Page 279 - Week 01 - Thursday, 14 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the Government could say that it supports twice as much legislation on inquiries in the ACT as does the Opposition, and all those sorts of things.
The history of this issue really goes back to the New South Wales royal commission into the building industry. It was reported in the Canberra Times on 21 June that the ACT Government was considering whether the New South Wales royal commission into the building industry should be extended to the ACT. It is not surprising that that should happen, because Mr Collaery, of course, had developed a bit of a reputation for his dislike of building unions in the Territory. Of course, it was likely that he would be sympathetic to anything that would give them a bit of a serve, because, after all, they were amongst the first unions to demonstrate against the behaviour of Mr Collaery and his Residents Rally colleagues in this Assembly.
I think that points out where the changes to this legislation have come from. It is not about a need that has been demonstrated in the Territory; it is about joining with the New South Wales Government on a building industry inquiry. Mr Kaine said, in the Canberra Times on 22 June, that it was a sensible proposal. Mr Kaine might like to deny this, but according to the Canberra Times he said:
But I would agree that if there are any indications of trouble in the construction industry and NSW is conducting such an inquiry then it would be sensible to do a joint inquiry.
Mr Kaine also said that he was not aware of any allegations of corruption in the ACT building industry. I do not know how he makes a judgment that it would be sensible in the ACT if he is not aware of any allegations of corruption in the industry. Anyway, the Trades and Labour Council, of course, pointed out some very important issues in respect of the Government's indications at that time. The first one was the copycat approach that had been taken by this Government after Greiner had moved in New South Wales on what has been described as a union bashing exercise for political purposes.
Once the complaints started to roll in about the Government's approach on this legislation, it was not surprising that we saw Mr Collaery start shifting his ground a bit. This is what he always does when the pressure goes on after it has been discovered that he has made a blue, or that there are some objections to what he is doing. It reported in the Canberra Times on 24 July that the Attorney-General was not clear about the future of the legislation. He said that the inquiry would be very expensive and might only provide a bonanza to the bar.
I recall that just a little while ago Mr Collaery called on his colleague Mr Duby to apologise to the legal profession for telling them to "get stuffed". I wonder whether Mr Collaery has thought of apologising to the bar for his
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .