Page 2083 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 25 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
of the ACT Labor Government, which has not pushed for an ACT redundancy scheme. Their approach with their friendly "union mates" is reprehensible and this MPI will shed some light for the Assembly on the present situation in the ACT regarding redundancy.
The redundancy arrangement in the ACT at present will see millions of dollars being invested outside the ACT with little or no guarantee that these funds will be returned to the ACT. Up to and in excess of $6m will be lost to the ACT economy plus a number of other benefits each year if the ACT does not introduce an ACT run redundancy scheme. This is why we consider redundancy a matter of public importance.
I would like to outline briefly the recent decisions by the Industrial Relations Commission which are of importance to the current situation. The decision by the commission on 22 March 1989 stated that employees in the building and construction industry should be entitled to up to eight weeks' redundancy pay after four or more continuous years in the industry. This decision was considered essential to the building and construction industry primarily due to the fluctuating nature of the industry. On 19 October a decision of the Industrial Relations Commission provided an option for employees to be covered by a central fund or for individual employees to meet their own redundancy liabilities. The Long Service Leave Board scheme would be compulsory.
In a further decision on 19 October 1989 the commissioner said, in relation to apprenticeships, that he was satisfied that the training of future tradespersons is vital to the future of the industry. All groups within the industry recognise the importance of training, retraining and industry restructuring, and I will deal with this training aspect briefly later in this statement. Mrs Nolan will add some further points in relation to training.
At present in the ACT there are two redundancy schemes in operation. These are the CERT, Construction Employees Redundancy Trust, and MERT, Mechanical Electrical Redundancy Trust, schemes. At present the AFCC and the BWIU are actively promoting these schemes in the Territory. CERT is very much their scheme and they are the major players on the board of the CERT scheme. Accordingly, and indeed perhaps understandably, they do have a vested interest in increasing the number of employees they have signed up. CERT is the scheme which is being pushed within the industry at present.
Mr Speaker, I have been informed that subcontractors are being forced to join the scheme due to pressure being applied to them on job sites. My party has been approached by a number of contractors and subcontractors complaining of standover tactics, and my party is concerned at the pressure being applied to these people to join CERT or to leave the site. This use of union muscle is not
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .