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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 9 Hansard (1 September) . . Page.. 2696 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

Mrs Carnell asked why 2 per cent was set as the levy. The long service leave levy for the construction industry was 2.5 per cent at one stage, as I pointed out to the Minister. It also contained a component for training. The construction industry levy now is one per cent. The reason it is one per cent is that reserves have been built up and they do not need to levy at a higher level; so the employers are getting a benefit in relation to that.

Mr Speaker, this levy was struck at 2 per cent after discussions with employers. I do not expect that they would agree with 2 per cent; they would rather be paying nothing. A complaint has been raised about how the levy is set. The levy is set under the legislation and if it were to be reset at a higher or lower level - I suspect the lower level would be more likely - it would have to be done by a majority of the members of this house; so it would have to come back here. It is not something that employers need to worry about in that respect.

Mrs Carnell raised the issue of how this money is administered. If the Chief Minister and former Treasurer had taken the time to look at the legislation, she would have discovered at page 10, under "Division 3 - Finances", how the money of the board would be managed. Clause 25 reads:

in payment or discharge of the costs, expenses or other obligations of the board under this Act; and

in payment of remuneration and allowances payable to any person

It is entirely self-contained and there is no impost on the Territory. All of the funding would be set by the board. Mr Kaine asked who would manage the fund. The board would manage the fund and it would be self-funding; so there would be no impost on the Territory.

Somebody raised the question of how the levy would be set. It would be set as a result of a triennial investigation by an actuary, as set out in the legislation. It has to be subjected to a triennial actuarial assessment in any event; but, when requested by the board, another one can be conducted. If 2 per cent were considered by the board to be too much or too little at some time in the future, between now and three years hence, they could have it assessed and reduce it if that were shown to be the case.

It would be impossible to make a final assessment of what the immediate liabilities or the immediate numbers might be - who might participate in this scheme - so it would have to be left to the board to make these decisions in due course, to have an actuarial assessment of the incomings and outgoings in order that recommendations could be made to this place to adjust the levy upwards or downwards as may be the case.

My prediction, if I can make one here, is that, with the same sort of prudent investment as has occurred under the long service leave scheme for the construction industry, from day one we would start to move towards a non-contributory scheme. That has been the practice in other places and I cannot see why it would not happen in this respect.

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