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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 3999 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

into the MBA training fund. If that is the case, the Government should be happy to guarantee that the contract also specifies that the $75,000 that has already been given to MBA Group Training is transferred to the skills centre. This should be in addition to the $70,000 the MBA is promising to contribute from their own funds.

Mrs Carnell was also adamant that this is a $1m scheme. We have just heard that it might be, because over $500,000 will be contributed by industry - perhaps. We will hold this Government to this claim, to a degree. Obviously, you cannot guarantee the total amount, but it had better be getting pretty close to it or we are going to wonder about how you work out your figures. We are already a little concerned about that, after the estimates discussions. Increased money available for training will also be available for other proposals, aside from the skills centre.

As far as the impact on the Long Service Leave Board is concerned, we have been assured that this Bill will have very little impact from an actuarial point of view. We appreciate that the money in the long service leave fund is basically for employees. Mr Berry has another Bill before the Assembly in relation to employee benefits and, without knowing all the details, the Greens also are considering this Bill favourably and have received advice that the Government's Bill will not prevent some increase in employee benefits. We have also made inquiries into the process, and the role of the Industry Training Council in the process has been clarified for me. I understand that all proposals are assessed in accordance with the strategic plan before any recommendation is made to, firstly, the Education and Training Minister, via the VETA, and then to the Industrial Relations Minister.

One of the most important concerns I raised in my earlier comments on this Bill was the lack of a long-term strategy for dealing with training. In discussions with a Government official yesterday, we were also informed that the Government will soon be considering, and hopefully bringing to this Assembly, a longer-term plan for training in the industry, through some sort of building industry levy. We would like to see this sooner rather than later, and we are sorry that it has taken as long as it has. I would have thought it was one of the critical issues that have been clear for a long time. We are not very comfortable with repealing the construction industry training fund until an alternative is available.

In conclusion, in discussions over this Bill, a proposal has been put forward that the Government make it a condition of contract that, in order to do business with government, the private sector should employ a certain percentage of apprentices or trainees. This sounds like a very good proposal. Of course, we have to consider other employment impacts of such a policy, but I put it to the Government that they seriously consider such a proposal. I also noted Mr De Domenico's comments about the Government's faith that the building and construction industry is the engine of growth for the ACT economy. It is indeed an important part of our economic base, but this Government should adopt a proactive stance in looking for ways of broadening the economic base of the ACT.

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