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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 4669 ..

MR DE DOMENICO: What Mr Berry has is the advice that I have asked for from the actuary. That is fine. Someone has leaked that to him. Well done, Mr Berry! But you said in this place that you actually have a copy of the actuarial report. The board tells me that they have a draft copy of the report, which they have not considered yet and have not advised me about; but Mr Berry happens to have, he tells us, the final version of the actuarial report, which the board has only a draft of. Well done, Mr Berry! He comes into this place and expects us to vote on this piece of legislation today, after we agreed to adjourn it last week because we had not had the actuarial report, because quite obviously he wants to give someone a big, fat Christmas present. As I said, Mr Speaker, I am not prepared, and the Government is not prepared, to accept - as we were not prepared to accept his legal advice two days ago - his actuarial advice today. Mr Berry is trying to spin the line now. He has not asked any questions that would affect this particular Bill. Once again, Mr Berry becomes an incredible actuary. Overnight, Mr Berry is now an actuary.

Finally, can I say to Mr Berry and to those members of the crossbenches: Why is it essential that we pass this legislation today? Are we prepared to take Mr Berry's actuarial recommendations, based on his reading? Right this minute he is reading some pieces of paper and he is going to give an actuarial opinion on them, on the back of an envelope. He does not even have an envelope in front of him. He is asking us to support this legislation today, based on his actuarial calculations or because he has a copy of a draft or whatever he has in front of him. This Government, as I said, Mr Speaker, is not prepared to pass this Bill until we sit down and actually analyse, professionally analyse, the actuarial advice that is before us - which is not yet before us, by the way. Be it on the heads of those members who are prepared to pass this Bill, because, let us make no bones about it, if this Bill passes, this will be the scenario: Existing workers in the building industry and Mr Berry's mates, obviously, in the CFMEU will be better off, potentially at the price of having a training levy next year agreed to by all the industry.

So, do we train young people in the industry and do we then use some money to employ more young people? Two weeks ago - Mr Speaker, I do not want to reflect on a vote of the house - Mr Berry voted against a Bill, the long service leave Bill, that would have employed 80 new people in the building industry. He actually voted against that. But today he is prepared to support a Bill - in fact, he presented the Bill in this place - that will give existing employees more entitlements. This Government, Mr Speaker, would rather spend money on training and would rather spend money on creating new jobs than give workers in the building industry benefits that are higher than those in New South Wales and higher than those in any other State, except South Australia and the Northern Territory.

We believe that any extra benefits that any worker gets in the ACT or anywhere else ought to be subject to an EBA, because that is the way it is going to happen all over Australia. But what are we attempting to do today? We are attempting to legislate for higher benefits for one particular industry because Mr Berry happens to have some mates in that industry. I am not prepared to accept Mr Berry's actuarial advice, as I was not prepared to accept his legal advice, and I suggest that nobody else should either.

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