Training obligations - 1.6% of gross????

[tubefeed]

We have an employee that claims that Employers have a legislative obligation to provide training for employees at the rate of 1.6% of their gross (turnover I guess she means by gross).

I am very familiar with the NES and the relevant awards that apply to us and I have never heard of any such thing.

I have done a bit of googling and cannot find any information.

Does anyone know whether this was some sort of historical employer obligation from the dark ages (of a previous labour govt ;P).

If anyone that can enlighten me here I would greatly appreciate it!

[Job Media]

It was indeed an obligation back in the 1990's - in the last century :)

Can't remember which Govt came up with that one, but as far as I am aware it was abolished years ago.

[Neb-Maat-Re]

Introduced by Keating while Treasurer under Hawke, and abolished by Howard.

Your employee may need to update his legislation.

Some States and Territories do appear to still have a Building and Construction Training Levy on large contracts, but it seems to be around 0.2% of the contract value.

[Cottoneyes]

Interesting as I've an employee currently working under a spousal visa, partner is with another company under a 457. Both are in the process of trying to get permament residency and it seems one of the requirements for the partner's employer was to show that they spent x% of budget on staff training.

Having only been involved in HR since 2000 I'd never heard of this, sounds as thought the dept of immigration hasn't heard it had stopped either

[Qld IR Consultant]

Neb is correct. Some Enterprise agreements however may specify training requirements that must be adhered too. I know some maritime companies were well and truly screwed by the MUA at negotiations and now have to pay ridiculous money to a union approved training company....but that aside i think the employee needs to do some more research...

[Tiger]

Other responsders are correct - another era, no longer the case. However, the immigration angle is also correct.
When considering the issuance of 4,5,7 Visas which require Company sponsorship, Government do want to know what you have spent on training. This is however more related to the fact that as you are bringing in an overseas worker to do a job in Australia, what are you doing to train your people so you don't have to bring in overseas workers to put it simply - so it is a different context.

[Cottoneyes]

Other responsders are correct - another era, no longer the case. However, the immigration angle is also correct.
When considering the issuance of 4,5,7 Visas which require Company sponsorship, Government do want to know what you have spent on training. This is however more related to the fact that as you are bringing in an overseas worker to do a job in Australia, what are you doing to train your people so you don't have to bring in overseas workers to put it simply - so it is a different context.

The case I was talking about was in relation to an application for permament residency, not the application for 457 which had been approved 2 years prior

I understand for the 457, can't figure out why it would make a difference in someone getting perm res.