The state government is seeking to reintroduce a training levy to the mining industry that could put up to $10 million a year into a trade training fund.
The state government is seeking to reintroduce a training levy to the mining industry that could put up to $10 million a year into a trade training fund.
Education and Training Minister Ljiljanna Ravlich said she was disappointed by the mining industry’s limited support for trade training, which was a key reason for the state’s current skills shortage.
“This is an area of great disappointment because everywhere we go what we hear is that everybody else is doing the training and the mining sector is taking all the people with trade skills,” Ms Ravlich told WA Business News.
“We’ve got a real issue out there.”
The minister’s preferred option is for the industry to resume contributions to the Building and Construction Industry Training Fund, which applies a levy of 0.182 per cent on the value of construction projects.
The mining industry paid the levy between its introduction in 1991 and 1994, at which time the then coalition government granted an exemption
“I’ve got a lot of respect for the mining sector, it’s the powerhouse, but it could do more in terms of trade training,” Ms Ravlich said.
“I would be very keen for them, given our current circumstances, to really seriously reconsider having the (BCITF) Act apply to them.”
While the Queensland mining industry paid a 0.1 per cent levy. Ms Ravlich said she had encountered resistance from the WA industry.
“I have had discussions [with industry groups] and I think there could well just be an ideological blockage to a levy, now that they have got the exemption,” she told WA Business News.
“But I’m coming under increasing pressure to increase the BCITF levy because there is such demand on levy funds in terms of the up-take of apprentices.”
Chamber of Minerals and Energy director Reg Howard-Smith said he was sceptical about the government’s real motivation.
“One of our underlying concerns is that this is not an attempt to address the skills issue,” Mr Howard-Smith said. “It’s more of a political issue.”
He said the government should recognise the overall contribution of the mining industry to education, in schools and universities as well as the trades.
The Bureau of Statistics had found that mining contributed more to training than any other industry, Mr Howard-Smith said. He also quest-ioned the impact of a levy.
“There is no evidence that levies do result in extra trained people in the workplace,” Mr Howard-Smith said.
Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association director Don Sanders insisted his industry was very focused on training.
“We’re not trying to abrogate any responsibility,” Mr Sanders said.
“That is not the issue; the issue is focusing on where we can make a difference.”
He said the industry was focused on training people for core activities, such as extraction and production of oil and gas, as evidenced by its support for the new centre for energy and process training being built at Henderson.
Ms Ravlich believes the building and construction industry, helped by the BCITF levy, is “an absolute leader” in terms of support for training and apprentices.
She said the BCITF collected
about $14 million per year and most of that is used to subsidise apprentices, with payments of $9,000 per apprentice.
Ironically, while the mining industry is fighting against a levy, the automotive industry has been striving for months to introduce a training levy.
Eurogroup managing director Rod Slater, who heads an automotive industry working group on training reform, said he favoured a levy of “a few dollars” on motor vehicle registrations.
Motor Trade Association of WA director Peter Fitzpatrick said his group preferred a levy on motor vehicle transfers.
Ms Ravlich offered in-principle support for setting up an automotive industry training fund but said she needed to see the detail before making a final decision.
“I support their investigation into looking at a funding structure that will provide them with sustainability and I think the BCITF model is a very good model,” she said.
“Having said that, it depends by which mechanism the levy is collected and what it is levied on.”
