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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (2 December) . . Page.. 4259 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

At the time we expressed concern that another measure to apply training funding from another source had not been created before the decision was taken to increase the level of money to be allocated from the Long Service Leave Board for training. I am unhappy to stand up today and say, "I told you so", because the transfer of funds from the Long Service Leave Board for training ought not to have been changed until there was an arrangement in place to properly collect it for the purposes of training. At the outset let me say that I agree in principle with the object of arranging another source of funding for training in the ACT; that is a good idea.

What I find most disturbing is the inability of the Government to deal with the issue. We have known that the ideologues on the Government benches have, for years, been lunching out on the idea of bleeding the long service leave funds in the ACT for the construction industry white - bleeding the piggy bank white. What they set out time and time again to do was to reduce the amount of money that was going into the fund; and then to reduce the amount of money that was available for expenditure on workers' benefits. Time after time we saw moves from those opposite, when in government or in opposition, seeking to achieve that questionable outcome. Well, they made it; they reduced the amount collected from employers from 21/2 per cent to one per cent and increased the amount that was taken from the Long Service Leave Board for the training fund from 10 per cent to 40 per cent.

In the course of another debate about an increase in benefits for construction workers, much was said about the need for an actuarial assessment of the issues concerning the ability of the fund to pay for its ongoing commitments to long service leave provision. Happily, improved conditions were made available to construction workers, on the basis of an actuarial report which indicated that for several years employers would not have to worry about increased levies as a result of the increased benefits. There is no such actuarial report attached to this move to again extend the collection of increased funding for training from the Long Service Leave Board's coffers.

I asked the Minister's office. I have to say that a staff member in Mr Kaine's office has been very helpful in relation to this and arranged for me to get a departmental paper which set out the balance sheet for the Long Service Leave Board, in order to prove that there were funds available to deal with this issue over the next six months of that extended sunset period. I think it would have been more appropriate had the Minister made this decision on the basis of an actuarial report, but that has not been done. That is quite disappointing. Nevertheless, that is the course that the Government has chosen to follow in relation to this matter.

Mr Speaker, we have here a situation where the Government has failed to put in place alternative arrangements for the collection of training funds for the ACT construction industry, and now it is going to bleed the Long Service Leave Board's funds whiter, because of the Government's incompetence to come up with a suitable measure to deal with the issue. I know that they say there has been consultation with the industry and the community about new arrangements which are to conclude after the consultations on a discussion paper which is scheduled for 18 December this year. It strikes me as odd that you would put in place an arrangement for the collection of funds for training,

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