Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 11 Hansard (24 September) . . Page.. 3278 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

We also know that, with the advent of the Olympics in Sydney and the huge requirement for tradespeople on site in Sydney, there will be an outflow of tradespeople from the ACT. We have to make sure that we are backing up behind those tradespeople who will inevitably leave to go and work on construction sites in Sydney. Here is a way to ensure that those employers who are currently doing it a bit tough but would like to put on apprentices can do so and, by giving young people jobs, ensure that Canberra has an adequate supply of tradespeople in the future. With the current level of youth unemployment, the current problems in the construction industry and the current Commonwealth Government redundancy levels, this Assembly should not step away from 150 jobs for young Canberrans.

Mr Berry made the comment that this legislation will stay in place only until 1 January 1998. The reason for that is that we have been engaged in discussions, not with our own people as Mr Berry said but with such people as George Wason, Trevor Zeltner, and all of the people from the CFMEU. They have all been to my office as well as to Mr De Domenico's on a number of occasions.

Mr Berry: They do not agree with you.

MRS CARNELL: They certainly do about the training levy. The industry and the employers believe that there should be two separate approaches. There should be money that is for long service leave and money that is for training. This sort of hybrid approach will probably not give the best outcome in the longer term. Because of that, we have a 1 January 1998 sunset on this approach. We believe that by then we will be able to negotiate and pass in this place a training levy on the basis that we reduce the long service levy to the level that is needed to cover current employees. In other words, we will reduce the long service leave levy to the level that is needed to fund long service leave in line with what the board, the Actuary and the Auditor-General say, and we will introduce a levy for training. In that way we will overcome the problem.

As we said, we are consulting with the union, the employers and all of those people in coming up with that package. Those negotiations are under way. We could sit on our hands and do nothing. That is what those opposite would do. I hope that is not what those on the crossbenches would suggest that we do. Sitting on our hands and doing nothing would mean that 150 young Canberrans would not have jobs next year. There would be more money in the long service leave levy pool or, if Mr Berry had his way, current employees would have greater entitlements. But there would not be any new jobs. At the end of next year, when we come to some sort of agreement on training levies and long service leave levies, other things might go ahead, but in the meantime these 150 young Canberrans would not have jobs. What we are suggesting here today is a very sensible approach to meet the difficulties that are facing both the construction industry and young Canberrans right now - not in 12 months' time, not when the negotiations on the training levy can finally come to fruition, but right now. That is what this Assembly has to take into account.

Again, let me follow through on Mr Berry's comments. Mr Berry's level of hypocrisy when it comes to the level of training dollars going from 10 per cent to 40 per cent is amazing. Mr Berry himself brought in the 10 per cent. He already accepted the premise that 10 per cent of the long service leave levy could be used for training purposes.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .