Page 4602 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 15 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In April 1991 the board wrote to the Government, as the Act requires it to do, and recommended that, effective from July 1991, the levy be reduced to 1.25 per cent, plus 0.25 per cent, the latter percentage being utilised as a contribution to training in the building industry. The then Alliance Government made the appropriate decision and said, "Yes, we should be taking part in the recommendations of the Board". Nothing was done because, it will be remembered, very shortly after that time the Alliance Government was no longer in office, and the Labor Government took over. We know that the Government has still not implemented the recommendations of the board. We are also told that these recommendations have not been implemented totally because of union demands that the levy not be reduced until a formal scheme for industry training is introduced.
In April 1992, further representations were made to the Minister by the board. On 7 May 1992, 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.
The next document I wish to refer to is the Auditor-General's report No. 6 of 1992. In effect, that report says that the contribution rate could be reduced from its present level without affecting the ability of the board to meet its current statutory obligations. Let us skip a year or so. At the Estimates Committee hearings this year, in October 1993, the board said in its annual management report:
The Board expects the matter to be resolved before the end of 1993.
Based on contribution levels in 1989-90, and assuming no pay increases, the fund has continued to be overfunded by between $1.3m and $1.6m each year. Four years at $1.6m is $6.4m, which has been literally taken away from the building industry unnecessarily. Long service leave awarded is a finite amount, obviously - 13 weeks' paid leave after 15 years' service - and the fund is 100 per cent overfunded at more than $17m. So $8.5m has been earned from the sweat and tears of the building and construction industry and will sit in the Government's coffers and never be called on for the function for which it was collected. It is, to our way of thinking, unjust. The Government, instead of acting with integrity as soon as the oversight was identified, has literally sat on its hands and done nothing.
In addition, the Government gave assurances to members of this house that it would be making appropriate changes and adjustments that it never intended to deliver and has not delivered thus far. It is interesting to look back to 17 June 1993, when Mr Berry said:
... work is proceeding now, as you are aware, on developing a proposal where the training levy will be collected through building permits.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .