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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 4005 ..

MRS CARNELL: The brief says that he was there, but George Wason may have represented him. They have a tendency to do that. As I said, the list of meeting participants indicates that Trevor Zeltner was there. As well, there was the Housing Industry Association, the Master Builders Association, Ray Hutt, Brian O'Reilly, Peter Gordon - all of the normal people were there. We discussed the issue in full.

MR DE DOMENICO (Minister for Urban Services and Minister for Industrial Relations) (4.55), in reply: Mr Speaker, let me thank members for their contributions to the debate, especially Ms Tucker, Mr Moore and Mr Osborne, and also Mr Berry for his repetition of what he said the first time. I wish to reiterate that the Government is not implementing a new funding mechanism through this Bill. Rather, it is adjusting the level of funds which flow to the construction industry training fund for use on vocational and management training over a limited time period. The principle that enables a proportion of employer long service leave funds to be used for training was introduced in 1990 with the very purpose of assisting the industry to fund its training needs. The amendment was proposed by the Long Service Leave Board itself in response to the 1988 actuarial report and was supported by the trade unions, the industry generally, and the Labor Party in this Assembly.

This Bill does not increase the level of contributions required to be paid by employers. It simply directs a higher proportion of existing employer contributions to training at a time when funds for training are most needed. These funds are not workers' moneys, as has been suggested. The funds are employer contributions which are paid to meet a future potential liability and are held in trust by the Long Service Leave Board to meet that future potential liability. The construction industry arrangements are dissimilar to the arrangements applying to most employers in the private sector, who are not required to physically transfer money for their employees' long service leave liabilities to a special fund, but only to make provision for such a contingent liability in their accounts. In other words, most employers continue to have access to and use of such money until the day it is required to be paid to an employee.

This Bill will have no impact on the ability of a construction industry worker to obtain all long service entitlements which the worker has accrued. I repeat: This Bill will have no impact on the ability of a construction industry worker to obtain all long service leave entitlements which the worker has accrued. Mr Berry snores or gives the impression he is snoring, or perhaps he is imitating a pig - I do not know, one of the two. There are other members of this Assembly, Mr Berry, who are very interested in my replying to the questions that were legitimately asked by Mr Osborne, in particular, and Ms Tucker also.

Mr Berry: That is what we want to hear.

MR DE DOMENICO: If that is what you want to hear, you can sit down.

MR SPEAKER: They will be heard, Mr Berry, without interjection. This is an important debate, as I have constantly reminded this Assembly.

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