Page 532 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 19 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I believe also that the Commonwealth's stated reasons for this move are extremely weak. They have stated that the move is in order to allow the Industry Commission to keep in better touch with the industries themselves. Madam Speaker, I would not put forward Melbourne or Victoria as the preferred option for keeping in touch with industry. In fact, it moves the commission further away from most of the industries to which it would need to relate and into one of the areas of strongest protectionism as far as Australian industry goes.
Madam Speaker, the Industry Commission has taken on a new role, and that is to work at removing impediments to growth and competitiveness. I am sure that all members here would support that, as indeed do I. But I think that in removing the commission to Melbourne it is putting at jeopardy the implementation of any of the policies that the Industry Commission comes up with, because those policies must be muted by distance. In terms of the commission's relations with the important Federal bodies - the Federal Treasury, Finance, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and so on - it is, I think, much more difficult to have good relations and readily implementable policies from Melbourne than it is from Canberra.
To conclude, I have written to the Prime Minister asking that he review this decision and expressing the grave concern of this Government on behalf of the ACT community.
Crane Drivers Dispute
MR HUMPHRIES: My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the current crane drivers dispute have an effect on the hospital redevelopment project and, in particular, the budget for that project, and will any workers need to be stood down because of the dispute?
MR BERRY: I think I have already partially answered the question, Madam Speaker. I have said that, if the dispute were to go on at its current level, then it would impact on the building industry, and therefore it is likely that if it were to continue it might impact on some of the construction work which is occurring at the Woden Valley Hospital site. Of course, as Mr Humphries would know, if there are workers on site and there is no work to be performed because of missing services such as cranes, then work has to be rearranged to sort that out. I understand that there was some advance knowledge that this dispute was in the wind and that there was some planning to ensure that the impact of it would be as little as possible. Sensibly, the site people have made arrangements to ensure that there is as little impact as is possible.
It is a potentially serious dispute; but again I say that it is better for people who are not directly associated with it to keep their counsel. It is, no doubt, viewed seriously by both the parties - the union and the employer - and I will bet that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .