Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard   

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Thursday, 8 September 1983
Page: 637


Mr DAWKINS (Minister for Finance)(10.30) —I take the opportunity simply to respond to the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter). Earlier today , as he indicated, he raised an issue concerning job creation schemes in South Australia. Following his contribution I indicated that I thought it was his obligation to provide the House with the justification of the assertions that he was making at the time. He has now provided a document which I understand has been tabled and which, he claims, provides the basis for the assertions that he was making. The important point, of course, is that during the debate earlier today we were addressing ourselves to the community employment program, which is a program funded by the Commonwealth in response to the policies of this Government.

The guidelines for the CEP are the responsibility of this Government. I indicated at the time that it was not now and would not be a requirement of the CEP that preference would necessarily be given to unionists. However, I indicated that certain industrial conditions operate in the States and certain industrial awards have to be conformed with in any employment situation. The point is that the matter referred to in the remarks of the honourable member for Barker today is not the responsibility of this Government. It is conceivable, although it is not clear from the document that the honourable member for Barker has tabled, that the scheme which the document refers to is the wage pause program. On the assumption that it is, the point ought to be made that the guidelines for the wage pause program were worked out between the former Commonwealth Government and the various States and finalised in February this year. If there is any criticism of those guidelines or if, in the view of the honourable member for Barker, there are shortcomings in those guidelines, that is clearly a responsibility of the former Government and not a responsibility of our Government. I think the honourable member for Barker was somewhat wide of the mark in the comments he was making this morning. He was trying to imply in his remarks that it was going to be a requirement of the CEP-that was the matter under debate-that compulsory unionism would apply. Quite clearly, that is not true, and I am glad that the honourable member for Barker has now produced the document, although in a sense it does not do much to support the claims he was making because it talks about a scheme which is not a responsibility of this particular Government.


Mr SPEAKER —The debate having concluded, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday next.

House adjourned at 10.34 p.m.