Page 1597 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 17 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR DE DOMENICO: No, I am not. I look forward to your intelligent contribution, Mr Berry, and I am not going to hold my breath. The suggested composition and functions of the board as contained in Part II of the Bill are very suspect and are inconsistent with the ITC's initial resolution as far back as 1990. Obviously Mr Berry would realise that things change over a four-year period. It is not good enough to say that, just because somebody agreed to something that happened in 1990, the same should hold for 1994, especially after the Federal Labor Government changes its mind and abolishes the training guarantee levy.
Another reason why the Liberal Party will not be supporting this Bill is that the fund will not provide for management training. There are no automatic rebates to employers who conduct their own courses or programs. The rebate is given only after evaluation by the board against criteria to be established by the same board, for heaven's sake. There is great danger here of a one-eyed and narrow view. We also noted that the Minister has the final say in relation to the application of funds gathered. The Minister may give function performance directions to the board. Obviously, he will control policy as well. Who would ever forget the interesting concept of the Canberra Institute of Technology course not being approved because particular unions did not think that the course was good enough? If we are pouring money and time into our own tertiary institution, how dare anyone disapprove of a course being run by it. This Bill also opens up that sort of possibility as well. We also ask why more money is going to be spent to set up yet another training body, and to cover the administration costs and operational expenses.
Madam Speaker, let us look at the cost-benefit analysis of the fund. Really, there does not seem to be any cost-benefit analysis. On the basis of an aggregate annual contract value of $900m - I am advised that that is the amount of money we ought to be looking at - the levy, at the bottom mentioned sliding scale of 0.2 per cent, would raise $1.8m from one industry alone. Why give the Industry Training Council access to $1.8m when currently it cannot find a use for $500,000 already available to it? If you cannot spend $500,000 without proving how you can spend it under the terms of the agreement made in 1992, what are you going to do with $1.8m? We still have not had that question answered. Added to the $436,000 which is there, there is, as I said, the $160,000 per annum at which the budget is currently running, plus the $140,000 from the long service leave board. So, Madam Speaker, there will be neither a direct benefit to the industry nor access to the funds so gathered. They are to be handled by another form of bureaucracy.
We need to look also, Madam Speaker, at the national significance of the construction industry. It is the sixth largest industry in the country. The Federal Labor Government on 4 May - that was three weeks ago - suspended the training guarantee levy for a two-year period because of the known difficulties experienced by training programs that are not nationally based. If this Bill is passed the ACT will be going on its own. The Liberal Party, for all those reasons, will not be supporting this Bill.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .