Page 526 - Week 02 - Thursday, 3 March 1994

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

---

MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, LAND AND PLANNING

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY QUESTION

QUESTION NO 1224

Building Regulation Fees

Mr Cornwell asked the Minister for Urban Services (question redirected to the Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning as ACT Building Control became a part of the Department of the Environment, Land and Planning on 1 January 1.994) - In relation to your reply to Question on Notice No 1126 concerning building regulation fees which indicated $829,000 less in fees but an increase in oncosts of $320,000 in 1993-94

(1) What is the oncost component of this increase that relates to the extra salary payment in 1993-94.

(2) What are the additional costs now part of the Building Control budget previously in a central pool and how much do they represent.

(3) Will current fee scales fully recover direct operating cost in 1993-94 as policy dictates despite reduced fees and, if not, why not.

Mr Wood - the answer to the Member's question is as follows:

(1) The oncost component of this increase is $97,397. This is derived as follows:

Cost of Operation - ACT Building Control 93/94 5,843,000 (estimated)

Cost of Operation - ACT Building Control 92/93 . 5_523.000

Variance: 320,000

Less Costs held in "Central Pool" 100_858

Balance 219,142

Consisting of

Direct Salaries & Other Operating 121,745

Oncost 97397

 219,142

The oncost component of 80% is an average benchmark comparable to private sector professional service industries such as architects, consulting engineers and consulting surveyors. This inches a component for public sector superannuation contributions, which are not reflected in the private sector benchmark.

---

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .