Page 2062 - Week 07 - Thursday, 17 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
So the training issue is not affected. It continues:
The Committee was advised that work is currently being undertaken to develop an alternative means of funding training and both this and the issue of the long service leave contribution rate will be addressed by Government at the same time.
It goes on to say:
The Committee was advised that the current time-frame is to have legislation drafted that could be introduced in early 1994.
It finally says:
The Committee notes that the matter is one for Government to consider and also notes that the issue is being addressed.
It is being addressed, and it is being addressed right now, I am suggesting to you, Madam Speaker.
Mr Connolly: Everybody is happy, apart from you.
MR DE DOMENICO: No, not everybody is happy. Once again, had Mr Berry gone to the trouble of consulting with the industry and consulting with the chairman of the Long Service Leave Board he would have known that there is no reason whatsoever why, in amending this piece of legislation today, he cannot accept the Liberal Party's amendment to make sure that the levy goes down from 2.5 per cent to 1.5 per cent.
Based on the contribution levels during 1989-90 and assuming no pay or wage increases, the fund has continued to be overfunded by a minimum of $1.6m each financial year. Over the last three years the Government has got over $5m from the building industry, while at the same time the value of work in the commercial building industry has declined by 40 per cent. Given that the employee entitlement which the fund supports is, I believe, 13 weeks' long service leave after 15 years, and this is not fundamentally changed by Mr Berry's Bill, there is no benefit - I repeat, no benefit - to employees from the overfunded trust fund. So, if it benefits no-one and if it hurts the industry, as we have seen that it does, why does it remain? I am suggesting to you that this decision ought to have been made and would have been made by Mr Kaine had the Alliance Government been kept in office. Mr Berry has sat on it since 1991. This is his opportunity to make good of it now.
MADAM SPEAKER: Order! Your time has expired.
MR BERRY (Minister for Health, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (4.59): I think the first thing we need to make clear is that, pursuant to subsection 37(3) of the Act, provision is made for the Minister to determine the percentage which applies in relation to payments to the board. The amendment moved by Mr De Domenico will not change that. Changing the words in the way you have suggested will not change it. The rate is still up to the Minister, according to my advice.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .