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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 9 Hansard (1 September) . . Page.. 2695 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

community before it is tabled in this place? That is rarely done. Sometimes the Government issues exposure drafts, but it is not common for legislation which is to be introduced in this place to be given to the community for consultation.

I turn to the period of consultation. It should be borne in mind that before the introduction of this legislation on 30 June I had been consulting with the industry to determine what the Bill would look like. I introduced it because I wanted to gather their support. I did not want to have a blue with the industry about it.

Let us look at the Bill itself. There is nothing new in this legislation. It is more or less an image of the Long Service Leave (Building and Construction Industry) Act. It mirrors most of the features of that legislation, except for the interstate portability issue, which cannot happen here because there are no schemes similar to this one in the States. Mr Speaker, the Long Service Leave (Building and Construction Industry) Act has been in place since, I think, 1988. It has been a howling success right across the country, save for the Northern Territory. In some States it is now non-contributory; so the bosses do not have to pay anything for the long service leave of their workers. It has been a howling success because of the prudent investment of the funds by the various boards that manage these schemes. They have ended up being self-funding and the bosses do not have to pay at all. I would have thought that that would have been welcomed as paradise: The workers get something and the bosses do not have to pay for it.

Ms Carnell: They have already paid.

MR BERRY: Mr Speaker, the absence of some debate about those facts demonstrates how disingenuous the Government has been in relation to this matter. The fact is that this scheme is no different from the construction industry scheme for long service leave.

Other issues have to be challenged. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry have been late players in this game, coming in at the eleventh hour. I have to tell you that they could never complain that this Bill was being kept a secret because at every opportunity I was advertising the fact that I was going to introduce it. I do not know how many radio interviews I have done in relation to it and I do not know how many press releases I have issued in relation to it. I saw it as a plus and I wanted the entire community to know about it. I would be very surprised if the chamber or some of its members did not know about it, especially when the Australian chamber tells us that it has members who are also members of the ACT chamber and members of the cleaners guild. I do not think the Australian chamber can complain about the level of consultation or allege that this matter has been kept a secret.

Mr Speaker, it is timely that we are dealing with this Bill now in the wake of what has happened to the Oakdale miners. Members, do you know that the only condition protected for the Oakdale miners was their long service leave? The money was held in a central fund for coalminers; that is why the condition was protected. That was the only condition protected when that mine closed. Other conditions now have to be protected by access to that fund. It is a central fund which provides for long service leave for coalminers; so it is timely that we are looking at this issue.

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