Page 5672 - Week 17 - Thursday, 5 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The suggestion that that, in some sense, is at the expense of community services I find bizarre, in the extreme, as Minister for Community Services. It is really somewhat infantile to suggest that we are reducing or in some way affecting the home and community care budget, which is a budget under strain in an area where there is a large unmet demand. If we had more money at hand, if the Government were not in such a tight financial position, we could no doubt find many worthwhile ways of spending money in home and community care programs. But to suggest that a contribution by a public works contractor to the Construction Employees Redundancy Trust takes money away from home and community care is a suggestion so bizarre as to hardly warrant any further comment.
Mr Speaker, this is a foolish MPI. The press clearly regard it as not of any importance at all. It is based on simply incorrect premises. The only way that the ACT Government expends public money is by paying the appropriate tender price to the successful tenderer, who may or may not be an AFCC member and who may or may not contribute money to CERT. But, in any case, there will no doubt be payments into one or other of the employment funds because, under the award, retirement provisions must be made.
Mr Collaery raised comments made before a royal commission. I would have thought it more sensible to wait until the royal commission reported before agitating this issue. He would be aware, I presume, of the building industry reform agreement which was signed by me on behalf of the ACT Government a couple of days ago. Every State and Territory government is a party to that, as are the major industry associations and the relevant trade unions in the building industry. That maps out a constructive process for reform of the building industry. I can assure the Assembly that this MPI is a matter of no importance at all, because it is based on a series of incorrect premises.
MR HUMPHRIES (3.29): Mr Speaker, I have to say that, having looked at the information that has been given to me, I am not at all convinced that everything in the garden is as rosy as the Attorney-General seems to make out. Certainly, if one were to listen to the mellifluous words that the Attorney-General uses, one would come to the conclusion that there was no contention about redundancy schemes and about compulsory superannuation schemes within the ACT building industry. That is far from the case. We have not had any indication of that from the Attorney-General, although Mr Berry, as Minister responsible for industrial relations, indicated that there was some contention between groups such as the AFCC and the MBA in this Territory. I think that ought to be acknowledged.
In that light, we have to decide what the appropriate thing for the ACT Government to do would be. Is it appropriate for the ACT Government to enter that scene, that dispute, and say, "We will effectively enforce one side of this argument against the other, because we see it as either in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .