❓ Ljiljanna Ravlich questions the Minister for Employment and Training about the achievements of the current board compared to the previous five years and requests an independent performance audit. The Minister details improvements in funding structures and declines the audit due to the ongoing nature of the board's work.
AnsweredQoN 151Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
Further to question on notice 1981 of 2000 - (1) Will the Minister for Employment and Training outline where and how the current board has achieved more in the last 12 months than has been achieved in the last five years? (2) Is the Minister prepared to authorise an independent performance audit of the last five years? (3) If not, why not? Answered on 20 September 2000 The Minister
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
20 September 2000
Response time
43 days
(1) At the time of appointment of the Board in April 1999 the underlying funding structures for group training schemes were such that every scheme offering apprentices to host employers on a hire-out basis received a different total annual subsidy per apprentice from the BCITF. These differences ranged up to 40% of annual funding for the same trade training. The Board has adopted a more objective approach to reduce the imbalance. Before April 1999 the Skills Enhancement funding structure resulted in funding differentials for identical training activities of more than 50%. The funding for skills training was structured in such a way that the inevitable result was an under commitment of funds from the BCITF program. The Board has corrected these deficiencies and achieved an improvement in subsidy rate of over 100% as a direct result of administrative efficiency introduced with the new funding structure. The differential in funding between apprentices employed by Group Training Schemes and those indentured directly was approximately 350% in June 1999. In a twelve month period, the Board has reduced this to around 35%, a factor of 10. Prior to April 1999, the Skills Enhancement funding structure resulted in funding differentials for identical training activities of more than 50%. The funding for skills training was structured in such a way that the inevitable result was an under commitment of funds from the BCITF program. The Board has corrected these deficiencies and achieved an improvement in subsidy rate of over 100% as a direct result of the introduced administrative efficiency. In 2000/2001, the Board has increased basic skills funding by around 50% and the total pool of funds available for skills training by around 100%. The Board is continuing the process of addressing the imbalances of funding support between trade level training and sub-trade skill training, apprentice funding both internally within group scheme funding and those existing between apprentices employed by group schemes and those indentured directly to persons working in the building and construction industry. Generally, the actions of the Board in this period have addressed issues of equity, balance and fair distribution of the BCITF to all workers within the building and construction industry. (2) No. (3) Since the Board is in a continuing process that is not complete, an audit at this stage could be premature.
(1) Will the Minister for Employment and Training outline where and how the current board has achieved more in the last 12 months than has been achieved in the last five years? (2) Is the Minister prepared to authorise an independent performance audit of the last five years? (3) If not, why not? Answered on 20 September 2000 The Minister Replied: (1) At the time of appointment of the Board in April 1999 the underlying funding structures for group training schemes were such that every scheme offering apprentices to host employers on a hire-out basis received a different total annual subsidy per apprentice from the BCITF. These differences ranged up to 40% of annual funding for the same trade training. The Board has adopted a more objective approach to reduce the imbalance. Before April 1999 the Skills Enhancement funding structure resulted in funding differentials for identical training activities of more than 50%. The funding for skills training was structured in such a way that the inevitable result was an under commitment of funds from the BCITF program. The Board has corrected these deficiencies and achieved an improvement in subsidy rate of over 100% as a direct result of administrative efficiency introduced with the new funding structure. The differential in funding between apprentices employed by Group Training Schemes and those indentured directly was approximately 350% in June 1999. In a twelve month period, the Board has reduced this to around 35%, a factor of 10. Prior to April 1999, the Skills Enhancement funding structure resulted in funding differentials for identical training activities of more than 50%. The funding for skills training was structured in such a way that the inevitable result was an under commitment of funds from the BCITF program. The Board has corrected these deficiencies and achieved an improvement in subsidy rate of over 100% as a direct result of the introduced administrative efficiency. In 2000/2001, the Board has increased basic skills funding by around 50% and the total pool of funds available for skills training by around 100%. The Board is continuing the process of addressing the imbalances of funding support between trade level training and sub-trade skill training, apprentice funding both internally within group scheme funding and those existing between apprentices employed by group schemes and those indentured directly to persons working in the building and construction industry. Generally, the actions of the Board in this period have addressed issues of equity, balance and fair distribution of the BCITF to all workers within the building and construction industry. (2) No. (3) Since the Board is in a continuing process that is not complete, an audit at this stage could be premature.
(2) Is the Minister prepared to authorise an independent performance audit of the last five years? (3) If not, why not? Answered on 20 September 2000 The Minister Replied: (1) At the time of appointment of the Board in April 1999 the underlying funding structures for group training schemes were such that every scheme offering apprentices to host employers on a hire-out basis received a different total annual subsidy per apprentice from the BCITF. These differences ranged up to 40% of annual funding for the same trade training. The Board has adopted a more objective approach to reduce the imbalance. Before April 1999 the Skills Enhancement funding structure resulted in funding differentials for identical training activities of more than 50%. The funding for skills training was structured in such a way that the inevitable result was an under commitment of funds from the BCITF program. The Board has corrected these deficiencies and achieved an improvement in subsidy rate of over 100% as a direct result of administrative efficiency introduced with the new funding structure. The differential in funding between apprentices employed by Group Training Schemes and those indentured directly was approximately 350% in June 1999. In a twelve month period, the Board has reduced this to around 35%, a factor of 10. Prior to April 1999, the Skills Enhancement funding structure resulted in funding differentials for identical training activities of more than 50%. The funding for skills training was structured in such a way that the inevitable result was an under commitment of funds from the BCITF program. The Board has corrected these deficiencies and achieved an improvement in subsidy rate of over 100% as a direct result of the introduced administrative efficiency. In 2000/2001, the Board has increased basic skills funding by around 50% and the total pool of funds available for skills training by around 100%. The Board is continuing the process of addressing the imbalances of funding support between trade level training and sub-trade skill training, apprentice funding both internally within group scheme funding and those existing between apprentices employed by group schemes and those indentured directly to persons working in the building and construction industry. Generally, the actions of the Board in this period have addressed issues of equity, balance and fair distribution of the BCITF to all workers within the building and construction industry. (2) No. (3) Since the Board is in a continuing process that is not complete, an audit at this stage could be premature.
(3) If not, why not? Answered on 20 September 2000 The Minister Replied: (1) At the time of appointment of the Board in April 1999 the underlying funding structures for group training schemes were such that every scheme offering apprentices to host employers on a hire-out basis received a different total annual subsidy per apprentice from the BCITF. These differences ranged up to 40% of annual funding for the same trade training. The Board has adopted a more objective approach to reduce the imbalance. Before April 1999 the Skills Enhancement funding structure resulted in funding differentials for identical training activities of more than 50%. The funding for skills training was structured in such a way that the inevitable result was an under commitment of funds from the BCITF program. The Board has corrected these deficiencies and achieved an improvement in subsidy rate of over 100% as a direct result of administrative efficiency introduced with the new funding structure. The differential in funding between apprentices employed by Group Training Schemes and those indentured directly was approximately 350% in June 1999. In a twelve month period, the Board has reduced this to around 35%, a factor of 10. Prior to April 1999, the Skills Enhancement funding structure resulted in funding differentials for identical training activities of more than 50%. The funding for skills training was structured in such a way that the inevitable result was an under commitment of funds from the BCITF program. The Board has corrected these deficiencies and achieved an improvement in subsidy rate of over 100% as a direct result of the introduced administrative efficiency. In 2000/2001, the Board has increased basic skills funding by around 50% and the total pool of funds available for skills training by around 100%. The Board is continuing the process of addressing the imbalances of funding support between trade level training and sub-trade skill training, apprentice funding both internally within group scheme funding and those existing between apprentices employed by group schemes and those indentured directly to persons working in the building and construction industry. Generally, the actions of the Board in this period have addressed issues of equity, balance and fair distribution of the BCITF to all workers within the building and construction industry. (2) No. (3) Since the Board is in a continuing process that is not complete, an audit at this stage could be premature.
Answered on 20 September 2000 The Minister Replied: (1) At the time of appointment of the Board in April 1999 the underlying funding structures for group training schemes were such that every scheme offering apprentices to host employers on a hire-out basis received a different total annual subsidy per apprentice from the BCITF. These differences ranged up to 40% of annual funding for the same trade training. The Board has adopted a more objective approach to reduce the imbalance. Before April 1999 the Skills Enhancement funding structure resulted in funding differentials for identical training activities of more than 50%. The funding for skills training was structured in such a way that the inevitable result was an under commitment of funds from the BCITF program. The Board has corrected these deficiencies and achieved an improvement in subsidy rate of over 100% as a direct result of administrative efficiency introduced with the new funding structure. The differential in funding between apprentices employed by Group Training Schemes and those indentured directly was approximately 350% in June 1999. In a twelve month period, the Board has reduced this to around 35%, a factor of 10. Prior to April 1999, the Skills Enhancement funding structure resulted in funding differentials for identical training activities of more than 50%. The funding for skills training was structured in such a way that the inevitable result was an under commitment of funds from the BCITF program. The Board has corrected these deficiencies and achieved an improvement in subsidy rate of over 100% as a direct result of the introduced administrative efficiency. In 2000/2001, the Board has increased basic skills funding by around 50% and the total pool of funds available for skills training by around 100%. The Board is continuing the process of addressing the imbalances of funding support between trade level training and sub-trade skill training, apprentice funding both internally within group scheme funding and those existing between apprentices employed by group schemes and those indentured directly to persons working in the building and construction industry. Generally, the actions of the Board in this period have addressed issues of equity, balance and fair distribution of the BCITF to all workers within the building and construction industry. (2) No. (3) Since the Board is in a continuing process that is not complete, an audit at this stage could be premature.
(1) Will the Minister for Employment and Training outline where and how the current board has achieved more in the last 12 months than has been achieved in the last five years? (2) Is the Minister prepared to authorise an independent performance audit of the last five years? (3) If not, why not? Answered on 20 September 2000 The Minister Replied: (1) At the time of appointment of the Board in April 1999 the underlying funding structures for group training schemes were such that every scheme offering apprentices to host employers on a hire-out basis received a different total annual subsidy per apprentice from the BCITF. These differences ranged up to 40% of annual funding for the same trade training. The Board has adopted a more objective approach to reduce the imbalance. Before April 1999 the Skills Enhancement funding structure resulted in funding differentials for identical training activities of more than 50%. The funding for skills training was structured in such a way that the inevitable result was an under commitment of funds from the BCITF program. The Board has corrected these deficiencies and achieved an improvement in subsidy rate of over 100% as a direct result of administrative efficiency introduced with the new funding structure. The differential in funding between apprentices employed by Group Training Schemes and those indentured directly was approximately 350% in June 1999. In a twelve month period, the Board has reduced this to around 35%, a factor of 10. Prior to April 1999, the Skills Enhancement funding structure resulted in funding differentials for identical training activities of more than 50%. The funding for skills training was structured in such a way that the inevitable result was an under commitment of funds from the BCITF program. The Board has corrected these deficiencies and achieved an improvement in subsidy rate of over 100% as a direct result of the introduced administrative efficiency. In 2000/2001, the Board has increased basic skills funding by around 50% and the total pool of funds available for skills training by around 100%. The Board is continuing the process of addressing the imbalances of funding support between trade level training and sub-trade skill training, apprentice funding both internally within group scheme funding and those existing between apprentices employed by group schemes and those indentured directly to persons working in the building and construction industry. Generally, the actions of the Board in this period have addressed issues of equity, balance and fair distribution of the BCITF to all workers within the building and construction industry. (2) No. (3) Since the Board is in a continuing process that is not complete, an audit at this stage could be premature.
(2) Is the Minister prepared to authorise an independent performance audit of the last five years? (3) If not, why not? Answered on 20 September 2000 The Minister Replied: (1) At the time of appointment of the Board in April 1999 the underlying funding structures for group training schemes were such that every scheme offering apprentices to host employers on a hire-out basis received a different total annual subsidy per apprentice from the BCITF. These differences ranged up to 40% of annual funding for the same trade training. The Board has adopted a more objective approach to reduce the imbalance. Before April 1999 the Skills Enhancement funding structure resulted in funding differentials for identical training activities of more than 50%. The funding for skills training was structured in such a way that the inevitable result was an under commitment of funds from the BCITF program. The Board has corrected these deficiencies and achieved an improvement in subsidy rate of over 100% as a direct result of administrative efficiency introduced with the new funding structure. The differential in funding between apprentices employed by Group Training Schemes and those indentured directly was approximately 350% in June 1999. In a twelve month period, the Board has reduced this to around 35%, a factor of 10. Prior to April 1999, the Skills Enhancement funding structure resulted in funding differentials for identical training activities of more than 50%. The funding for skills training was structured in such a way that the inevitable result was an under commitment of funds from the BCITF program. The Board has corrected these deficiencies and achieved an improvement in subsidy rate of over 100% as a direct result of the introduced administrative efficiency. In 2000/2001, the Board has increased basic skills funding by around 50% and the total pool of funds available for skills training by around 100%. The Board is continuing the process of addressing the imbalances of funding support between trade level training and sub-trade skill training, apprentice funding both internally within group scheme funding and those existing between apprentices employed by group schemes and those indentured directly to persons working in the building and construction industry. Generally, the actions of the Board in this period have addressed issues of equity, balance and fair distribution of the BCITF to all workers within the building and construction industry. (2) No. (3) Since the Board is in a continuing process that is not complete, an audit at this stage could be premature.
(3) If not, why not? Answered on 20 September 2000 The Minister Replied: (1) At the time of appointment of the Board in April 1999 the underlying funding structures for group training schemes were such that every scheme offering apprentices to host employers on a hire-out basis received a different total annual subsidy per apprentice from the BCITF. These differences ranged up to 40% of annual funding for the same trade training. The Board has adopted a more objective approach to reduce the imbalance. Before April 1999 the Skills Enhancement funding structure resulted in funding differentials for identical training activities of more than 50%. The funding for skills training was structured in such a way that the inevitable result was an under commitment of funds from the BCITF program. The Board has corrected these deficiencies and achieved an improvement in subsidy rate of over 100% as a direct result of administrative efficiency introduced with the new funding structure. The differential in funding between apprentices employed by Group Training Schemes and those indentured directly was approximately 350% in June 1999. In a twelve month period, the Board has reduced this to around 35%, a factor of 10. Prior to April 1999, the Skills Enhancement funding structure resulted in funding differentials for identical training activities of more than 50%. The funding for skills training was structured in such a way that the inevitable result was an under commitment of funds from the BCITF program. The Board has corrected these deficiencies and achieved an improvement in subsidy rate of over 100% as a direct result of the introduced administrative efficiency. In 2000/2001, the Board has increased basic skills funding by around 50% and the total pool of funds available for skills training by around 100%. The Board is continuing the process of addressing the imbalances of funding support between trade level training and sub-trade skill training, apprentice funding both internally within group scheme funding and those existing between apprentices employed by group schemes and those indentured directly to persons working in the building and construction industry. Generally, the actions of the Board in this period have addressed issues of equity, balance and fair distribution of the BCITF to all workers within the building and construction industry. (2) No. (3) Since the Board is in a continuing process that is not complete, an audit at this stage could be premature.
Answered on 20 September 2000 The Minister Replied: (1) At the time of appointment of the Board in April 1999 the underlying funding structures for group training schemes were such that every scheme offering apprentices to host employers on a hire-out basis received a different total annual subsidy per apprentice from the BCITF. These differences ranged up to 40% of annual funding for the same trade training. The Board has adopted a more objective approach to reduce the imbalance. Before April 1999 the Skills Enhancement funding structure resulted in funding differentials for identical training activities of more than 50%. The funding for skills training was structured in such a way that the inevitable result was an under commitment of funds from the BCITF program. The Board has corrected these deficiencies and achieved an improvement in subsidy rate of over 100% as a direct result of administrative efficiency introduced with the new funding structure. The differential in funding between apprentices employed by Group Training Schemes and those indentured directly was approximately 350% in June 1999. In a twelve month period, the Board has reduced this to around 35%, a factor of 10. Prior to April 1999, the Skills Enhancement funding structure resulted in funding differentials for identical training activities of more than 50%. The funding for skills training was structured in such a way that the inevitable result was an under commitment of funds from the BCITF program. The Board has corrected these deficiencies and achieved an improvement in subsidy rate of over 100% as a direct result of the introduced administrative efficiency. In 2000/2001, the Board has increased basic skills funding by around 50% and the total pool of funds available for skills training by around 100%. The Board is continuing the process of addressing the imbalances of funding support between trade level training and sub-trade skill training, apprentice funding both internally within group scheme funding and those existing between apprentices employed by group schemes and those indentured directly to persons working in the building and construction industry. Generally, the actions of the Board in this period have addressed issues of equity, balance and fair distribution of the BCITF to all workers within the building and construction industry. (2) No. (3) Since the Board is in a continuing process that is not complete, an audit at this stage could be premature.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.