Page 3446 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 21 September 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The ACT government is fearful of the impact the increased use of AWAs will have here in the territory. ABS data suggests that the ACT has the highest percentage of female participation in the work force of any place in the country. Further, our percentage of women in the work force with children under four is 10 per cent above the national average.
These reforms clearly will have a significant impact in the ACT. It was therefore with great hope that the government welcomed the AIRC decision in the family test case, which the ACT helped argue. That decision means approximately 100,000 ACT private sector workers who have direct award coverage now enjoy real options for work/life/family balance. This was a great outcome for families in Canberra. But Mr Howard has already stated that the government will not guarantee this that decision will be protected in his coming reforms.
Given the semantics he and his ministers play on important issues like this, we have no doubt that is code for the federal government’s intention to override this decision, resulting in families no longer having access to guaranteed consideration of maternity leave and parental leave. Mr Howard’s decision to attack workers’ rights will only lead to Australians working longer hours for less pay and less opportunities to spend time with their families. Mr Speaker, what an appalling outcome for our nation.
I would like to turn to the important issue of productivity and family life, and refer to one of the final effects these changes will have on the territory. Members of this government often stand up in this place and talk about workers’ rights and entitlements, the difficulties faced by the more disadvantaged members of our community and the benefits of an ACT society which looks after its most vulnerable. As a result, those opposite accuse us of not being sufficiently focused on the economic arguments.
Mr Mulcahy, for example, suggests we should spend less time ensuring that the previously appalling pay of public servants, which was left to slip to such low levels during the Carnell-Humphries years, is addressed and we should spend more time forcing workers to achieve even greater productivity and performance. Of course, the difference between people such as Mr Mulcahy and members on this side of the house is that we recognise that fair working conditions, including ensuring workers are given sufficient work/life/family balance, and productivity are intrinsically linked.
That bible of economic rationalism and laissez faire economics, the Australian Financial Review, reported on 19 August that research shows there is a link between family harmony and productivity. Research conducted by IBM shows that divorce is having a direct impact on productivity, particularly for men. This productivity cost translates to about four hours less work per week for affected employees. These losses are in the form of more sick days and lack of concentration due to attitude problems. I say to Mr Mulcahy and those opposite—through you, Mr Speaker—that this means a business with 1,000 employees would incur an average cost of $180,000 in leave expenses and over 11,000 hours of lost productivity each year due to relationship stress.
Mr Speaker, what does that have to do with these reforms? Let us look at what happened in New Zealand. When similar reforms to those proposed by the current federal government were introduced in New Zealand they had a disastrous effect on
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .