Page 5673 - Week 17 - Thursday, 5 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the interests of the Territory or in the interests of some other political objective that this Government subscribes to"? It seems to me, Mr Speaker, that the former would be a good reason why the Government could intervene, but the latter would certainly not be a good reason. I fear that, in fact, the Government has intervened for the latter reason rather than the former. Let me say at the outset - - -
Mr Collaery: It will not even concede that it has intervened.
MR HUMPHRIES: As Mr Collaery says, they do not seem to concede that there is any tension between these two views. They simply assume that the natural and prevailing view ought to be what has been worked out between the Trades and Labour Council, apparently, and the Australian Federation of Construction Contractors, apparently with the agreement of the ACT Government. The issue really has to be faced up to. Is this the most appropriate arrangement to govern building contracts and tender processes in the ACT? Mr Connolly has not said whether that is the case or not.
Mr Connolly: The long-term industry review strategy will involve some changes.
MR HUMPHRIES: He can add comments through another member of his party if he wants to speak. But he has not addressed that point so far; neither has Mr Berry. That is the point which gives me some concern. Let me say at the outset that I am fully in favour, and my party is fully in favour, of agreements such as CERT. The concept of that agreement is a good one. It provides for some security to workers in an industry which, unfortunately, tends to be somewhat unstable in the sense that many small contractors are here one year and gone the next.
Clearly, it is of value to have an ongoing scheme which guarantees workers some payments on separation. But it is not desirable to have schemes which, in various ways, provide for distortions in what ought to be principles of public policy in the ACT. Mr Collaery made the point that the contribution which is demanded under the CERT scheme of $41.60 per worker per week is very great. Indeed, it is. Mr Connolly, in particular, did not refer to the appropriateness of that payment and the appropriateness of the level of that payment. There is no doubt that that payment is approximately double what could be expected under the relevant award. The question needs to be asked, Mr Speaker: Why is it double what could be expected under the relevant award? What is the relevance of that arrangement with respect to ACT building contracts?
The other point, of course, is that the Government has effectively written membership of CERT into the tender process. That also gives me some concern. I have here part of the tender documents applicable to the building of Gordon Primary School, to which Mr Collaery referred. The provisions of that arrangement include, at paragraph 8.1:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .