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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (11 May) . . Page.. 1448 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

It was not until 1936 that one week paid leave became the standard. In 1940 that extended throughout the metal industry, and it spread throughout further awards once that trend had begun. In 1944 the New South Wales state government altered the annual leave standard. In that year the New South Wales Parliament enacted the Annual Holidays Act, providing for two weeks annual leave for all workers in that state. Subsequently these sorts of provisions have grown, Mr Speaker, as has the prosperity of the country. As the country's prosperity improves, workers achieve a share of the wealth.

Mr Speaker, in 1963, which is in the memory of many of us, the federal commission took the view that the economic circumstances allowed federal awards to provide for three weeks. The four weeks standard, which we all now enjoy, in one way or another, commenced in the early 1970s.

There has always been resistance by employers to these things, as there has been to every other benefit which workers have received throughout time. What is annual leave about, some might ask? Is this just a luxurious benefit that workers enjoy? No, it has a very real reason. If you look at the origins of the working class in this country you will see that there were some of the most appalling working conditions, when employers controlled all leave time-sick leave, annual leave, and all those sorts of things. Families, leisure time and homes were not great features in what employers considered workers should receive.

Annual leave gave workers time to be with their families, their children, and to enjoy what earlier was a great Australian dream-that is, to get away on an annual holiday with their families or to enjoy a bit of time with them away from work. But this is not just about leisure, it is not just about families, though they are fundamentally important things in a developing economy where so many of us enjoy a fairly good quality of life. This is about making sure that standards stick right across the work force. It is also about rest and relief from arduous workplace stress, and we all know a bit about stress in this place. It is about providing access for workers to get away from it all. It is a fundamental quality of life issue.

Some would say-I am sure the Chief Minister will say-that this just gives people access to money that they would not ordinarily have. Well, that might be all right for somebody who is relatively new to the work force-they might be single, they might be mobile, they might be somebody who is able to fall into a job quite easily at the upper end of the scale-but for others who are on more basic conditions, even in our offices, it is more difficult when you change jobs. Some will say that they already have access to accumulated annual leave when they leave the job. That is annual leave. When you leave the workplace, yes, you might get the cash in your hand, but you have not got a job. So in many cases you enjoy your annual leave while you are looking for a job. Mr Speaker, if all of that has been absorbed in a program whereby workers have been given access to cash instead of leave, they will have nothing when they leave. The Chief Minister will get up and say, "Well, it is not compulsory." That is exactly what she will say.

The trouble with these sorts of things is that sooner or later employer pressures are relayed to workers and they become the norm in certain workplaces. This will not become the norm in my workplace if this fails, I can tell you that much. But these things become the norm. Pretty soon the condition of annual leave disappears off the landscape,

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