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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 12 Hansard (19 November) . . Page.. 4295 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

Mrs Burke talked about people balancing work and family, and I have to say that I do not know one person who is a casual worker for that reason. No doubt such people do exist; but I do not think they are predominant in that work force. I think people who are working casually do so because they have no choice but to work in that regime. People do not generally want to work as casuals. In fact, in my original speech I quoted the Young Christian Workers and the ABS, both of which conclude that people do not want to be casuals.

Mrs Burke talked about job sharing. Well, what is wrong with permanent part-time for job sharing? Why does it have to be a casual status? It does not need to be that way. I will preface my remarks by saying that some employers are excellent employers and have an incredible regard for the welfare and the good working environment of their people, because it is a partnership; they reap the benefits and the people working for them reap the benefits. Such employers are fantastic, and I know quite a number of them. But there are employers out there who know that they can minimise their risk by having people engaged casually instead of on a permanent part-time basis. I suggest that the example that Mrs Burke gave us of a video store is just such an example.

Mrs Burke made a point about flexibility in the work force. Well, I have to tell you that flexibility is weighted particularly heavily on the side of the employer. The flexibility to buy a house or a car if you are a casual does not exist. We are not talking about short-term contracts here; we are talking about the risk. The banks look at casuals and say, "No, I can't guarantee that these people's income is going to be at a certain level."Yet, according to the surveys from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, there are people who have been in their casual job for five years. There is nothing casual about a job for five years, except that that employer was able to cough up a 15 per cent loading and abrogate his or her responsibilities in terms of long service leave accrual, sick leave accrual, recreation leave accrual and all of the other reasonable things that we have come to expect in this society today.

The response we received from Mrs Burke today was typical of that party that are supposed to be the workers friends and to govern for all Australians. My left foot they do! Mrs Burke talked about AWAs. Well, what a wonderful piece of equality AWAs are! Imagine a 15-year-old kid-even a 17-year-old mature person-going to the boss who owns the business and saying, "Excuse me. My working conditions are a bit less than desirable. Would you mind fixing it, please?"How many of the kids who work for, let us say, McDonald's, Kingsley's, KFC, do you reckon have got the courage to go to the boss who owns the store and say, "Excuse me. She's a bit slippery out the back"or, "Excuse me. I have worked really hard this week. How about a pay rise"? How many of those kids do you reckon would have the courage to front that bloke and say, "Please give me some justice, sir"? "Please give me some more gruel"would be a little bit more appropriate!

What happens is that the conversation does not ever occur, because the power is with that employer; he just would not call that person back in for another shift. That would be the end of the relationship. AWAs are a bit like a verbal agreement; they are not worth the paper they are written on.

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