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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 11 Hansard (24 September) . . Page.. 3282 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

but I am amazed that he has taken an approach which unfortunately will only hurt young people. Mr Moore, perhaps the most important thing for you to do is to ask yourself whether some people, especially young people, who might otherwise not have an opportunity to get a job are going to benefit from this. Quite clearly, the question has to be answered in the affirmative. Yes, they are. It is quite clear that the money is not needed to pay long service leave entitlements. The other question is whether anyone is going to be adversely affected by this. Quite clearly, the answer is no. When you look at it as simply as that - and I think you can in a situation like this - quite clearly, this Bill is one worth supporting.

MS TUCKER (11.23): Mr Speaker, the Greens have given this Bill great consideration because there are obviously a number of different agendas running here. What Mr De Domenico is doing is, firstly, asking the Assembly to approve an increase in the proportion of employer long service leave contributions which are transferred to the Construction Industry Training Fund from 10 per cent to 40 per cent. This transfer is to be retrospective from the start of this year. The second thing Mr De Domenico is asking the Assembly to endorse is the abolition of this fund at the end of 1997.

I am aware that there is a considerable amount of history from the last Assembly on the issue, and the question of an appropriate strategy for funding training in the industry has been particularly problematic. There seems to be general agreement now that a longer-term strategy needs to be put in place for the financing of training in the industry. It was only in 1994 that a proposal to establish a Construction Industry Training Fund was knocked back by this Assembly. At that time it was argued by the then Liberal Opposition and the Independents that additional money for training was not necessary. Now there is not enough money for training, and the Minister is spending considerable time discussing how there is a real shortage of training and skills development and how demand for training outstrips supply.

The Long Service Leave Board has accumulated substantial assets. It is not appropriate that these funds be used for the longer-term training needs of industry. This is something Mr De Domenico acknowledged in his presentation. There seems to be a matter of principle about whom the money belongs to. Sure, the one per cent levy is paid by the employers, but it must be seen as part of the overall package of benefits that accrue to workers. It is rather curious then, given the emphasis that is put on skills shortages and the need for training, that the Construction Industry Training Fund is being abolished by this Bill before any proposals for alternative financing arrangements for training are presented to the Assembly and before the industry has formally agreed to any specific proposals.

Clearly, there are a number of issues that have to be sorted out. The Greens support in principle the notion that money should not be diverted from the Long Service Leave Board into training, and we encourage the Minister in his efforts to gain support across the industry for some sort of training levy. We believe it would be appropriate for him to bring any new proposals, together with the proposal to abolish the 10 per cent levy from the fund, to the Assembly. It might be superficially appealing to throw this money into

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