Page 1614 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 17 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
a burning need we ought to know what that need is. You ought to be able to identify that need and you ought to be able to explain clearly to the Assembly how that fund is going to provide for a gap in the way things are done at the moment. Madam Speaker, I think there are still some questions to be answered by the Minister, and I am looking forward to listening to those answers.
MR STEVENSON (10.04): Madam Speaker, in 1990 the Commonwealth Government introduced the training guarantee scheme. They have just done away with it. Why? Because, like over a million Australians, it is not working. Look at why they said that they were about to do away with it. It was said that almost all eligible firms are now complying with their obligation to train. That was said in the "Working Nation" statement. That is not surprising. Either you train or you lose the money. It is an example of penalties and rewards in life. I will get to that later. The Commonwealth Government gave a false reason for getting rid of the scheme. The truth is that it did not work. It did not do what they said they were trying to achieve with it. What is the proof of that? If it was working they would not get rid of it. If it was working they would not introduce other schemes to try to handle the problems - schemes such as income tax deductions on eligible training, direct cash grants and lower wages for trainees. What they are trying to do is solve the problem. Their scheme did not work, so they scrapped it.
What is this Government proposing in the ACT? It wants to introduce one, but not across all industries. It thought it had a better idea. It picked out one industry and decided to run a training scheme for it. Is there any justification? No, there is not. Mr Berry talked about the workers in the industry being of a transient nature. Does that mean that if they cannot work in the ACT they leave? I suppose it does. The truth of the matter is that if there is work here they will stay here. If they go to New South Wales or Victoria, we have a portability agreement with those States. This scheme would not be of much help if people came here from New South Wales and Victoria, because we would be the only one with it. Victoria does not have it, New South Wales does not have it, and the Commonwealth Government will not have it in six weeks' time.
Mr Lamont says that people need managerial training. I agree with that. With the Government imposts on business, too right you need managerial training. It is not easy to survive when your biggest threat is governments and their myriad of taxes, fines, fees, charges and everything else. What does the Bill do? It excludes management training. Actually the Bill has the wrong title. It is called the Construction Industry Training Fund Bill. It is not. It is part of the Construction Industry Training Fund Bill. Is it needed? As we have heard, the Industry Training Council holds $435,759.85. Ms Szuty missed out adding today's interest. The Bill itself does not specify any specific training requirement. So what exactly is it going to be used on? It says that the industry will not be directing where the money is going to be used. They will not be controlling the funds.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .