Page 5671 - Week 17 - Thursday, 5 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Accumulated contributions will be paid to a worker if the employee is made redundant. Interest on the funds will be used to defray administration costs. Any surplus will be distributed at the discretion of the trustees. In the ACT it will be either allocated to assist industry training or other general industry purposes.
So, in effect, surplus funds are directed to industry development and training. I would have thought that everyone involved within the ACT construction industry - clients who are purchasing building services, builders themselves and employees - would agree that there is a need for more emphasis on training and that everybody benefits to the extent that any surplus funds are spent on training.
The ACT Government has, of course, criteria for selecting private contractors and project managers to carry out major public works through the tender process. The selection for each project is based on relevant criteria which include overall costs, best value for money, financial and technical capabilities, and so on. I am sure that everyone is aware of that type of process.
Membership of a particular redundancy fund is not a selection criterion, but contractors are all required to comply with the award provisions. There is no discrimination on the basis of industry associations when selecting contractors for a particular project. Of course, it would be most improper if there were. Some ACT public works contracts are awarded to AFCC members; some are awarded to members of the Master Builders Association; some are no doubt awarded to members of Confact; and some probably are awarded to builders who are members of no such association. But all builders who are awarded contracts are required under the award to make payments into one or other retirement fund.
Some of the tenderers who are successful make their payments into CERT. That seems to cause Mr Collaery much agitation. CERT funds are applied in accordance with the building industry agreement. I really fail to see what this action by the Follett Administration in expending public moneys to augment CERT means, given that all the Follett Administration does, like the Kaine Administration before it did, is to award contracts on the basis of objective criteria to builders to complete works. Some of the builders who are successful tenderers no doubt contribute to CERT. To that extent, indirectly the Follett Government expends public moneys that go to CERT - as did the Kaine Government, as will any government - just as some funds also find their way into MERT, NRT or BUSS, whichever superannuation or long service leave fund happens to be used by a particular builder.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .