Page 2061 - Week 07 - Thursday, 17 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It went on to say other things. So we have the historical situation. Mr Berry and this Government knew as far back as 1991 that the whole industry and the independent actuary's report had recommended a reduction from 2.5 per cent to 1.5 per cent, and Mr Berry had effectively said, "Well, yes, we are looking into this; it is going to take a little time, though" - as I said, we are talking about 1991 - "but we will do it when we amend the Act". That was virtually the response from Mr Berry.
The next thing to mention, Madam Speaker, is the Auditor-General's report No. 6 of 1992. It made some interesting comments as well. Once again, we have had the actuary's report, we have had a report from the chairman of the board, and now we have the Auditor-General's report No. 6 of 1992. It says the same thing. In fact it says, "Listen, the fund is overfunded. It is in fact earning more in interest now than it is taking in from the industry". The Auditor-General says:
There is no doubt that in the interest of prudent financial management the board should maintain a reasonable level of surplus to ensure that the requirements of the Act can be met.
This is the Auditor-General. He continues:
Taking into account however the level of the surplus and the current contribution rate, it would appear that the Board has more than sufficient funds for its purposes. In effect the contribution rate could be reduced from its present level without affecting the ability of the Board to meet its current statutory obligations. It is noted that the Actuary's recommendation in the 1990 report (dated January 1991) was that the contribution rate could be reduced to 1.5 per cent. The Board has advised Government of the Actuary's recommendation.
You would think it would stop there, Madam Speaker; but as late as yesterday in this Assembly the review of the Auditor-General's report No. 6 was presented by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. That makes interesting reading as well, because once again one of the issues discussed was the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Leave Board. Let me read to you what it says. It says:
The audit found that, taking into account the level of surplus funds and the current contribution rate, it would appear that the Board has more than sufficient funds for its purpose and that the contribution rate could be reduced from its present level ... without affecting the ability of the Board to meet its current statutory obligations.
It goes further. I know what the Government is now trying to think. I will read it all, Mr Berry.
Mr Berry: Oh, thank you.
MR DE DOMENICO: I will. It says:
The Committee was advised that the issue of a reduction in the contribution rate was a matter for Government. Of the 2.5 per cent levy collected by the Board, 0.25 per cent is transferred to the Building and Construction Industry Training Fund.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .