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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (11 May) . . Page.. 1504 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

money." That is obviously and clearly not supported by the research that has been done on this subject. As I said, we already have strong discussion in the community about this very issue.

So, what I need to say in conclusion is that we do have grave concerns about what this is actually saying and about ensuring the conditions of people who work, whether it is here or elsewhere. I believe it could flow on, and this will be seen as an example of how we regard the importance of the conditions of workers. It is absolutely critical, if we are to live in a civil society, that we do not allow this ability to cash in leave entitlements. I know it has even happened with sick leave.

Once again, insulting arguments have been put forward. This is about choice. Let us look at some of the examples. What does this actually mean? Someone is under financial pressure and has now got an option. They make a decision: "I am going to cash in my leave because I have to get over this difficult situation." That person has then lost an option-an option that has been fought for, long and hard. It is understood that workers need to have control of the fact that they have the opportunity to take leave if they need it but that their health will suffer if they do not take leave; that individual second stages in people's lives can often mean suddenly they need to take leave.

So at one point they might be put under pressure. This is not even to do with the cultural environment of the workplace. Someone then makes a decision to cash in their leave, and they then find themselves later on in a situation where they are forced to take leave without pay because there has been a family incident or whatever, they have become overtired and stressed. That is why we have leave, by the way. There is actually an understanding that it is not healthy to work all the time and not take leave.

We are just totally ignoring that. That has been ignored in this argument, too. This is really an unfortunate proposal. The arguments that have been put by the government are insultingly shallow. and I reject their arguments and support this disallowance.

The extended time allotted to Assembly business having expired-

Motion (by Mr Berry ) agreed to, with the concurrence of an absolute majority:

MR OSBORNE (4.26): I rise to support this motion. I have a confession to make. The confession I have, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, is that, on the issue of the LA(MS) Act, I did not particularly pay much attention. I recall at the time that I thought it was something that my staff could handle because it related to them, and I did have a cursory glance at it when it was finished. But I have to say, sitting here listening to the debate today, a number of disturbing things have been raised which need to be addressed in relation to the issue of annual leave. I look forward to working with other members who feel the same about that.

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