Page 2094 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 25 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I heard with interest some comments by Mrs Nolan in relation to money from this fund going into the training of apprentices. There is some talk about money being lost, but I am just trying to think how, if we are going to have a trust fund established, it is possible for a trust fund to invest in that sort of operation. It does not make too much sense to me because, as I understand it, it is the responsibility of the trust fund to invest its funds in the best interests of its members. That is what trusts are all about. That is why trusts are formed and that is why you have trustee deeds, et cetera, to set up the trust.
This is a very interesting and complex matter and it requires a lot more discussion and debate before we consider legislation. The Rally believes that this is a very important issue for the industry and should be sorted out as soon as possible, but we want to be sure that all the options are fully canvassed before it is debated further in this house.
MR WHALAN (Minister for Industry, Employment and Education) (4.19): The involvement of the Assembly in this very delicate industrial issue is a matter which, we believe, should be approached with some caution. There are a number of significant players at both the national and local level, and the Assembly should ensure that it informs itself of all the points of view before it embarks on a course of action that may be irrelevant in all the circumstances.
The issue of redundancy trust funds has presented problems for the industry nationally, and elsewhere it is being addressed by the parties without government involvement. The Assembly must be aware that this is both an industrial matter and a cause of contention between various employers and employer groups. To this end, I should outline some of the background to this matter.
Following an application that was heard concurrently with the national inquiry into the building and construction industry, the Industrial Relations Commission approved the introduction of termination, change and redundancy provisions in the federal building and construction awards. The TRC provisions, as they were described, reflect the federal metal award standard providing redundancy compensation of up to eight weeks' pay for service over four years.
The decision introduced certain complications, in that it allowed for two different redundancy schemes to operate for a large part of the building industry - one providing a lump sum based on a $20 per week per employee contribution upon genuine redundancy, and another providing a payment based on service by award. The schemes were not really compatible.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .