Page 1612 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 17 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
While we are considering the introduction of an additional levy on the building and construction industry for training purposes, we also know that the Federal Government is moving in a different direction. We know that in fairly recent times, as Opposition members have said, the Commonwealth Government has decided to suspend the training guarantee levy. This was announced in the Commonwealth Government's budget, and previously on 4 May in the "Working Nation" paper. I would like to quote a number of passages from "Working Nation" to illustrate the reasoning behind that Government's decision to suspend the training guarantee levy. The first of those quotes comes from the consultation process which is set out in the green paper. This is what is stated on page 35 of "Working Nation":
In the public consultation process following the release of the Green Paper, concerns were expressed about the administrative and compliance costs of Government regulations, including those associated with State payroll taxes, the Training Guarantee ...
et cetera. Further on it says:
The TG was introduced to provide leadership and direction in setting training standards appropriate to Australia in a highly competitive world economy ... the Government is concerned to minimise the administrative and compliance costs facing industry, and to ensure that these policies achieve their legitimate objectives efficiently. A number of measures are being taken to address this.
The Training Guarantee is to be suspended for two years. Training is now much more widespread than when the TG was introduced and its original objectives are being met. In suspending the Guarantee the Government expects employers and employees to continue to meet their training responsibilities. Consistent with this expectation, the Government is prepared to abolish the TG altogether if business makes a credible commitment to providing the training places outlined in Chapter 4.
I have no doubt, Madam Speaker, that business will continue to meet their training obligations. I have no indication that they are likely to do otherwise. In fact, page 103 of the "Working Nation" paper states:
Employers have demonstrated over the past few years that they have recognised and responded to their obligation to train their employees. In 1990 -
I think this information is significant -
surveys showed that half of employers spent nothing at all on structured training and three quarters spent less than 1 per cent of their pay roll on structured training.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .