Page 2093 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 25 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I glance down that particular list and notice that, without exception, all the unions that participate in that program operate in New South Wales and the ACT. They do not just operate in the ACT and they do not just operate in New South Wales; they operate in New South Wales and the ACT. We are finding that those unions and organisations that are involved with that trust quite clearly cover unions not only in the ACT but also in New South Wales.
It seems quite suitable and appropriate that a company such as the AMP has been appointed by the AFCC to handle this particular fund on behalf of the union members. AMP is one of the biggest, most effective and efficient insurance and life operations in the ACT; it has a very strong position in the investment industry; and it is a creditable organisation.
We are talking in this debate about what will be the best deal and organisation for the members of unions. We have on one side the Master Builders Construction and Housing Association indicating that it believes it should be related to a group operating in the ACT. My understanding is that that group, the Long Service Leave Board, may not necessarily have the same degree of expertise, at this stage anyway, in relation to the investment of large amounts of funds in this sort of business. So it will then have to set up its organisation.
However, we find that the CERT scheme is already operating. So there is some possibility that that scheme may be better than the other one. It is already operating; it is in existence; it is prepared to go; and it has no problems. However, the determination has really just been handed down. Indeed, I believe the final determination was handed down on 19 October. It is probably necessary, I would suggest, before we start wondering about whether legislation is necessary to handle and organise this scheme, to see how the existing operations can effectively serve the building workers in the ACT.
In conclusion, I suggest that the ACT run scheme is not necessarily an advantage. What is needed is a scheme which is agreed to cooperatively, is fair to all parties and meets the requirements of the Industrial Relations Commission. The Industrial Relations Commission listed a number of organisations that were appropriately accepted under the award to invest the funds, and the CERT scheme was included in that.
We have to remember that the ACT is an island in a very big pool of workers in this area. Therefore, on that basis there is a suggestion - I am not suggesting that that is the way to go - that it could be more appropriate to lean towards a scheme that will benefit and provide a service for a lot more members than just a small group of building workers who operate, live and work in the ACT. They might find that they will get more benefits from that operation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .