Page 4604 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 15 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The problem is that Mr Berry could not negotiate his way out of a paper bag, it seems, let alone negotiate the building permit training levy. His incompetence is costing the building industry millions of dollars. It is costing the community jobs and higher prices for houses. It is about time the Assembly said to the Minister, "We will no longer be supporting your incompetence. You have had more than a fair chance - more than three years to negotiate the changes you wished for building permit training levies. You have been unable to do this. The industry cannot be held to ransom any longer. In the future, you will have to negotiate the levy from building permits without the long service leave levy involved in this process".
The Long Service Leave Board was set up to collect funds for long service leave. It is arguable whether it should be collecting training funds. The board advanced $700,000 to the ACT Building Industry Training Council and holds a further $400,000 for this purpose. Once again, in June 1993 there was another actuarial review. We have had two or three so far. In June 1993, the most recent actuarial review recommended a reduction in the levy to one per cent, and the board supported the reduction to one per cent. In September 1993 the board, in briefing notes to the 1993 Estimates Committee, said:
Delay in implementing the Board's original recommendation for reduction of the levy has resulted in the industry paying at least $3m more than recommended actuarial needs since June 1990. If the legislation is not finalised until the end of 1994 this amount will have increased to ... $4.4m when the Board would expect to refund only $2.4m.
The Board currently has assets of approximately $31m and its liabilities do not require it to be funded at anything like the present 2.5 per cent. Even at the recommended rate of 1 per cent, the Board's financial position is still very secure.
That is what the board says. Even at one per cent, the board's financial position is still very secure. Keep in mind that we continue to take out 2.5 per cent.
On the delays regarding the funding of the training fund, the board says:
None of the above issues are legally relevant to the Long Service Leave Board's function and should not be delaying the implementation of the Board's recommendations.
Let me summarise very quickly. As far back as 1991 the former Commonwealth Government Actuary, Mr John Ford, recommends to the then Alliance Government, "You are 125 per cent overfunded. I recommend, as the former Commonwealth Government Actuary, that you should reduce your levy to 1.5 per cent". The Alliance Government puts that in train. It is voted out of office and a Labor government takes over. The same actuary says, "You are overfunded by 100 per cent; reduce the levy to 1.5 per cent". The board says to the Government, "The actuary recommends, and we agree, that we are overfunded". Minister, your own board is telling you, "We are overfunded; change it to 1.5 per cent". Another actuary report comes out saying, "You are so much overfunded that you are collecting more money in interest than you are collecting from the levy itself. Change it to 1.5 per cent".
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .