Page 1592 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 17 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR DE DOMENICO (8.45): Let me say from the outset that the Liberal Party, in opposition, will not be supporting the Bills before us. I say that, Madam Speaker, after careful consideration of all the information put before us. The first thing that one needs to consider is the presentation speeches by the Minister when introducing the two Bills. Quite rightly, the Minister said that it was important to get a level of vocational education and training and that it needed to be improved. He said that it was in this context that an agreement was reached in 1992 between the Commonwealth, the States and the Territories to establish the Australian National Training Authority, ANTA. The role of ANTA, the Minister said, is to coordinate national efforts in managing and funding all publicly funded vocational education and training and to ensure that the training is delivered effectively and efficiently.
It is interesting to note that the Minister went on to say that the establishment of a training agency in each jurisdiction was a feature of the national agreement. The Minister also said that he expected to introduce legislation later this year to establish an ACT training agency. All State and Territory governments acknowledge that a national program is the way to go in terms of industry training. Two years after an acknowledgment of that fact we had still not established our own training authority, based on the recommendations made by all Ministers in 1992. It therefore seems strange, so far as the Opposition is concerned, that the Minister is quite willing to introduce quite quickly the ACT's idea to go it alone and establish a levy on training in one particular industry two years after agreeing to establish a system that would fit into a national approach. That was the first thing that the Opposition found strange.
The Minister went on to say this:
It is clear that public funding alone will not meet the construction industry's needs.
That is a quite logical statement when you look at it, but what studies have been made as to the costs? The Minister did not provide any suggestion as to why that statement was made. I must thank the Minister for the briefing that was provided by his department, but when the briefing people were asked that question there seemed to be no studies or costings that anybody could put forward. The Minister, Madam Speaker, went on to say that the approach where separate training initiatives are mounted by individual employers is not likely to be as effective as one where resources for training are pooled. I ask, once again: Why? The evidence does not seem to support that. In fact, the Minister's colleague federally, when introducing the recent white paper, said this:
The Training Guarantee was introduced to provide leadership and direction in setting training standards appropriate to Australia in a highly competitive world economy. Industry should be required to make provision for workers compensation and rehabilitation ...
The white paper went on to say that they were suspending the training guarantee levy. It continued:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .