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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 4667 ..

MR DE DOMENICO (continuing):

Mr Speaker, some members might think, "The initial actuarial report says that there is a $19m surplus. It will be $0.6m a year if Mr Berry's Bill gets through. Divide 19 by 0.6 and it gives you about 25 years". Simplistically, and on the back of an envelope, you could see the logic of that. But there is no account taken of future increases in administrative costs, there is no account taken of the performance of the future investments, there is no account taken of the maintenance of the investments. Simplistically, if you divide 19 by 0.6, you get about 25 years. No-one is going to feel an effect for about 25 years.

Once again, as I said, I am not prepared, and the Government is certainly not prepared, to take the back of the envelope approach that Mr Berry has taken, in lieu of what we have called for from the actuary. Mrs Carnell spoke about the effects on the industry, so I am not going to be repetitive. She also spoke about the effect on house prices. Mr Berry once again interjected, saying, "It is going to have no effect on house prices". It shows you how much Mr Berry knows. He is not only a queen's counsel and an actuary; he now has a crystal ball as well. It is nice to know what qualifications Mr Berry has.

Mr Berry also suggested that it is going to have no effect on the future training levy. That is obviously nonsense. It took a while - for both governments, might I say - to convince the industry to pay a separate training levy. They have agreed to pay a separate training levy, and we are getting legislation ready for that; but we are going to see the actuarial report before we even go down the track of drafting legislation, because we do not believe that we should accept the figures done by Mr Berry on the back of an envelope.

If that happens, Mr Speaker, the industry has said, we can reduce the long service leave levy to a level that is getting close to the New South Wales level, which is zero. We will not be able to do that. We said, "Listen, Mr Actuary, based on the fact that we need to establish a training levy, based on the fact that the establishment of that training levy is dependent on the reduction of the long service leave levy, by how much can we afford to reduce the long service leave levy in order for the industry to agree to bringing in a separate training levy?". In other words, as Mrs Carnell said, we would rather employ and train unemployed and untrained young people in the industry than give existing employees some of the highest benefits in Australia and definitely higher than anybody's in New South Wales.

Keeping in mind the Government's intention of looking at Canberra on a more holistic level, in terms of a regional centre, it would be silly, I suggest, for us not to be able to compete in the building and construction industry with the industry over the border. Quite unsimplistically, Mr Speaker, what would then happen is that there would be a surge of people setting up building industries and being subcontractors in New South Wales and not in the ACT, to the detriment of our industry. As Mrs Carnell said, it also means that, if employers have higher costs, quite obviously, they are going to be passing them on to the consumer. If Mr Berry does not believe that, he is in cloud-cuckoo-land.

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