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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Tuesday, 2 March 2004) . . Page.. 441 ..

cleaning industry scheme came to the committee and gave evidence to the effect that there was a great deal of satisfaction amongst the cleaning industry employers with this scheme. One of the reasons, of course, is they are all operating from a level playing field. All of the employers have to contribute to the long service leave scheme and they either absorb or pass on the contribution they make to the fund.

The Labor Party made a solemn promise before the last election and, of course, there is a high expectation out there amongst workers, and especially amongst unions, that this promise will be delivered. I have given a commitment to the trade union movement and the labour council that I will be continuing to work towards delivering on that promise.

There are about 80,000 to 90,000 workers out there in the private sector—who, incidentally, are voters—who are expecting that their entitlements will be protected. They do not have the same rights as people in the public sector. They do not have the same comfortable rights that politicians have. (Extension of time granted.) The entitlements of workers in the public sector are protected. They have portability which extends across thousands of workplaces across the country—between agencies, between states and the Commonwealth, between the territory and the Commonwealth.

A classic example of this is that someone in the Australian Capital Territory working, say, in the food services department of one of our hospitals could, after a little bit of study, find themselves working for the Commonwealth somewhere interstate. They would have portability of their long service leave. But a shop assistant over at the Canberra Centre selling women’s apparel would lose their entitlements if they got a better job on the other side of the corridor. How can you argue that that is just? It is not just and that is why these entitlements ought to be protected in a central fund. Workers ought to be protected against losing their entitlements because of company collapses caused by bad management. They also ought to be protected in a way that gives them portability.

I heard Mr Stefaniak say that this was an issue of loyalty between an employer and employee. Well, I have to say, Mr Stefaniak, the evidence that I see does not demonstrate that there is a lot of loyalty flowing from employers to employees. What I see routinely is employers managing their workforces in a way that employees do not get access to long service leave. We know from the statistics that about half of those 80,000 or 90,000 workers in the private sector do not have access to long service leave. That is because they do not hold a job long enough to get it.

This system sets out to provide that security, to provide that break after 10 years work, to recharge the batteries, to do some things with your family. This is particularly family friendly legislation because it provides workers with a break after a long period of work out there in our economy.

No longer can you confine a worker to one employer for all of their life. The economy just does not work that way. We all benefit from a successful and socially just economy and, in my view, this is one way of providing it. But this is not a view that is shared by the business sector. All the scare mongering that was directed at the construction industry has died down. People in the construction industry are moving on happily with their lives and getting on with building things, and the workers have got a socially just entitlement. In fact, they have got an entitlement which is above the standard and they

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