Page 1595 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 17 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR DE DOMENICO: Mrs Carnell quite rightly says that this was because people were already meeting their training obligations. In fact, Mr Wood's Federal colleagues, in their white paper three weeks ago, confirmed that point of view. What did they do after they confirmed that point of view? They said, "Listen, we realise that in order to get young Australians, in particular, back into the work force, we need to remove the impost on businesses in order for them to be able to employ more people". That was a quite logical statement. They said, "Not only is the training guarantee levy something that needed to be looked at; we also acknowledge the fact that there is a lot of paperwork being done. There are a lot of concerns about workers compensation and the cost of workers compensation. There are a lot of concerns about the superannuation situation".
The Federal Labor Government, in its wisdom, quite rightly said, "Listen, we acknowledge that there is an impost on business that really ought not to be there, and we also acknowledge that most businesses and industries, after we introduced the big stick, the training guarantee levy, were very good in making sure that training went ahead, and went ahead well". So what did the Federal Labor Government do? It did away with the training guarantee levy for two years. What does this Government do? It introduces a levy; but it does not introduce a levy across the board. Its concern about training, it seems, is in one particular area only, the building and construction industry. But the building and construction industry perhaps is providing more in terms of training than any other industry in this Territory. Let us have a look at this.
Mr Berry: Rubbish!
MR DE DOMENICO: Mr Berry says, "Rubbish". The facts and figures, Mr Berry, belie your comment. The facts are, if you want to listen, that through the group apprenticeship scheme there is $4m a year; there are 155 apprentices - more per head of population than for any other scheme in the nation - here in the ACT; there is $436,000 already in a fund not being able to be expended; and another $140,000 is about to be put into a fund if there is any evidence and proof of any training schemes that need to be addressed. When questions are asked no-one is able to answer them. It is all well and good to come out with rhetoric and to say that there is a need for training, but the questions are not being answered. You still have not proved your point.
Madam Speaker, there are virtually six reasons why the Opposition is concerned about this Bill. First, there is no proven need, as I said, to provide more money for training in the building industry than for any other industry in the ACT. Why single out the building and construction industry? There is no logical reason to impose a new tax on any one industry, and particularly not the building and construction industry. Despite the boom conditions of 1992 and 1993, there are no significant cost pressures on the demand for skilled labour. This was satisfied from the ACT's own resources. No wonder it was, because we have, per head of population, the best group training scheme in the country. The emphasis should not be on the number undergoing training but on the quality of the training, surely. This will be accomplished only when training systems change to modular competency based training, and this is not a money problem.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .