Page 2060 - Week 07 - Thursday, 17 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That letter was signed by Mr Bob Yeomans and dated - this is important, Madam Speaker - 11 April 1991. So we have the actuarial report recommending the reduction to 1.5 per cent and we have the chairman of the board recommending 1.5 per cent to the then Chief Minister in April. It is important that that was in April. We know what happened in June of that year; the Alliance Government was voted out of office and the current Government took over. The response to Mr Yeomans was received on 14 October 1991 and was, obviously, from Mr Berry, the then Minister. He is still the Minister for Industrial Relations. I will also table this later on. The response to Mr Yeomans, on 14 October 1991, reads thus:
Dear Mr Yeomans
Thank you for your letter of 11 April 1991 to the then Chief Minister, Mr Trevor Kaine, in which you recommended a course of action following receipt of a report from the actuary who undertook the triennial review of the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Leave scheme.
These long service leave arrangements arose from tripartite discussions between Government, unions and employers in the industry, and the issues raised affect a number of Government Departments. Proposals for significant changes to the scheme, such as a major change in contribution rates, require consideration of the issues by and consultation with all affected.
This was in October 1991. He continued:
On this basis, and because of the relatively short time remaining in this current Assembly, it is unlikely that any final decision can be taken by Government during the remainder of 1991, particularly as amendment of legislation may be required. In the meantime I have referred the matter back to the Industrial Relations Branch to coordinate the appropriate consultation.
That is interesting. In October 1991 he said, in effect, "We do not have a chance to do it this year, in 1991; it needs some consultation. But thanks very much, and we will see what we can do". Next was a letter to Mr Berry from the Master Builders Association dated 7 May 1992, and that letter said:
On 18 November 1991 you wrote to me concerning the level of the levy currently charged by the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Leave Board.
It went on to say this:
At the most recent Executive meeting of the ACT Regional Building and Construction Industry Training Council it was resolved:
"That this Executive Committee sees no nexus between the proposal to institute a levy on building permits to fund industry training in the ACT and the matter of a reduction to the Long Service Leave Board levy, except in so far as funds from that levy may assist the operations of this Council".
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .