Page 1593 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 17 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Training is now much more widespread than when the Training Guarantee was introduced and its original objectives are being met. In suspending the Guarantee the Government expects employers and employees to continue to meet their training responsibilities. Consistent with this expectation, the Government is prepared to abolish the Training Guarantee altogether if business makes a credible commitment to providing the training places outlined in Chapter 4.
That is what the Federal Government is saying. Is there any reason why the Opposition, at that stage, thought the statement made by the Minister interesting?
The Minister went on to say that "significant amounts of money are required to fund important industry training courses, programs and projects". Once again, when the briefing people were asked which particular programs, there was no answer. There was nothing specific because they did not know. Yet we are expected to come into this place and automatically allow a minimum of $1.8m to be collected from one particular industry, with a maximum of perhaps $4.5m, without anybody being able to say which important industry training courses, programs and projects we are going to be funding.
We all know that some money already is being spent on industry training in this industry. Let us have a look at the group apprenticeship schemes run by the MBA. I am advised that there are 155 apprentices currently in the MBA scheme in the ACT, and that 52 were taken on in this financial year alone. It is, I am advised, the oldest scheme and the largest per capita scheme in the nation. In terms of straight-out numbers, only New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria have larger numbers than the ACT. We know that the group apprenticeship scheme run by the MBA involves expenditure of about $4m. Long service leave involves another contribution of $250,000. We have $4m being expended already by the building and construction industry in an apprenticeship scheme that, per head of population, is the biggest in the country, and we have the 10 per cent skimmed off the long service leave levy, which has accumulated, I am advised, $436,000 in a trust fund. We have a further $140,000. The long service leave board has said, "Listen, you cannot have the $140,000 yet because you still have not proved that you need it, for a start". It is estimated that the expenditure of the Industry Training Council is about $160,000 a year. That is point one. There is $436,000 already earning interest in a trust account. There is another $140,000 that may be available to set across the board if information is provided as to which particular programs it is to be spent on. They are some of the questions that people ought to be asking before supporting this Bill.
The Minister went on to say:
... funds spent on industry training following imposition of the levy can be focused in areas where there is an agreed need. For this reason the proposed levy has the support of the tripartite Building and Construction Industry Training Council.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .