Page 1613 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 17 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That was the reason why the Government introduced the training guarantee levy. The paper continues:
Now almost all eligible firms are complying with their obligation to train. A very small amount of revenue ($1.4m in 1992-93) has been raised by the Tax Office from firms not spending the required level on training. Firms throughout Australia are investing in training and are far more aware of and committed to training since the introduction of the Training Guarantee.
I cannot help but feel, Madam Speaker, that with the passage of these Bills the ACT will be heading in the opposite direction from general Commonwealth Government policy and thinking in these areas through the imposition of a broad-based levy on the building and construction industry. In conclusion, I would like to say that I need to be convinced that the passage of these Bills is necessary currently in the ACT because of the existing training deficiencies. I look forward very much to the Minister's comments on these Bills.
MR MOORE (10.01): Madam Speaker, I would like to make a few comments. My colleague Ms Szuty has raised a matter that I think is very significant in terms of the first sentence of the second paragraph in the explanatory memorandum. In making our decision, Madam Speaker, we will rely on balance. As in many pieces of legislation that come before us, there are both costs and benefits, and the decision, as far as we are concerned, will depend on what delivers the best benefit to the community at the least possible cost in the long term. A number of speakers in this debate have mentioned the opportunities for young people. Nobody can lightly dismiss any improvement in the opportunity of employment for young people in the ACT where we have such a significant level of unemployment.
I think it is also very important, on the other hand, Madam Speaker, for us to consider the impact that taxes will have because the other group in our community that we need to be concerned for are young people trying to buy their homes - in fact, any person who is involved in building or constructing their own home. Whether you use the estimated $5.18m or you work out the levy on the average value of a house, you are going to come to a figure of somewhere between $3,000 and $5,000 being levied on the price of a new house. That is an average. Clearly, there will be less on some buildings and there will be more on larger buildings. On the average home costing about $150,000, we are looking at a fee of somewhere in the order of $3,000 to $5,000.
Mr Wood: Take off a zero.
MR MOORE: Mr Wood interjects, "Take off a zero". I will be interested to see how he does his calculations. I will be interested to hear what he has to say. Another factor, Madam Speaker, is that we are yet to be told - I am waiting for an answer - how this fund is to be used. We are bereft of proposals as to how it is to be used, apart from the general concept that it will be used for training because we need to have training. If there really is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .