Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 9 Hansard (1 September) . . Page.. 2700 ..

MR CORBELL: The Chief Minister says that that is not true. I would refer the Chief Minister to the fact that there are at least a dozen inquiries currently under way with the Urban Services Committee, including at least four of quite a degree of significance in relation to policy in the Territory. Mr Speaker, if the Government thinks that there is a good reason to send the Bill to the committee - I am not ruling out that that should never be an option - it needs to justify it. The Government needs to justify why this Bill should go to the committee, why another important inquiry, which the Government argues it is, should come before this committee. They have refused to do that. They have refused to do that because they are saying no to the Bill. That is why they are doing it. That is the only reason they are doing it. If they thought that the Bill had some merit and they wanted to investigate it further, they would have voted for it in principle, but they did not do that, Mr Speaker. This is simply an attempt to delay the Bill.

MR BERRY: I seek leave to speak again, Mr Speaker.

Leave granted.

MR BERRY: I want to thank the Chief Minister for giving me two questions to answer.

Ms Carnell: Mr Speaker, that is not speaking to the motion.

MR BERRY: You asked a question, Mrs Carnell, and I want to answer it. You asked whether the employers would get their money back if the fund were oversubscribed. That would be a matter for this place because - - -

Ms Carnell: It should be a matter for the committee.

MR BERRY: No, it is not a matter for the committee; it is a matter for this place. We will go to the management of the fund, Mrs Carnell. On page 10, under the heading "Finances", if I can just remind you, the Bill demonstrates clearly how all of the finances would be managed. The provision is a mirror image, essentially, of the way the matter is handled in the construction industry model. It deals with the money received by the board under proposed section 39, which deals with the levy. If the levy has to be adjusted, it has to be adjusted by this place. It would be adjusted, I suggest, on the basis of a triennial investigation required by the legislation or requested by the board. That appears on page 10 of the Bill. I thought you would have noticed that.

Ms Carnell: Are you suggesting that they should pay too much for three years because it is just a figure?

MR BERRY: Mrs Carnell asks me another question: "Are you suggesting that they should pay too much for the first three years?". No, I am not suggesting that they should pay too much or too little. What I have done is made sure that there is a safety valve in there to examine closely at some point in the future the level of funding they are receiving and whether it is sufficient or too much. That triennial report would be the property of the board.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .