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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 4668 ..

MR DE DOMENICO (continuing):

There has been some conjecture and some thought about whether there has been a request for a second report. Mr Berry was waving three pieces of paper. We actually contacted the board this morning and said, "Where is this actuarial report?". I am advised that the response from the board was that they have a draft before them, which they have not considered fully. They have to consider it fully before they advise me. That is the process, as I am advised. What I am saying is that the Government has not received a report from the actuary - - -

Mr Berry: What were the questions you asked?

MR DE DOMENICO: Thank you for asking the question, Mr Berry, because there was some conjecture about where this report was. What did we ask for? What we asked for was this:

1. An analysis of an additional option, being an 0.5% employer contribution rate -

instead of the one per cent now -

This might in fact be a sub-option to option 3 in the [initial] report. The particular issues to be addressed in an analysis of this option are:

1.1 details of the extent of decline in the scheme surplus, and the length of time it would take to reduce surpluses to around $4m at this employer contribution rate;

1.2 the extent to which: (i) a significant reduction in scheme administration costs; (ii) the abolition of the diversion of a proportion of employer contributions to the Construction Industry Training Fund -

and I heard Mr Berry saying here five minutes ago that it has nothing to do with training -

and (iii) an improvement in the net earnings rates to 3% would offset the decline in scheme surpluses at an 0.5% employer contribution rate.

And we went on, Mr Speaker, to seek:

3. An explanation from the actuary as to why at paragraphs 70 and 71 [of his initial report], several options are identified and advice given that no single option should be regarded as correct in an actuarial sense ...

Mr Berry: You missed a paragraph - paragraph 2.

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