Page 4606 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 15 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
A new actuarial review just completed for the three years to June 1993 recommends a further reduction of the levy from 1.25 per cent to one per cent. So much money is being collected that the board continues to recommend lower and lower amounts to be collected. If we wait any longer, by next year the board will say, "Please stop collecting anything, or what we say in our annual report will be embarrassing because we are so much overfunded". Still the Minister does nothing, except to hold up on doing anything at all because of some promise he may or may not have made to some member of the trade union movement. That is what the board briefing says, for heaven's sake. Let me read it again:
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 approximately $4.4m when the Board would expect to refund only $2.4m.
As I said, the board currently has assets of $31m. Its liabilities do not require it to be funded at anything like the present 2.5 per cent. Let us look at what the briefing notes say about why this delay in doing anything has happened:
The initial delay in progressing the Board's recommendation appeared to have been caused by a backlog in making legislative changes.
However, from late 1991 it has been delayed by the union movement gaining the Minister's support to tying a reduction in employer long service leave contributions to the introduction of a levy to fund a formal industry training scheme.
After employers and unions have agreed on the appropriate training levy and collection arrangements, there are arguments about who should control the training industry funds. So we have a further matter coming in now. Notwithstanding that the unions and the employers have agreed to a new system of collection, there is an argy-bargy about who should control the training funds. To quote again:
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.
So the board itself is saying, "Notwithstanding any argument that might be brought up by anybody regarding the training funds, they have no legal standing whatsoever with the long service leave training levy. That is an erroneous argument".
It should be noted that recent changes in the Long Service Leave Board's legislation provided some relief to employers making contributions on behalf of apprentices, and the Government ought to be congratulated for making those changes. This has resulted in the board rebating approximately $175,000 to employers. However, once again, the board says, quoting from the briefing notes:
... this is a drop in the bucket compared to the over contributions which have continued to flow from employers to the board's funds.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .