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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Tuesday, 2 March 2004) . . Page.. 439 ..

negligible in the long run. So it is with pleasure that I support the recommendations in the committee’s report.

I might just briefly mention the recommendation around discrimination. There was some concern put by some employers—I cannot remember whether it was the Chamber of Commerce and Industry but I remember it was almost a threat—that “if we have this, you will have a situation where people won’t be employed if they are getting near the end of their 10 years”. There is a recommendation to address that issue as well.

MR BERRY (10.47): I recall reading about a report in the Melbourne papers in the 1860s that the end of the world was approaching because of the eight-hour day. Much debate occurred and eventually, after a long and painful effort by workers in the construction industry to secure an eight-hour day, the struggle was won.

In the 1890s, of course, there was a struggle in the rural workforce. This led to much political action, particularly in Queensland, and resulted in the establishment of the Labor Party to give workers a parliamentary voice. Workers were able to have representatives in the various parliaments throughout the Commonwealth to put their views and help realise their aspirations.

Of course, much has changed in the workplace since those days. This is particularly so in relation to long service leave. Long service leave has its origins in colonial days when public servants were given leave to travel back to the old country and see their families after service in one of the colonies in Australia, and I think the first was South Australia.

Since then, long service leave has grown with the community and changes in the workforce to the point where it is enjoyed by workers across Australia. But they enjoy it in different ways. My first experience of the struggle for portability and protection of long service leave entitlements was with the Trades and Labour Council of the ACT. At that time there was a large campaign to gain portability for construction workers in the ACT who moved interstate. If they moved across the border they lost the entitlements that they had secured in the ACT. It was quite easy to see the growing expectation that this entitlement, first of all, needed to be protected and, secondly, needed to be portable.

In those days, of course, many argued that that would bring about the end of the world, that they would not be able to afford it, that it would force businesses out of the Australian Capital Territory, that it was discriminatory, that it would force employers into areas where they had bureaucratic interference in the workplace and so on. All of the arguments, much like those ones which have been wheeled out in the dissenting report, were wheeled out in the 1980s in relation to that dispute.

Subsequently, the arguments were brushed aside and it was quite clearly proven that all of them were wrong. Employees had their entitlements protected, employees had portability, and the construction industry prospered. Indeed, the construction industry long service leave scheme started out with a levy of about 2½ per cent and over the years it has declined to 1 per cent. At this point they have reserves far exceeding their obligations—I think their liabilities are around about $20 million, in the low 20s, and their reserves stack up to about $40 million. So it is plain to see that a well-managed fund in a secure arrangement will bring about a decline in costs—indeed, below the costs

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