Page 5670 - Week 17 - Thursday, 5 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Rally believes that that board is the appropriate up and running body to take on this task now that those revelations have been made in Sydney. There should be a swift move by this Minister, if he is interested in protecting the interests of the workers and the original purpose of the trust deed and the redundancy scheme. At the same time, the Government should indicate whether it is prepared to legislate to bring this about, because it is within its powers in the self-government Act, on our interpretation. Additionally, we call upon the Minister to explain to us the arrangements that led to clause 8 in the schedule of industrial requirements being issued by the ACT Public Works office.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (3.22): I must say that when the Government saw this MPI this morning we were all scratching our heads to try to make head or tail of what Mr Collaery was on about. I think our bewilderment and puzzlement was probably matched by the media, as I look at the strikingly empty media gallery behind Mr Collaery for this MPI. As I look at the packed rows of opposition benches, I notice that only Mr Humphries remains present for this alleged MPI.
It seems to be premised on some strange view that there is some sort of impropriety or conspiracy going on that involves the Labor Government, that somehow or other involves an improper action by the Follett Administration in expending public moneys. Oddly enough, home and community care programs are tacked on the end. I suppose the assumption that one is meant to draw from this is that, by expending public moneys in the way that Mr Collaery finds unsatisfactory, we are somehow taking money away from the home and community care program. I see that Mr Collaery is so interested in his MPI that he himself is now leaving the chamber, which probably indicates the validity of this whole thing.
The bottom line is that construction work within the ACT, in both the private and public sectors, includes requirements under the building industry awards - and there is a range of such awards - for payments by contractors into a number of funds for workers' benefit arrangements. There are four funds in the ACT: CERT, MERT, NRT and BUSS - Construction Employees Redundancy Trust, Mechanical Electrical Redundancy Trust, National Retirement Trust and building union superannuation scheme. Payments into those funds are made at regular periods, based on meeting the requirements of the award.
The Australian Federation of Construction Contractors, I understand, uses CERT; so, when AFCC contractors are awarded public works contracts they pay contributions into CERT. The ACT building industry agreement covering CERT, which is the AFCC agreement, includes this provision:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .