Page 2065 - Week 07 - Thursday, 17 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR DE DOMENICO (5.06): Madam Speaker, may I stand briefly and try to blow out of the water the arguments that Mr Berry attempts to put. It is very simple to do it when you just sit back and listen. I did sit back and listen; but I interjected, I must admit, and I apologise for that, Madam Speaker. I refer Mr Berry to the membership of the ACT Regional Building and Construction Industry Training Council. As Mr Berry would, or should, know, many of the members of that council represent the trade union movement. I also therefore refer Mr Berry to a letter sent to him, and I quote from it again:
At the most recent Executive meeting of the ACT Regional Building and Construction Industry Training Council -
union representation on that is pretty heavy -
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".
So the very people that Mr Berry has purported to consult were saying on 7 May 1992 that it does not matter about the training issue. You could reduce the levy now, Mr Berry, and it would have no effect at all. So, Mr Berry, for you to say that in order to make sure that all parties are satisfied you will wait until some time in the future is just humbug. The same people are asking you whether your argument is worth the paper it was written on for you.
Does Mr Berry realise the current state of play in terms of the levies? In the State of New South Wales, Madam Speaker, the levy is zero because the Premier, Mr Fahey, quite recently said that that fund was so flush with funds that the industry should not be paying anything for the next two years. So, New South Wales, over the border, pays zero. In South Australia the levy is 1.5 per cent. The South Australian fund has $23.5m. There are very many more builders registered in South Australia, as you can imagine, because of its population; yet the South Australian levy is 1.5 per cent and the fund has $23.5m. One should keep that in mind. That is the South Australian fund. In Western Australia the levy is 0.75 per cent and there is $26m in the fund. In Victoria the levy is 0.5 per cent. This is a State that is supposed to be going broke, Mr Berry stands up and says. In Tasmania it is 2 per cent. What is it in the ACT? It is 2.5 per cent.
What does the actuary say? He says that we are overfunded. The actuary said that in 1990. What does the Auditor-General say? He says that it is overfunded and we should bring it down to 1.5 per cent. The Auditor-General said that in 1992. What does the Public Accounts Committee remark on the Auditor-General's report? It says that it is overfunded, but it also says, "Listen, Mr Berry is going to be doing something about it in the future". The fact is that Mr Berry has been sitting on this issue since 1991. Why are we to believe Mr Berry now when he tells us that something that has taken him
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .