Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 13 Hansard (4 December) . . Page.. 4416 ..

MR DE DOMENICO (continuing):

It comes down to this one fact, Mr Speaker. If we pass this Bill what we are saying is that we would rather that the construction industry employees in the ACT be given more benefits in lieu of spending where we ought to be spending. This Government will bring legislation forward very early in the new year to make sure that new employees are attracted to the industry. I suggest, Mr Speaker, quite strongly, that what we ought to - - -

Mr Berry: What are you up to?

MR DE DOMENICO: No. We are trying to have a rational debate and Mr Berry says things like, "What are you up to?". I will answer that interjection, Mr Speaker. What we are up to is this: If we are going to be spending money from the long service leave fund that may or may not be excess to their needs, if we are going to be spending it anywhere, we believe that we ought to be spending it to make sure that we involve new employees in the industry, more jobs for young people who currently do not have jobs, not give pay rises or more benefits to workers, mainly - knowing Mr Berry's ideology - members of the CFMEU. If we pass this Bill we are saying, "Let us give members of the CFMEU more benefits than any other building and construction industry in the region enjoys, rather than spend money to employ unemployed young people in the industry".

Mr Berry: That is rubbish.

MR DE DOMENICO: Mr Berry says, "That is rubbish". It is not rubbish, Mr Speaker. I suggest that we are voting for either giving existing employees greater benefits or spending some money to employ young people who are out of work. I also respectfully suggest - - -

Mr Berry: Tell us how you are going to spend the money, then.

MR DE DOMENICO: I respectfully suggest to Mr Berry that he should realise that in the Industrial Relations Commission, as we speak, all governments in the country, including the Northern Territory and South Australia, Mr Berry, but I think excluding New South Wales, at this stage, have agreed to an increase of $24 across the board over a three-year period to all those employees below the national wage. We are already, through the Federal Industrial Relations Commission, increasing wages and salaries to make sure that there is a minimum level for all employees. At the same time, Mr Speaker, we are progressing to the stage of saying that things like long service leave and other leave entitlements, all sorts of entitlements, ought to be negotiated at the enterprise level between employers and employees.

I think it is very dangerous for us to start legislating on an issue that ought to be discussed at the enterprise level between employers and employees. All the rest of the nation is doing it that way, Mr Speaker. Mr Berry's Bill is asking us to be the one out and to be out of kilter with construction employees in New South Wales. As I said, we have to have a regional approach to these issues. If we do not want to vote one way or the other, perhaps someone ought to move to adjourn the debate on this Bill until we get the actuary's report and see the result of what is occurring in the Industrial Relations Commission.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .