Page 5663 - Week 17 - Thursday, 5 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Contributions are made to the Construction Employees Redundancy Trust Fund on behalf of employees by some Canberra employers. There is some competition about this, because the AFCC and the MBA have a different position, in the ACT at least, in relation to this matter. The MBA are opposed to it, and there is some competition about the issue. At the end of the day, the redundancy payments are paid either by award agreement or, as an alternative, into the CERT Fund. They were referred to in a Financial Review article of 2 December 1991. As I have said, this action of paying into the CERT Fund is one option to fulfil award obligations regarding redundancy payments.
The ACT Government does not have any information about whether funds contributed to the Construction Employees Redundancy Trust Fund on behalf of Canberra building workers were included in the donation referred to in the article. Such information would be in the hands of the trustees of the funds. Whilst some observations have been made during the royal commission, I think it would be most inappropriate to take a position in relation to those observations while the matter is still the subject of proceedings before the commission.
CERT is an industry operated trust established in New South Wales. It is not under ACT government control or covered by ACT legislation, although we understand that there are ACT representatives on the board of CERT. I also understand that the MBA is now part of the construction industry reform agency. They signed up yesterday, I think. Maybe the ACT branch did not sign up, but I understand that the MBA elsewhere have signed up. This fund is completely unrelated to the ACT Long Service Leave Board - that has to be made very clear - which is covered by ACT legislation and is regularly audited by the ACT Auditor-General. The ACT Government has signed the Federal Government's reform strategy which will, inter alia, look at the operation of such funds.
I think that basically answers the question and the concerns which are raised in relation to the MPI. I suggest that Mr Collaery consider withdrawing the MPI.
Sports Facilities Coordinator
MR BERRY: In a question yesterday Mr Collaery, in raising an issue, mentioned a government employee, Mr Peter Conway.
Mr Kaine: Mr who?
MR BERRY: Mr Peter Conway. This seems to be a leftover of old competition between Mr Collaery and Mr Conway. What I am about to say will straighten the issue out, I am sure. Mr Conway has been seconded to a position in the Department
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .