Bills
Construction Industry Portable Paid Long Service Leave Amendment Bill 2025
Second reading
Resumed from 12 August.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas (3:04 pm): Thank you, Acting President, although I have to say I almost got a bit excited there that there might be a second budget speech. I thought the Deputy Leader of the House was going to give me a second run at it and another hour to talk about the problems in the budget, the energy system of Western Australia. I must say, I am a little disappointed that I have missed out on that opportunity. I should have jumped up and sought the call. I do not know whether the clerks would have let me get away with it, but it was probably worth a try. Sometimes it is what you get away with, not necessarily what the rules are, that count.
That being said, I guess we will have to go back to the Construction Industry Portable Paid Long Service Leave Amendment Bill 2025. I think I made a short contribution last night on some of the basics, so I do not need to go over the history of long service leave again. We know that it is a throwback to our colonial past. We do not need to talk about the countries that have it and the majority that do not. I think we might get to the more substantive parts of the bill.
I want to break this down into a number of sections. The first I want to deal with is the application of portable long service leave for construction workers who work offshore, which is probably the most significant part of the bill, and I would suggest an impetus for the bill to be before the house today.
I know that members were probably all listening very carefully last night, but just as a gentle reminder, the original legislation, the Construction Industry Portable Paid Long Service Leave Act 1985, was applied to offshore workers in construction until it was challenged in a court case in 2016, which was called, I repeat, Thomson v Construction Industry Long Service Leave Payments Board. In that 2016 ruling it was ruled that offshore construction workers were no longer entitled to accrue long service leave. What happened at the time was companies then reassessed how they would deal with this. Some companies continued to make voluntary payments towards long service leave, other companies did not, and some companies actually asked for their original contributions to be returned, which I am sure was a fairly painful exercise. Of course, bear in mind that we need to remember that those payments were not made to the individual workers but were made to the Construction Industry Long Service Leave Payments Board, which oversees that process. The way this system works is construction industry people pay into the generalised board. It is quite unique to the construction industry.
I asked the minister yesterday to address in her second reading reply why we are dealing with only the construction industry, and why everybody else misses out. I am sure that the minister will answer that. I am still trying to potentially avoid the need to go into the committee stage of the bill with a few fulsome answers, although other members might have a greater enthusiasm to question long service leave entitlements.
I found this when I was doing a bit of additional research into this bill, and I thought it was interesting. The Housing Industry Association commented on this scheme. Rather than necessarily the degree of difficulty of the work, it took the view on the portable long service leave components of the construction sector that:
The transient nature of the construction sector means workers generally don't work for the one employer. The portable long service leave … scheme ensures they qualify for paid long service leave.
The comment continues:
Although it's rare for construction sector workers to hold a position with one organisation for several consecutive years, they are no less entitled to paid long service leave.
It might be that government members come back and say it is perhaps the tenuous nature of employment in the construction sector. To be honest, I am not entirely convinced that is a universal thing. I think there are plenty of workers within the construction sector who stay with a single employer for a longer period, although admittedly my experience is largely in the South West where there are smaller employer groups, and they probably tend to keep employees for a longer period. A little bit of defined definition, perhaps with some guidance from advisers on that, might be useful. Obviously it would appear that the Housing Industry Association supports the granting of portable long service leave in the construction sector. From my research amongst various lobby groups, I must admit a number of them are reasonably comfortable with this. I expected, as is often the case for the particularly economically based lobby groups, that perhaps they would have some issues with this, but the feedback that I received was consistently that they had no particular problems with this bill. That is one of the reasons I am not here pontificating against it or advocating that we vote against it.
Hon Jackie Jarvis: Thank God you're not pontificating!
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: As long as I am not pontificating?
Hon Jackie Jarvis: I said thank God you're not!
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: That is right. I had plenty of opportunity for that yesterday and I will have a bit more opportunity going forward. The joy is very hard to stop!
This 2016 ruling said that offshore construction workers had no entitlement to accrued long service leave in the same way that other parts of the construction sector did—onshore in particular. Much of the bill is given to the definition of an offshore vessel and who particularly this applies to because it is supposed to apply specifically to construction and not necessarily the general work on offshore vessels. The minister might also be able to give us a bit of a run-down on the definition as determined in the legislation of what an offshore vessel particularly is and where it is targeted. I make the assumption that there is a real focus on what is called the construction of floating production storage and offloading platforms or FPSOs—you always have to learn the acronyms as you go through. In this case, construction of ships obviously occurs onshore, funnily enough. Presumably, we are focused on offshore platforms for which construction is occurring rather than the general operations. A bit of a definition, if the minister would, of precisely how that looks and which groups are being targeted would be useful to continue the job. Members will probably find themselves getting stuck with the definitions of propelled and self-propelled versions of this. It is going to get a bit complicated but say, for example, an offshore platform is embedded, I assume the construction of that would be covered; an offshore platform that is in fact a ship, as has been proposed in the gas industry in WA, that is mobile, even though it might be anchored and tethered, obviously has its own mobility. Does that then impact on who can apply for portable long service leave and who cannot? It would be worth a few minutes in the minister's reply just to give us a little bit of definition around that.
I found it interesting—I love a bit of union disharmony as a part of the process—so I was particularly pleased to see a bit of that going on. As a result of the 2016 court case and a few other issues we have this thing called the Offshore Alliance. The Offshore Alliance defines itself as a partnership between the Australian Workers' Union (AWU) and the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA). We did have a very vocal representative of the Maritime Union of Australia in the previous Parliament. I am not sure whether there are any left or whether they have been culled. That is an interesting prospect. I know there are a multitude of representatives of the Australian Workers' Union, the good old AWU, in the chairs opposite. Perhaps they could speak up or, if they are feeling particularly brave, try to speak on behalf of the MUA, which I think would be fun and interesting. Please, let us have a little bit of contribution from those members.
Hon Kate Doust: How about a bit of substance coming from you?
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: There is plenty of substance coming from—which union are you in, Hon Kate Doust? It is not the MUA. The AWU? No.
Hon Jackie Jarvis: She's a member of the Labor Party; that's all that matters!
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: It is all one big happy family is it, minister? Oh my goodness.
There was a bit of kerfuffle about who was leading the battle here. We have the Offshore Alliance, the MUA and the AWU, but we also have a couple of other unions involved with this. There is the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU). I do not quite know how people do not get the AMWU and the AWU confused a bit more often, but they are completely different groups. Obviously what was then the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union has changed its name. It had a couple of incarnations. It is a little bit difficult to refer to them, so let us just call them the old BLF and move forward. We have the BLF and the AMWU and on the other side the AWU and the MUA. I understand that they all manage and I am not sure—
Hon Dan Caddy interjected.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: Sorry? It is not quite one big happy family.
Hon Dan Caddy: No, I said I don't understand all the acronyms.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: No. You would be very brave to comment on that side, I suspect.
Hon Dan Caddy interjected.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: It would be a very brave act, Sir Humphrey would say, for the parliamentary secretary to pass comment on that. There was a bit of a fuss over this and I understand that they both made contributions to the independent review of the Construction Industry Portable Paid Long Service Leave Act, which was conducted by KPMG. The minister might like to make a note of the 2023 KPMG review. I presume that is an open review that is part of the debate going forward. If possible, in the minister's second reading response, it would be nice if she were able to table that review, if it is not too big. From memory, I do not think it was done in secret. The government has become more secretive in more recent years, but I think that one is on there. There was a bit of a fuss and I imagine that once this legislation passes through, all those unions will be more than happy to take credit themselves and push forward. The amendments in the bill will allow for construction on offshore vessels. Like I say, if we can just get a bit of a definition of which vessels are included, which vessels are not and just make sure that it is applying specifically to construction.
The second part of the bill I want to mention is fairly simple. It is to allow construction workers to be recorded as employed and in service when they are stood down or on workers compensation. I think the definition of "stood down" in the minister's second reading reply might be looked at. I am presuming that they are stood down or stood aside but still employed. I think the definition deserves a little bit of discussion. If need be, we will go to clause 1 of the committee stage and ask for a more defined outcome. What are the circumstances in which a stood-down worker is effectively deemed to still be an employee? That is what we are talking about. We are talking about people accumulating long service leave entitlements if they are an employee. A worker that is stood down rather than laid off could still be an employee, but the circumstances might be interesting.
Hon Kate Doust: Member, you know that that's not a new concept; that's a concept that came about in 1958.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: Yes. I am not proposing that it is an issue; I just think, in terms of the reply, it would be useful to get some more formal definitions on the record. Hon Kate Doust made a good point. I do not think that is a particularly onerous part of this bill. My understanding is that the best example of this—the minister's advisers will probably go through this—is the application of JobKeeper. With JobKeeper, people were still employed, although the government was paying some or all of their wage, depending on the deal. I suspect that in the construction industry, it was probably a proportion. They were stood down. They were not at work but they were still employed, and that might be the example that the advisers will use for a circumstance along those lines. I am just interested to see whether other circumstances would qualify as someone being employed but not actually working. Those on unusual rosters and working different swings might perhaps have an implication for this as well. I think some response on that would be quite useful.
The third part I want to speak about, and this is probably the other large section that is worth looking into, is the pro-rataed payment of long service leave prior to when someone would normally qualify for it because of permanent or serious impairment, disability or terminal illness, and, presumably, all the way to death. I understand that under the current legislation, there is no pro-rataed long service leave in those circumstances. I think this is a pretty reasonable component of this bill, but it again comes back to the argument about how appropriate long service leave is. I said last night that the fact that it exists and has become an expected part of the employment profile and the employment system in this state means that any debate around its value or usefulness is rather moot. I think we just need to move on with the fact that it does exist. If it does exist, should it be pro-rataed out? In the construction industry, employers make payments to the fund along the way rather than simply waiting for an entitlement, as other industries potentially do. If an employee of a small business is entitled to long service leave—in theory, they will have reached 50% of their entitlement, so instead of 14 years, they have hit seven years—the business will have to find that long service leave in one way, shape or form. If it is cashed out, they must find the cash. If the person takes long service leave, they will find a temporary replacement staff member. I have done that before in businesses that I have run when I have had to deal with long service leave entitlements. It is not the easiest thing in the world if someone is trained for a particular job, as you have to try to fill that job. For example, you might be asking someone to do that job for three months and then lose that job again. It is not the easiest thing in the world, but most businesses manage to muddle through that process reasonably well.
Again, there is a special case for construction workers. The existing legislation provides that a worker has to complete or work a minimum of 1,540 days over at least seven years based on a minimum of 220 hours a year. That does not sound like a lot, to be honest—220 hours a year. That is averaged over the seven-year period to qualify for a long service leave entitlement. If someone was working 22 hours a week, they could reach 220 hours in 10 weeks. That is not a particularly high level, but that is in the legislation so it already exists. That is what happens now. The bill before the house proposes, for the construction industry only, a minimum of 55 days to qualify for a pro rata payment of their long service leave. To be honest, I do not have a particular philosophical or moral objection to what the bill is proposing, because I think it involves fairly small numbers to be honest. After doing the calculation and consultation in the briefing, it looks like that someone who works 55 days to qualify for a pro-rataed long service leave entitlement is probably going to be entitled to only one day. A long service leave entitlement of one day is probably not overly useful to people. It is not as though they will suddenly hit 55 days and have accumulated three months of long service leave. One day of long service leave is a pretty small amount. I suspect the business community has not raised significant concerns about the legislation before us because it is an entitlement to a fairly modest reward ultimately. In that case, I think we go, "Why not?"
Again, the only argument becomes around why it will apply to the construction industry and not other industries. Is the government aware of any agenda to extend this? Probably the most important question I will ask the minister to respond to is: At what point will we know that this will not open a door or be the thin edge of a wedge going forward? When the construction sector gets this particular entitlement, will every other sector suddenly be clamouring for it as well and will there be a union push for everybody to get partial payments? That is a completely separate debate and we could argue that some sectors are more onerous than others, but is this the thin edge of the wedge? Is this the first step in a wider campaign? We never know—the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union, the Australian Workers' Union and the Maritime Union of Australia might all get together. It might be like the Labor Party. The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union might get together with them and make this a wider campaign. What assurance can the government give us that this is not part of a wider campaign? Probably more importantly, if it starts to become a wider campaign, is the government likely to support or oppose it? The government admittedly might get a bit of kickback from some of the more robust members of the union movement, but is this the first step or not? I would love the government to go, "Look, this will be restricted to—
Hon Andrew O'Donnell: Wasn't the original legislation in the 80s?
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: From memory, it was 1985.
Hon Andrew O'Donnell: The thin edge was a while ago.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: That is right. But is this the thin edge in terms of expanding it? Do not forget that the original 1985 legislation—
Hon Jackie Jarvis: It is 220 days, not hours. I kept thinking that that didn't sound right.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: Sorry, did I say hours? Good; we have got that sorted! The year 1985 was a long time ago, but the legislation will be expanded to include a specific pro-rataed component that did not exist before. I think the most important question is: How do we prevent that contagion from going elsewhere? There will be a conversation around that.
There are a couple of other components of the legislation that, in my view, are reasonably innocuous. The first concerns the operations of the board, which are the usual things—the government's gender-neutral titles agenda, a streamlining of the payment of fees et cetera and the way that meetings are chaired. I am quite comfortable with them. There are also some consequential amendments that are part of the debate and the argument. I have gone through those parts of the bill and there will be a few interesting questions to be asked around them.
As I said, in terms of the consultation that I went through, nobody raised a particularly opposing alternative view. The opposition is here to waive the legislation past as it goes. Other members might have a different view. If we can get some answers back, minister, we might be able to just forgo the committee stage and jump straight to the next bill, but I will give other members an opportunity to make a contribution. A few members from various unions might want to step up and take credit for some of this work and I would love to give them time to be able to do that. With those comments, we will see where the bill goes.
Hon Tim Clifford (3:30 pm): I rise on behalf of the Greens to support the Construction Industry Portable Paid Long Service Leave Amendment Bill 2025. I will not speak on this bill for too long because we support it and it would be good to see it pass through the house as soon as possible. I will speak from my personal experience with portable long service leave. I was a recipient of this leave following my construction days. I contacted my old employer this morning to get a printout of my payout from 2011. It was quite interesting to reflect on that time when I came out of the construction industry after having worked in it for just over a decade. For five of those years I worked as a FIFO worker all across the country. I do not miss the four weeks on, one week off, or the six and ones that I used to do.
I guess at the heart of it, this issue is a no-brainer. It will expand into the maritime space for those folks who work in construction. I worked on the Ravensthorpe nickel project, for example, which was a two to three-year project. That was probably the most secure work I ever had. It was also the most continual work. I was doing four and ones there pretty consistently and it was a good job. I knew where my pay was coming from. But the specialised construction workers who were doing specific things, like the welders and electricians, might be working on a job for only three or four weeks at a time. They are were waiting on the end of the phone, as I was sometimes, for a call about the next job, or they would start looking elsewhere for work with another company. They would be reaching out to people and other companies within the state or interstate to see where the work was because their skills were applied in all different ways in different spaces.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: Will you take an interjection?
Hon Tim Clifford: Yes.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: Did you find that there was a transient nature with employment for specific employees and that is perhaps the reason why you have a transferable entitlement?
Hon Tim Clifford: Yes.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: It was generally shorter terms of employment?
Hon Tim Clifford: Yes, absolutely, especially when the downturn hit in 2008. A while ago I reflected in this place on what it was like to not have a job after the shutdown of the Ravensthorpe nickel project and understanding that we were going back to finish up a few things for four to six weeks. Then we were at the whim of whatever work came up after that, especially if you were a labourer or a machine operator. I was doing dogging and rigging. When the oil price dropped, you knew you were in trouble and that was always in the back of people's minds, so it is quite important in that scenario to know that this long service leave is accruing in the background. Being a young person, I did not really think too much about long service leave or superannuation—all those things that you should be thinking about.
I think Hon Dr Steve Thomas mentioned yesterday about the nature of the work. It is very hard on your body. A person can be labouring in the sun for a long period of time and dealing with heavy loads and it is constant, backbreaking work. In fact, I have a fracture in my back from doing some of that work. I do not recommend doing stone pitching as it is not good on your body. When I came to the end of my time working in construction, one of the older guys said to me, "You should look at this long service leave because it's something that you've probably been accruing in the background." I was actually shocked because this letter from 2011 that I received today states:
The amount has been calculated as a pro rata of 13 weeks leave using your total credits in the industry as recorded by the Board, divided by 3300 days; which is the maximum number of service days in a 15 year period, multiplied by 13 weeks, multiplied by the rate of pay.
The company I worked for was not the greatest. It liked workplace agreements or WorkChoices, which we can talk about another time. It would expect a person to do their four weeks and fly home, then, all of a sudden, they would get a phone call asking them to do a job in Perth. That was the nature of the work. A person took the work that was in front of them because they wanted that consistency in work for when it was not going too well. It was shocking the amount of days that I accrued actually. Work consistency really weighs on people who have to pay mortgages and who struggle with the cost of living and so forth, so they just take the work. It is good that this facility will be in place.
We will support this bill. It makes sense. It is good for workers and at the end of the day, every time we hit a boom or a company announces a new project, a bunch of transient workers will work on these projects, with some risking their lives in highly dangerous places. It is really good to know that we will have these measures in place to support workers going forward. Thank you.
Hon Jackie Jarvis (Minister for Agriculture and Food) (3:36 pm) in reply: I want to thank everyone who has spoken: Hon Dr Steve Thomas and Hon Tim Clifford. I thank them both for their support of this bill, especially Hon Tim Clifford who spoke about his unique experience and been able to put into practice and articulate why this is so important. It is a credit to the diversity of this place that we have people with lived experiences right across the board. It is particularly pertinent in this case and I really want to thank him.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas, it is always great when we have a contribution over a couple of days because it gives us time to really digest it and think about it. Yesterday we heard a detailed history on how long service leave came about. I will not reflect on that but I thank him. Some younger people in the room did not know that history, but I thank him for that detailed history. The member opposite noted that it is a welcomed and favoured entitlement to Australian workers and that is indeed correct. Quite wisely, he said woe betide any government that decided to remove long service leave.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: They would be very brave.
Hon Jackie Jarvis: Yes, very brave. I will read out some stats. Only one in four Australians stay with the same employer for 10 years due to not only the changing nature of loyalty of workers, but simply the reality of the Australian labour market.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: You might find that number changes because more young workers are shifting a lot more frequently.
Hon Jackie Jarvis: Absolutely. We know that many blue-collar workers are losing long service leave benefits because they have entered a line of work that does not give them employment that is as secure as others. For someone who is not in the union movement, Hon Dr Steve Thomas spent a lot of time speaking about unions. He did not mention all the unions so some of us are feeling a bit left out, but that is fine.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: Your union is not offshore then, obviously.
Hon Jackie Jarvis: I am not going to go into it. I am going to pause to reflect on the history of this place over the four decades that this legislation has been in force. Many of Hon Dr Steve Thomas's reflections referred to the original act, not this bill, but it is worth going there just to understand the genesis of all of this.
This legislation has been in force in Western Australia for four decades. We have had four terms of opposition-led governments that have never sought to change the legislation. As the member said, it would take a very brave minister to do that. I will provide some background. The genesis of the act can be found, I am told, in the Liberal–National coalition government in 1977 that established a chairmanship of the Department of Labour and Industry, a committee to examine the needs of long service leave payments for casual workers in the building industry.
The committee was tripartite in nature and included the Master Builders Association, the Trades and Labour Council, the Confederation of Western Australian Industry and the government. It produced a draft proposal for an act concerning long service leave payments to the building and construction industry, held 18 meetings and completed its task in 1978. On 27 February 1984, 26 years after the Long Service Leave Act 1958, the WA cabinet approved the establishment of portable long service leave entitlements for the building and construction industry.
It is interesting that that occurred in 1984. I remember the 1980s. My father was a member of the BLF. He was a construction worker. There were significant periods of unemployment for people in the construction industry in the 1980s. There was a housing downturn. As some of us would remember, interest rates were very high. I certainly remember my father having periods of unemployment. It was interesting to hear Hon Tim Clifford give his more recent experience, but this is something that has carried on in the industry for a long time.
As I said, the approval in 1984 was made in principle, a direction that the operation of the MyLeave scheme be subject to tripartite consultation.
I will provide some further clarity to the honourable member about why the construction industry and not other industries. I have an excerpt from Hansard from the 1985 parliamentary debate, which states:
This industry is characterised by the short-term nature of employment contracts. This is an industry in which the mobility of labour is such that most employees are unlikely to become eligible for long service leave. Employers in the industry are able to receive service from their employees as do employers in other industries, yet without in most cases having to pay long service leave.
In the absence of any portable arrangements, current long service leave provisions in the construction industry are clearly inconsistent with the principles of justice and equity central to this Government's philosophy. This … situation has been recognised and corrected in all … other States and the ACT, with the exception of Queensland. This legislation will provide a fair system of long service leave in the construction industry in Western Australia.
I hope that provides some context as to why it was just the construction industry. I also note that my father arrived in Australia as a 40-year-old with two young children. He was an immigrant with no savings and no money behind him. I think it was particularly important to the people he worked with, who were mainly new arrivals to Australia.
I now turn to other matters, including the definition of a vessel. I have been given some documents with pictures. I will not bother tabling those. Clause 17(1) seeks to amend section 3(1) to include various definitions such as "offshore area", "operate", "self-propelled vessel" and "vessel". Attempts were made to define a ship, which proved complex and broad. Amended definitions of "vessel" and "self-propelled vessel" are necessary as a mechanism to demarcate what shipbuilding and ship maintenance are as opposed to construction work. The definition of "vessel" aligns with section 3(1) of the Western Australian Marine Act 1982 and section 14(1) of the federal Navigation Act 2012.
In essence, construction work on all vessels will be covered whilst for self-propelled vessels, only construction work such as affixing cranes to decks of rigs or platforms, maintaining cable-laying machines and other work will be eligible. Offshore rigs and platforms that are permanently affixed to the ground will not be affected as they are treated the same as a building or structure on land. However, to complicate things, some rigs and platforms have movable footings that can be positioned to rest on the underwater ground surface and can potentially be regarded as a permanent structure until the footings are retracted for movement when it is being towed, at which time they transition into what could be considered a ship. Many offshore rigs and platforms contain thrusters that steady the structure. As members can see, it is very confusing. Basically, all vessels, including what I am told are floating production, storage and offloading facilities, will be covered by the proposed amendment. This coverage was always intended to be part of the election commitment we gave in 2021 to cover construction workers on ships.
The honourable member asked a question about employees who are stood down. He was correct to use JobKeeper as an example. An issue certainly became apparent when the Commonwealth government passed the JobKeeper scheme under which employees were stood down but were still eligible for the payment. This bill rectifies an anomaly in which construction workers are not able to count service if they are stood down. It rectifies an inconsistency with the Long Service Leave Act 1958, in which workers in other industries maintain continuous service during a standdown. The matter was exacerbated because employers were still required to pay the MyLeave levy when employees were stood down but the employees were not eligible for service towards their long service leave entitlements, so there is no penalty to employers because they were paying the levy regardless. Hopefully, that clarifies that.
We had a question about lump sum payments. I wanted to clarify that because at one stage a member said "hours" instead of "days". For clarification, the qualifying period of 55 days of service is aligned when employees are accruing service for at least one quarter of the year towards a year of service—that is, 220 days of service represents a year of service under the act. There have been examples of workers registered under the act who have not reached the minimum service period for pro-rata entitlement for long service leave equivalent to seven years but have encountered hardship that prevents them from accruing further days. This could be through no fault of their own, total or permanent incapacity, terminal illness or death. The 2023 review of the act by KPMG that we referred to received a submission from a family for a worker with a terminal illness, highlighting compassion grounds for proceeding with this amendment.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: Is the one day of 55 days an approximate entitlement number? Are your advisers able to work out whether that is roughly right?
Hon Jackie Jarvis: The period of 55 days is aligned with employees accruing service for at least one quarter of a year towards a year of service. Does that make sense?
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: The question would be: how much entitlement to long service leave would that sort of deliver?
Hon Jackie Jarvis: I will see whether I can get some advice.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: If not, we will do it another way.
Hon Jackie Jarvis: I do note that under the Long Service Act, workers in other industries do not have the ability to access entitlements earlier. However, it is acknowledged that construction workers operate in high-risk working conditions and encounter injuries and illnesses that prevent them from achieving entitlements. The act was created specifically for construction workers in 1985, given that the nature of the industry is different from other industries.
The honourable member asked a question about the KPMG report. I am advised that it is available online. I do not have a copy here to table, but it is publicly available at myleave.wa.gov.au. Apparently, the 2023 report, a 2024 discussion paper and a 2024 further report on stakeholders can be found online, so they are readily available.
I am advised that 55 days is equivalent to one day of long service leave, which I think Hon Tim Clifford referred to. He accrued more days than he realised. He was obviously working harder than he knew he was. I hope I have answered all of the honourable member's questions.
Just to recap, the intent of the bill is to address the ambiguous nature of ships' exclusion in the Construction Industry Portable Paid Long Service Leave Act 1985. As we know, the provision was subject to the review of the WA Industrial Relations Commission in 2016. The decision had the effect of excluding all construction workers from ships. Given that the act provides for the coverage of construction work in offshore areas and explicitly includes works to waterways, bridges, navigation areas, pipelines and construction work connected to resource extraction, the decision in the 2016 case presents challenges in alignment with the original intent of the act, and therefore the intent of this bill is to include coverage for all construction work on all vessels, whether moving or stationary. As members can see by the comments I made on the definition of a ship versus a vessel, careful legislative drafting has provided for construction work on, from and to vessels to be covered whilst excluding work that could be considered manufacturing, such as shipbuilding, in addition to ship maintenance and seafaring related activities, which are not considered construction work under the act.
The bill also allows for retrospective application to alleviate the ongoing disadvantage to construction workers. It is proposed that an employee's service on a vessel prior to the amendment of the act be deemed to be continuous service—the service on the vessel does not constitute a break in service. It is also intended that MyLeave will credit days of service if the employer paid the prescribed contributions on those days.
With that, I commend the bill to the house.
Question put and passed.
Bill read a second time.
Leave granted to proceed forthwith to third reading.
Third reading
Bill read a third time, on motion by Hon Jackie Jarvis (Minister for Agriculture and Food), and transmitted to the Assembly.
