Page 2058 - Week 07 - Thursday, 17 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
(i) on the day on which he or she commenced building and construction work with the employer with whom he or she was employed on the prescribed day; or
(ii) on 1 October 1981;
whichever is the later; or
(b) if the applicant for registration was not an employee on the prescribed day - on the day on which the applicant commenced building and construction work after the prescribed day.
'(8) In subsection (7) -
"prescribed day" means the day that was 12 months before the date on which an applicant for registration lodged his or her application.'.".
I present the supplementary explanatory memorandum, which I think has been circulated. Madam Speaker, the Long Service Leave (Building and Construction Industry) Act 1981 currently provides that credits for long service leave may accumulate only to a worker who is registered under the Act as an employee in the building and construction industry. This means that workers in the industry who are not registered are not able to claim any long service leave entitlements for the period worked in the industry. This amendment allows workers not previously registered under the Act to apply for registration up to 12 months from the last day they worked in the industry. It is a fairly straightforward arrangement to provide registration facilities for workers and recognition for service in the industry.
MR DE DOMENICO (4.48): Madam Speaker, the Liberal Party has had a chance to have a look at the amendment and has consulted with the industry. We will be supporting this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18
MR DE DOMENICO (4.49): Madam Speaker, I move:
Page 6, line 2, after paragraph (1) insert the following paragraph: "(ab) by omitting from subsection (3) '2.5%' and substituting '1.5%';".
The amendment, very succinctly, aims to reduce the levy from its current 2.5 per cent level to 1.5 per cent. In introducing the amendment we are not on our Pat Malone. It has been suggested before. It was suggested as far back, I believe, as November 1990. Consultation on the amendment has been extensive, including CONFACT, the Master Builders Association, the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Leave Board and various other interested parties.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .