Page 2088 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 25 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
for instance, the Public Trustee - we have only recently discussed aspects of that operation in the Estimates Committee - and other statutory schemes such as that operated by the Long Service Leave Board. It seems wholly consistent to have this process itself matched in with an existing board where you would see the records. The long service leave building and construction industry legislation requires the keeping of records, which in many cases is parallel to the requirements of a redundancy scheme. At a press of a button much of the information concerning possible parties is available.
The Residents Rally was not ready for this motion, in the sense that elements of the industry still have to come together and consult, and there should be meetings. We do not necessarily support the concept that CERT is Australia-wide as yet. We are waiting on further information as to whether there is any dissatisfaction with CERT or MERT. We are not prepared to take judgments immediately. We do respond, though, to the apparent sensibility of the proposal that the existing statutory trust fund here manage the redundancy fund as well.
All parties want to ensure that this does not become an element that will itself precipitate industrial disharmony and suspicion between various factions. Interestingly, on this issue one side of the major business sector is lined up against another. That is an interesting twist to what is often seen to be the capital-labour equation in matters of this nature. The Australian Federation of Construction Contractors agrees, I understand, with the BWIU's proposals for the private non-statutory supervised scheme, and on the other hand the Master Builders are pursuing the concept of a statutory trust fund.
My colleague Mr Jensen is our spokesperson on this matter. He feels - and I agree - that we need a scheme that all parties accept that will bring certainty to redundancy payments and will ensure that they do not become something that they are not. It should be a scheme meant genuinely for redundancies as they occur in an industry, and particularly in the building industry where, as we all know, those events come about.
MR DUBY (4.00): Like Mr Collaery, I, too, confess to being rather unprepared for this matter of public importance, which was placed on the notice paper this morning. The issue of redundancy schemes is complicated.
Mr Kaine: It is a bit like payroll tax.
MR DUBY: Not as complicated as payroll tax, Trevor, I can assure you. It is a complicated issue and, as Mr Collaery said, we are in a peculiar situation of having two employer groups involved in a bunfight over what form of redundancy scheme should be initiated and operating in the ACT. I believe that the Government is in the process of looking at submissions from both those organisations and determining which scheme it will choose to adopt.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .