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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 3 Hansard (24 March) . . Page.. 721 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

nothing, which is the course the Government has chosen, will lead to a skill shortage which, in turn, will lead to wages pressure and rising costs in the longer term, overtaking the small cost of this proposal.

Mr Speaker, the fund will be equitable, everyone will contribute; efficient, all sections of the industry vested in one body avoids duplication; industry driven, industry representatives will make up the board, and the annual training plan will be prepared in consultation with the Building and Construction Industry Training Council; and transparent, the fund will fall under the purview of the Auditor-General.

Similar levies apply in South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. All apply the levy on the cost of construction, all apply the levy on the principal contractor, all ensure that the levy is administered by the industry itself, and all use the funds to support both entry level and ongoing training. Western Australia and Tasmania set the level at 0.2 per cent, and South Australia sets the level at 0.25 per cent.

The fund is expected to raise about $1m a year, depending on building activity. These funds will be spent on supporting entry level training, especially apprentices, and on up-skilling of the work force. A small amount will also be needed to be spent on researching the training needs of the industry. This fund can be implemented virtually immediately to fill the clearly identified need.

Mr Speaker, the Minister for Education released a discussion paper in 1997 canvassing three options - a voluntary levy, a compulsory levy, and extension of the Long Service Leave Board funding. The results of the public consultation led to majority support for the compulsory levy, the proposal in this Bill. A minority supported the voluntary levy. However, a voluntary scheme would be inequitable in that not all would contribute. There is also a very strong argument, Mr Speaker, that if a voluntary scheme were feasible it would be in operation already. It is not.

The building and construction industry itself recognises the need for improved training, but the nature of the industry, which increasingly relies on subcontractors, with a majority of small organisations comprising less than four employees, does not lend itself to investment in training at the enterprise level. With the demise of a funding source from the Long Service Leave Board and the absence of any activity from the Carnell Government on this important issue, it is now crucial that action be taken to rectify this serious problem.

This is a Bill which will improve training and up-skilling of workers in the building and construction industry at a time when fewer resources are being put to that and skilled workers are becoming harder to find. It will also lead to better, more clever and safer workplaces - improvements that not one of us can question. Mr Speaker, I urge members to support the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Stefaniak ) adjourned.

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