on a casual basis and perhaps at a lower level of pay and progress through to more senior positions or possibly executive positions later in their employment. Therefore, when it comes time to award an employee with long service leave entitlements, this system is more likely to provide a more accurate financial benefit.

My colleague in the House of Assembly consulted widely with a range of industry stakeholders, including SafeWork SA, SA Unions, Business SA, the South Australian Wine Industry Association, Engineering Employers Association, Masters Builders Association, Motor Trades Association, Farmers Federation, Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, Australian Workers Union, Australian Services Union, Public Service Association, Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union and the Transport Workers Union.

Other stakeholders were consulted, including the public sector workforce, employer and employee associations, and the Construction Industry Long Service Leave Board. The Crown Solicitor's Office also had discussions with the member for Morphett. Members can see that extensive consultation took place, as well as contact with the shadow minister in another place. On behalf of the opposition in the Legislative Council, I support the bill and commend it to the council.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. B.V. Finnigan.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT