Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 4 Hansard (29 March) . . Page.. 1163..
MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):
For the ACT, workers covered by AWAs earn an average of $1,265.30 per week, while workers covered by federal enterprise agreement in the ACT earn only $820.20 per week-a pretty clear indication, I would have thought, that workers are rather better of under AWAs. Mr Berry finds something else to talk about while this is being let out, surprisingly enough.
You might think this is only representative of a comparison between people who tend to be in management positions, who get a better deal than people in sub-management positions, which tend not to be covered by AWAs. We can also look at these figures for people in non-management positions in the ACT. In the ACT, non-management workers covered by individual agreements earn $763.90 per week, while workers covered by collective agreements earn only $718.80 per week-again a fairly substantial difference.
Lest any workers at all in the ACT be misled by assertions that they are worse off under AWAs, the Australian Bureau of Statistics very adequately demonstrates that that is not the case; that they are in fact likely to be better off, on a statistical basis, across Australia and in the ACT, if they take up AWAs. What a pity AWAs are to be abolished by potential Labor governments at the federal and ACT levels.
MR QUINLAN: My question is to the police minister. Minister, on Saturday, 17 March, a yellow Toyota Corolla was reported as stolen. On Sunday, 18 March, the car was found in Akuna Street. A constable phoned the owner and left a message on an answering machine stating that if the owner failed to pick up the car within 10 minutes it would be towed away. At 6.10 the constable phoned again to say that the car would towed. That was another message left on the machine. At 7.15 am Frank Berry's towing service arrived, and the car was towed to Fyshwick.
Mr Stefaniak: Wayne's brother.
MR QUINLAN: I thought I would slip that in. Frank Berry's yard was closed until Monday. The cost charged to the owner for relocation and storage in the closed yard was set at $204.60. Mr Minister, after the trauma of having your car stolen, do you think it is appropriate that we have a process whereby the owner is required to recover it at 6 am as soon as it is found and, if they do not, they are required to pay a substantial fee for its recovery?
MR SMYTH: There is a process that whenever police respond to a stolen motor vehicle incident they request the owner, when they can contact the owner, to nominate a towing company. This is because of the possibility that the vehicle, when found, may need to be removed from the site. If the owner cannot or does not want to nominate a specific company, they are then advised of the next company on the roster to undertake a tow. Tow companies nominate to be considered to be part of the next roster, and they must meet certain criteria.
The crux of it is that police cannot leave a recovered stolen motor vehicle alone, for legal liability reasons. Responding police must stay with the vehicle until either the owner or the agent of the owner takes possession of the vehicle or a tow company takes possession of it. Therefore, when police confirm the identity of the vehicle, they request police