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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 3997 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

I would like to go first to that $70,000 from the MBA. I hope that is on top of the $75,000 they have already been paid. I would hate to think that MBA Group Training is getting a $5,000 banking fee for holding that. I hope that the Minister will clarify that. Coming to the $570,000, I would like to know how many employers in Canberra have indicated that they are willing to become involved in this scheme. Where is this money going to come from? As you acknowledged in your letter to me, the industry is experiencing a downturn at the moment; yet for this scheme to be successful, you are banking on half a million dollars coming from participating tradespeople out in the workplace injecting a significant amount of money into this scheme. I do not think you will be able to give guarantees on that. That is something you are hoping for, I would imagine. I see a nod from Mr De Domenico. Thank you. I wish Mrs Carnell had said, "We are hoping the rest will come from industry". I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that. (Extension of time granted)

The Minister's letter continues:

You also asked about the composition of the committee to be put in place to oversee the day-to-day functioning of the skills centre. I understand that you have already been briefed.

I do not know whether that was a smart little line on the part of your adviser. Yes, the eyes go up. It continues:

However let me make it perfectly clear that it is Government's intention -

there is that bloody word again -

to have in place a tripartite committee, with representatives from the MBA, the CFMEU (as the union with primary coverage in the industry) and a third independent position.

There is another change from what Mrs Carnell had to say. She said that the third person would be government. I am assuming that she was implying appointed by government, who is independent. It is an interesting proposal. The letter goes on:

A particular option being explored is the use of the Industry Training Council or a subcommittee of the Council.

I would argue that perhaps there would be a conflict of interest there if they were to oversee this skills centre. I look forward to hearing what you have to say on that issue. The letter concludes:

Finally, let me reiterate that the funding derived from the Bill will also contribute to subsidising trainee wages for a further 25 first year apprentices, and an additional 25 "at risk" apprentices. This funding will go directly to employers.

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