Page 2092 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 25 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We believe that this scheme, this redundancy trust fund scheme, should be introduced. This redundancy trust fund scheme will meet the requirements of the Industrial Relations Commission for redundancy payments, will provide funding for training as appropriate in the building and construction industry, and will provide funds for the support of building and construction industry research - matters that will improve the industry in productivity, competitiveness, efficiency and quality.
The point to remember is that these funds are created from contributions by employers, by the industry itself, and to encourage economic development of the Territory they must be available for these purposes. Implementation of these proposals, as I said previously, will provide an important linkage between research, training, restructuring and redundancy in the building and construction industry, and will enable these issues to be addressed in an equitable and cost-effective way. Coordination and combination of the various funding mechanisms involved would enable increased efficiencies and the use of funds to best meet ACT priorities.
MR JENSEN (4.12): This is a very interesting subject and a very interesting matter for debate. The Rally fully supports any move to provide a redundancy scheme for building workers, not only in Australia but in the ACT. I am sure that any worker in that industry, particularly in the ACT, knows only too well the problems of the industry in providing long-term employment for its members. Some may even argue that it is not unlike those of us in this and other parliaments in relation to what our redundancy may be and how temporary the nature of our employment may be in this place, but that is for another time and another issue.
Mr Kaine: It will be pretty short for some.
MR JENSEN: For some. However, as my colleague Mr Collaery has already said, this matter seems to me, after having read the information that has been provided to us from both sides of the argument, to be a discussion about which particular fund is going to take precedence in the ACT.
It has been suggested by Mrs Nolan and Mr Stefaniak in relation to the investment of the funds in the long service leave statutory authority that that money would necessarily have to remain in the ACT. My understanding is that that may not necessarily be the case. I understand that, if any trust fund is organised, set up and established, it has a responsibility to get the best possible benefit for its members. That would not necessarily mean that it should invest its funds in the ACT. It could invest its funds anywhere in Australia because that may be the best operation and the best place for that to happen. If we look, for example, at how the CERT fund works, which I understand was established in 1989, this year, we find there are a number of organisations and unions which are already participating.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .