Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 13 Hansard (4 December) . . Page.. 4415 ..

MR DE DOMENICO (continuing):

Mr Speaker, the Bill, if passed, would also result in the benefits to construction industry employees surpassing those available to private sector employees generally in the ACT. At present, construction industry employees and the rest of the private sector enjoy almost identical benefits. Certainly, the primary benefit of two months' leave after 10 years' service is identical. If the construction industry were to gain improved benefits as a result of this Bill, it is only reasonable to expect that the rest of the private sector would also want improved benefits. This could simply not be conceded by any responsible government.

First, it would be economically damaging to the whole Territory economy to concede an improvement in general conditions of employment such as improved long service leave benefits in the current economic circumstances. Such a move could undo the sustained effort that this Government and others are making to provide the optimum business environment to encourage business confidence and, therefore, business investment and jobs growth. Secondly, Mr Speaker, it would put the Territory on a collision path with the other States, particularly New South Wales, in terms of general conditions of employment. No government in the ACT, which is dependent on its interactions with the region for its prosperity, can be a pacesetter when it comes to actions which bear on labour costs. This would be economic madness, in my view.

Thirdly, the industrial environment is just going through a significant transformation which further reinforces the primacy of the relationship between employers and employees at the workplace level. I refer to the passage of the Workplace Relations Act 1996. Mr Speaker, this Act provides a framework for a system of awards which provide a safety net of minimum conditions of employment in some 20 allowable matters. Long service leave is one of those allowable matters. Under the new arrangements, conditions of service above the minimum are to be negotiated between employers and employees. It is entirely inappropriate, in our view, that a statutory entitlement is an allowable matter to be improved across the board to a new standard well above the national standard when the Federal statutory framework intends that improvements above the standard be negotiated at the enterprise level through enterprise agreements.

Finally, if the Government were to be persuaded that the current surpluses in the scheme should be divested, it is our view that they should be divested to the benefit of those who have paid the excess contributions over the years, that is, the employers. I mentioned earlier, Mr Speaker, the actuarial report. I have received a copy of the actuary's report covering the period 1993-1996. I have requested additional information from the actuary to assist the Government to consider all the options outlined in the report. I hope to have this material available in about a month's time, and I would be willing to then table that report in the Assembly, quite obviously. In the meantime, I believe it would be premature for members of this Assembly to make a decision which would, as Mr Berry said only two weeks ago in debate on the Government's amendment Bill, be irreversible. The difference is that the Government's Bill contained a sunset clause. This Bill, if passed, Mr Speaker, would place a major and continuing new liability onto the scheme. The Assembly simply does not have the actuarial information, I submit, at this time, to know the consequences of voting for this Bill. In my view, Mr Speaker, there is just no justification or rationale at this stage for this Bill.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .