Page 3923 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 5 December 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
My work on improving the building and construction industry scheme and starting the contract cleaning industry scheme led me to consider all those workers who were left out. Every time I saw a business failure or saw workers moving from one employer to another in this changed working world, I was reminded of the importance of portability and security of entitlements.
One example of this was highlighted in the ACT when the Florey medical centre went into receivership some years ago. Once again, workers’ entitlements evaporated. I shared the dismay, frustration and sense of injustice suffered by one of the workers from the Florey medical centre and I promised that I would continue to work to protect workers’ entitlements. I remember also Woodlawn Mines and Ansett—two high-profile cases.
The problem was recognised even by John Howard himself when his brother’s company, National Textiles, went broke. The commonwealth’s general employee entitlements and redundancy scheme—GEERS—was set up but it focuses on exceptional circumstances, it has limitations and workers are often still out of pocket. Of course, it takes times for GEERS claims to be processed and does nothing for the portability of entitlements. GEERS was a political response by a government in trouble using taxpayers’ money to fix a political problem and begs the question: why should taxpayers’ money fund an employer’s responsibility? However, business failure pales into insignificance against the disadvantage of the lack of portability and shorter tenure in the changed working world.
The bill I am introducing today will make it fairer for workers in the private sector—those workers not already covered by the schemes in the building and construction industry and the contract cleaning industry. It will be a portable scheme where the entitlements of workers are held in a secure fund to protect them against sharp business practices. Like the existing schemes, it will be managed by a tripartite board from government, business and unions. This bill will not increase the private sector long service leave entitlement but it will improve access to it.
When debating the Long Service Leave (Contract Cleaning Industry) Act in 1999, we met workers in the industry and one told her story. She had been doing the same job for 25 years without access to long service leave. This story repeats itself among community sector workers, transport workers, retail workers and clerical workers. And governments add to the problem in the private sector when they contract out government work to the private sector, where long service leave becomes a distant dream.
Public servants working in the ACT earn 13 weeks long service leave after 10 years service, but those working in the private sector on contracts issued by the government earn only 8.667 weeks after 10 years—if, indeed, they last that long. However, since contracts are usually for five years or less, contractors and their employees do not accrue long service leave. The Assembly has a proud history over a number of years of securing, improving and guaranteeing long service leave in the private sector. As our private sector grows, we need to continue that work.
The work environment has changed markedly since the 1950s when long service leave in the private sector became the norm. Job security is a thing of the past. The
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .