Australian security industry calls on the Government to scrap plans for SAME JOB, SAME PAY

ASIAL opposes the Federal Government’s proposed Same Job Same Pay (SJSP) legislation because it will create confusion and conflict in an already complex system of licencing and compliance across the Security Industry. In its current form the proposal will damage the sustainability of many security providers (particularly, smaller companies) and will further exacerbate labour shortages.

The Government’s proposed SJSP plan should be abandoned to avoid disrupting business-to-business contracting arrangements to the detriment of security businesses and their clients, employees and the broader community.

Instead, the proposal should focus solely on the traditional labour hire industry in Australia and should not take a “broad brush” approach that encompasses every contracting arrangement.

The Security Industry is already under severe pressure to meet rising demand for security services at a time when skilled security labour is in short supply. Moreover, it is in the nature of our industry that fair and flexible labour hire practices are essential, allowing security companies to scale-up and scale-down again as projects require.

Above all, the vision of an SJSP framework, set out in the Government’s recent Consultation Paper, makes a number of flawed assumptions and indicates that the Government has a one-size-fits-all mentality when it comes to the labour market. “The Government’s one-size-fits-all approach when it comes to the labour hire could destroy many small-medium sized businesses and will harm the security industry” said ASIAL President, John Gellel.

“The fact is that the Security Industry has a distinct set of professional practices that have been developed in a very specific security-centric environment, taking into account the unique challenges faced by security companies.” Smaller members of ASIAL are particularly reliant on this flexibility.

The Federal Government claims that security services to clients by security companies meet the traditional definition of “Labour Hire”. This is wrong.

If a non-security-industry client has an employee who they have nominated as “security”, for the purposes of internal titles, that un-licensed employee does not work “side by side”, carrying out the same functions as a licensed security officer, employed by a security company that is a member of ASIAL. However, the Government’s SJSP Consultation Paper is obscure on this point, giving rise to potential argument.

But this is not the only area where a lack of clarity makes the SJSP proposal unworkable:

• Even leaving to one side the specific needs of the Security Industry, for the SJSP to make sense generally, labour hire should be defined in line with the modern award system and should not apply to arrangements that fall outside that definition;

• Employers should not be expected to comply with the pay and conditions of an Enterprise Agreement to which they are not a party nor involved in its negotiation;

• Security industry wages are influenced by various factors, including Modern Award pay and conditions, skills, experience, qualifications and performance. The SJSP proposal disregards these critical considerations, making it more difficult to reward workers who work hard or choose to upskill;

• Different industries and occupations have distinct market dynamics, which affect wage structures. Imposing identical pay across all jobs will undermine the flexibility needed to attract talent, adapt to changing market conditions and foster innovation. And this does not only apply to Security – it’s true across the board;

• The SJSP will create uncertainty in determining rates of pay, costs and charges when tendering for work. The proposed legislation will cause confusion and disputes if security contractors with multiple clients have to provide different rates of pay for employees working for different clients;

• Recent amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009 are designed to simplify the process and encourage employers and employees to bargain at the enterprise level. The proposed SJSP legislation will discourage negotiation in the Security Industry, because our EBAs might be overridden by clients’ EBAs;

• SJSP legislation will be costly for businesses, particularly smaller companies. Compliance costs, wage adjustments, variations from job-to-job and potential job cuts will pose challenges to the sustainability and competitiveness of many ASIAL members;

• Equity and fairness is already available through the Modern Award system which provides rates of pay and conditions, specific to most industries and the classifications of employees. The proposed SJSP reforms will make the Modern Award system redundant for many security companies;

• Australia already has robust regulations in place to ensure compliance. The Fair Work Ombudsman and other regulators have the power to deal with noncompliance with awards and EBAs. We encourage a thorough implementation of the existing framework before introducing additional complex legislation.

While acknowledging the intent behind the Same Job Same Pay legislation, ASIAL believes that a more nuanced approach will deliver fairness, address wage disparities and maintain the flexibility needed for a thriving and competitive labour market.

Rather than mandating same pay for the same job, ASIAL advocates a collaborative approach between industry stakeholders, employee representatives and government to enhance transparency, promote fair pay practices and address any instances of wage inequality.