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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 4229 ..

MS DUNDAS (continuing):

Ms MacDonald has identified an opportunity for harmonisation and modernisation of employment conditions in the area of long service leave.

There would be a cost to employers in the change proposed in this motion, because so few employees currently get access to their long service leave. They change employers before they can take it, and employers generally get a windfall from entitlements not accessed.

When I was working in the union, I had many conversations with workers who threw their hands up in the air and said, "Let us abolish long service leave, because it is unlikely that I will ever get to access it. Give me the benefits now."With the passing of this motion, we will have the opportunity to turn that idea on its head and to explore ways in which workers will be able to access long service leave even if they change jobs.

Of course, we have heard a lot of vocal opposition from employers about this. But there are always both costs and opposition when any new employee entitlement is discussed or awarded. We need to refocus the discussion not just on costs but on value-the value of workers and the work they do in many industries.

The long service leave system has failed to keep up with changes in employment patterns. Very few jobs are now permanent, and those classed as ongoing seldom last more than a few years, because organisations are constantly changing, constantly restructuring and constantly retrenching staff.

Many of the people I went through school and university with will not be in any one job for more than about three years. The average time to be able to access long service leave is seven to 10 years. We need to recognise the changing nature of work, not just here in the ACT but around the globe, and ensure that workers are not disadvantaged by our systems.

As has been discussed, a portable long service leave scheme was developed for the construction industry in recognition of two aspects of that industry-firstly, the regularity with which construction companies went bankrupt before employees could use their leave entitlements; and, secondly, the fact that many employees moved between employers because of the boom and bust nature of the construction industry.

The conditions prevailing in the construction industry in the 1970s are the same kinds of conditions seen throughout most industry sectors today. So I not only oppose the abolition of the portable long service scheme in the construction industry, but I believe there is a strong argument for extending portability to other industries. I expect that the cost of long service leave is lower now than it was 20 years ago, resulting directly from the shift to casualisation and short-term contracts, the use of consultants, higher levels of female employment and a trend towards constant business restructures resulting in regular retrenchment of long-term staff.

When we discuss female employment, we cannot just look at maternity leave and how that will solve all the problems relating to the lack of benefits women receive as part of the work force. Maternity leave or paternity leave may result in 12 to 14 weeks of paid leave for the time a woman has off work to have a child. But it does not recognise the part-time return to work or days off as parents look after their children and raise their

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