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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 4672 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

The Greens do not support the argument that these are employer funds only. We were happy to see some of the money channelled into training to support workers in the industry. This is money that is paid by employers, but it is part of a worker's overall package of entitlements. It would be ridiculous to suggest that a worker's superannuation package belonged to the employer. The same principle should apply with respect to long service leave.

MR BERRY (11.22), in reply: Mr Speaker, in the 1860s, I think it was, 130 years ago, the masons in Melbourne, I think it was again - trying to recall some of my industrial relations history - and the stoneworkers were fighting for a shorter working week. They eventually won the eight-hour day. It was six days a week in those days. What do you think a leading newspaper in the town said? They said, "We will all be ruined". Here we are, 130 years later, far from ruination and a whole range of workers throughout this country are far better off as a result of changes in wages and working conditions which have accrued to workers over time.

Mrs Carnell's contribution to this debate did not help much; first of all, because it was misinformation. She said that the training was going to be affected by this. Of course, our memories are not that short. It was only a little while ago that the Assembly agreed to take the training element out of this Act. For Mrs Carnell to climb up on her feet here and say that this has some relationship to the training element is not on. Her statement was quite untrue. That part of Mrs Carnell's speech was just misinformation.

Mrs Carnell also indicated that she thought there were going to be massive imposts on the building industry. That is quite untrue. This actuarial report to which Mr De Domenico referred makes it clear that there are not going to be major imposts on the building industry for many years. If you look at the figures at page 4 of the draft report to which Mr Moore - - -

Mr De Domenico: Which figures? The draft report? Which draft report? Table it.

MR SPEAKER: Order!

Mr De Domenico: Table it.

MR SPEAKER: Order!

MR BERRY: Mr Speaker, it is very clear that the fund is in surplus and will be able to carry these costs for many years. In fact, they could not put a figure on how many years it would be before it would cost. It is also well known that, at one per cent, the levy is less than the cost of benefits now. Building employers are getting a benefit for less than it costs. Mrs Carnell's argument on the basis of the reference that Mr De Domenico made to an actuarial report is misinformation. In fact, there will be no foreseeable increase in the cost of houses. For many years, according to the actuary, there will be no additional cost. That contribution to the debate was just misinformation.

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