Page 1616 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 17 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
A great deal has been said, quite validly, about the training guarantee levy. In a sense it has been a debating point. Mr De Domenico and Mr Westende each read out a relevant quote from that paper that made it quite clear that the white paper does not absolve business from a further commitment to training. It was there. The white paper acknowledges that the training guarantee levy is to be phased out for two years at least, but it makes the substantial point that further training is absolutely essential. To suggest otherwise is grossly to misrepresent what is in that white paper. It is entirely consistent.
Mr De Domenico: Does it say that? What does it say? Quote from the paper.
MR WOOD: You did. You quoted from it, and so did Ms Szuty.
Mr De Domenico: You show us where they say that extra training is necessary.
MR WOOD: Here you are. Read it.
Mr De Domenico: No, no. You quote from it.
MR WOOD: This proposal is entirely consistent with the Commonwealth's strategy for employment and training. The deletion of the training guarantee levy may have altered the process, but it has not altered the need or the obligation.
Let me make one point about this Bill. This Bill has been supported, and continues to be strongly supported, by the ACT representative body, the ACT Regional Building and Construction Industry Training Council. That is the body on which all parties are represented. That body continues strongly to support this Bill. I acknowledge that in recent days some elements in the community have raised concerns. They came to me first about two weeks ago, out of the blue, and said, "Hang on, there are a few things that we are not too sure about". I believe that I answered the questions they raised as they sat around a table in my room.
Madam Speaker, let me deal with some of the comments from Mr De Domenico. The problem with Mr De Domenico is that he has simply not understood any aspect of the training agenda. I wish that Mr Cornwell had stood up because I am sure that, as shadow Minister for Education and Training, he would have been on top of those issues. The approach from Mr De Domenico showed that he completely failed to understand the whole agenda over the last few years. He has absolutely missed the point. He had something to say about the group apprenticeship scheme. There is a relationship between the apprenticeship scheme and this Bill. They are related but separate. About 8 per cent of the work force in the building industry are in the apprenticeship scheme. Mr De Domenico does not understand that we are talking about the other 92 per cent, a very large number of whom have had no formal training, some form of on-the-job training perhaps, or very limited training. It is that 92 per cent that we are concerned about. In the building industry only electricians and plumbers, and I think one other, have to be registered to work on a house.
Mr Kaine: Bricklayers?
MR WOOD: No.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .