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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 4664 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

I do not believe that there was any indication - in fact, I know that there was no indication - that that levy was to pay for future entitlements or changed entitlements that may happen over time. It was very much to cover the entitlements of the employees as they accrue, Mr Speaker. So, to change the entitlements with current money certainly does raise a large number of questions, Mr Speaker. It is a true statement that we will be going in exactly the opposite direction to all other States. We do that in certain circumstances in this Assembly, and we often do it in a non-partisan way, because we believe that the outcome is a significantly better outcome for the people of Canberra. But in this case, Mr Speaker, it is very hard to see that by heading in the opposite direction to other States - not in the same direction, not even doing nothing; but in the exact opposite direction to other States - the outcome will be in the interests of the vast percentage of Canberrans. It certainly might be in the interests of a very small sector; but, I think, when we go in a different direction to the rest of Australia we have to do it in the interests of Canberra as a whole. It would be very difficult to show that this in any way improved the affordability of houses or the capacity of Canberrans as a whole to live in this city.

Mr Speaker, I must admit again that I find it very difficult to understand why we would debate this legislation today, when last week we made it extremely clear that there was a new actuarial report, which is also looking, as I understand it, at the training levy and how that would affect - - -

Mr Berry: No.

MRS CARNELL: It is interesting that Mr Berry knows of the final document that we do not have.

Mr De Domenico: Mr Berry happens to have a copy, he thinks; yet the board does not have it yet.

MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Berry, you will have the opportunity to make comments when you close the debate.

MRS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, what the Government is doing is attempting to come up with a position that both guarantees that there is sufficient money in the sector for training and ensures that people who currently have jobs continue to have jobs. Most importantly, Mr Speaker, what we do not want to have is a situation where we are giving significantly more money to existing employees, at the expense of training or employing new people. That is really what it comes down to.

If this Assembly wants to go down the path of making sure that existing employees have significantly greater benefits in their jobs and greater benefits than in the majority of other States, certainly greater benefits than in our nearest neighbour, New South Wales - remember that this is another expense for employers or one that they do not believe that they will be able to handle - and that employers have the capacity to employ new people, to ensure that the training levels for new apprentices are up to scratch, and all of those sorts of things, it is very hard to see how that balance will work under the current circumstances.

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