Page 2089 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 25 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In a way, I suppose, it is a bit cheeky of the Liberal Party to put this MPI on today because, in effect, we know what side of the argument the Liberal Party wishes to choose. Obviously it does not choose to accept that the CERT funds are the appropriate way to go and, instead, wishes to back the proposition put by the Master Builders Construction and Housing Association about a government body of some kind administering a fund. I have doubts about that in some ways. In the same way I have doubts about some of the proposals about the fund run by the AFCC and the BWIU, although I note that Commissioner Grimshaw of the AIRC has recommended that it is satisfied with the provisions that currently apply under the CERT scheme.
This is a matter of importance in some ways, and I suppose the Liberal Party is quite entitled to bring it on as a matter of public importance. At least it brings it out into the open. It is not an issue that people go to sleep thinking about, I am sure. I know I certainly never have. Nevertheless, I suppose it is a valid point for a matter of public importance and may well prod the Government into making some decision in this regard.
I do not have many comments to make about the current situation, except to say that the present situation is not suitable. There are problems when some employees have funds paid into the CERT scheme only when they are working on sites under the control of the AFCC. When they leave that site and go to work for a member of the Master Builders Association or some other non-AFCC company, those payments are stopped and are not kept up in the CERT fund.
I have no real problem with the major objection raised by the Liberal Party, that the payments made by the employers can be considered over-award payments. That does not worry me all that much. The argument that the CERT scheme is not an ACT scheme also to me does not really cut much ice. The scheme has money going into it and money going out of it in the ACT community at all times. I believe the directors of that scheme are local residents. It has the support of the BWIU, the major building union - - -
Mr Kaine: It is run by AMP.
MR DUBY: Yes, but the funding into the scheme has the support of the BWIU.
Mr Kaine: Yes, but I am not sure that the directors live in Canberra. I do not think that this is the home of AMP.
MR DUBY: No.
Mr Kaine: I was just seeking clarification.
MR DUBY: I see. It is illogical merely to add up the total contributions coming into the fund and say the money is leaving the ACT. ACT residents are on the board of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .