Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make some comments on the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006. I do not disagree that money should be brought forward in the budget to provide training for young people. If the election promise of the Prime Minister to establish these colleges comes to fruition, there will be a college established in Sunshine in western Melbourne. As I understand it, the consortium seeking to oversight that college will have four campuses, two of which will be in the electorate of Gorton. So it is a significant matter for the constituents in my electorate and the surrounding areas.

However, I have to challenge the motives of the government in the lack of preparation and true consideration of the needs of young people, particularly because of the way in which the Prime Minister announced the colleges. If there has been a need to provide greater training, why has it taken almost nine years after the election of the coalition to do anything about it? If it is not to ideologically pursue Australian workplace agreements why not just provide the funding and use the institutions already in place, which are mainly TAFE colleges? There are a lot of questions.

Forgive me, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I am somewhat cynical about the motives of the Prime Minister and the government. I recall that the Prime Minister did say at the election launch in 2004 that a re-elected coalition government would ‘establish 24 Australian technical colleges to accelerate national skills development in traditional trades’. In principle I support that contention, but I have to say that it seemed to me to be policy on the run. It was a paragraph to be placed into the campaign launch speech of the Prime Minister, and no real thinking was undertaken.

I guess that is why in June 2006 there are still many questions that members in this House are asking about the operation. In this debate we have already heard the member for Hotham, and I imagine others, talk about the fact that, notionally, we have colleges in place but that they are not training too many young people. We have the absurd situation in Gladstone, Queensland, where a college is in place but it is teaching only one student. I guess the spin doctors of the government could say: ‘We’re really intensively training these young people. We’ve got a whole college set up to train one person.’ But clearly, and more seriously, that does show a deficiency in government planning. It shows a lack of sincerity in its concern for young people and their training when promises do not come to fruition, and indeed when a college has been set up, as is the case in Gladstone, but is not training the young people in that region who are in need.

I attended a meeting that the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education, Mr Hardgrave, held in Taylors Lakes in my electorate in February 2005. I have to say that, whilst I was and remain sceptical about the motives of the government, if one or more young people were trained in my area I would of course welcome that, even if it were not undertaken in a manner that would reflect good government. The promise that Minister Hardgrave made at that meeting in Taylors Lakes was that we would be up and running earlier than would now appear to be the case. That might be because there have been difficulties in convincing organisations to involve themselves in this process. I have to say it is clear that many ran a mile from the proposition, because they really did not believe the government’s heart to be in Australian technical colleges. The website that refers to the proposed Sunshine college indicates that it may commence its first training in 2007. That is not that far away at all, but I am yet to be convinced that this college will be up and running at that time.

I think it is important, certainly for my constituents and for the public at large, to realise that when the government talks about technical colleges it does not mean it is going to build colleges. There are no bricks and mortar involved in most of these colleges. People have made the assumption that, in each and every case, there will be construction. For example, in the proposal in Sunshine in western Melbourne they will be using the facilities of existing organisations. They will be looking at up to four campuses; therefore, they will be using those facilities. So let us not get too carried away with the notion put forward, I think by the Prime Minister, that somehow the Commonwealth will enter this field which has been the domain of the states for many a year, with enormous amounts of funding. That is not the case. It is a very small amount of funding. The government is looking to use existing arrangements. I have no problem with that, but I just do not want the spin doctors of the government to try to suggest to the community that it is constructing genuine colleges and has invested a lot of money in doing so. That is not the case.

Other than to put a paragraph in the Prime Minister’s speech at the campaign launch, what seems to be the motivating factor of the Commonwealth’s prevailing over state jurisdictions—that is, entering into the field that historically been undertaken by the states? I am afraid to raise industrial relations—I am a little tired of having to raise IR in matters that are supposed to be about other public policy areas—but it appears to me that the primary reason for the Commonwealth to establish these so-called colleges is to force staff in the post-secondary education field into Australian workplace agreements.

In fact, as Deputy Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Workforce Participation, I asked the department, when we had its officers before us, about this matter when we were inquiring into participation in the workforce. I inquired of the departmental officers: why is it that in the brochure that was put together for these notional ATCs—this was early last year—the only reference to employment arrangements, in a paragraph to do with the staffing of these ATCs, included a reference to Australian workplace agreements? If the government agreed that there should be choice and if the government were suggesting that an employer should be able to offer AWAs—which is their right, even under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 prior to Work Choices—why were there no references to other industrial instruments? Why was it the case that the only reference to an industrial instrument in the entire summary of employment arrangements for Australian technical colleges was the reference to individual contracts?

Again we see that the government’s ideological pursuit of an instrument that has been wholeheartedly rejected by the overwhelming majority of Australian workers is being foisted upon teachers. Since 1996 we have seen the capacity for employees and employers in the federal jurisdiction to enter into Australian workplace agreements. That has been going on for nearly 10 years. In this instance, and I want to talk specifically about Australian technical colleges, the Commonwealth are suggesting that they will set up these establishments and effectively force the employees, those in the teaching profession, to enter into Australian workplace agreements whether they wish to or not. There is no choice in that arrangement.

It is extraordinary to think that a government would actually create a set of circumstances, in establishing a series of colleges, to, as much as anything else, force individual contracts on teachers. The fact that the government’s priorities in education and training provision have even a skerrick to do with the industrial instrument of the teaching profession shows how skewed the government’s thinking is in relation to industrial law vis-a-vis education services. We have seen it in the threat to university funding if universities do not offer AWAs. We are now seeing it with the notional ATC establishments, where they will be forcing teachers to take up Australian workplace agreements. And these are Australian workplace agreements in which there is no no-disadvantage test. The no disadvantage test that was placed in the Workplace Relations Act 1996 has effectively been removed and therefore the office of these instruments can be below the teaching awards that would apply to the teaching profession that would be providing training or education to any of the young people in these colleges.

Unfortunately, the Commonwealth government has this obsession with smashing unions. Because it does not want to allow collective bargaining, it creates a world—if you like, a greenfields site—which obviates the proper processes of industrial negotiations. I really think the government needs to get collective therapy. It has such a perverse obsession with individual contracts that all its public policy is polluted in so many areas. I need to make those points because they demonstrate one of the reasons why some of the organisations that would normally be interested in taking up a role have chosen not to do so. That is a real concern for me and it is certainly a concern for organisations that I have spoken to when the matter was raised with them.

Having said all of that, can I say, having questioned the way in which the Commonwealth has chosen to set about entering the field, that if a college were established in Sunshine of course I would want to play a positive role. I offer the caveats that I have just mentioned in relation to the IR instrument and the fact that it has turned people off; they do not want to get into an industrial battle with particular organisations. In the event that we do end up having a college, which has certainly been promoted far and wide—the government has spent a lot on advertising to date—I want to play a positive role. I have said as much to Minister Hardgrave because, in the end, notwithstanding those reservations, western Melbourne’s young people have serious skill deficiencies and they need an opportunity.

When you look at the demographics of western Melbourne compared with those of the other side, eastern Melbourne, you clearly see fundamental differences. In fact, in some ways the demographics of the areas of western Melbourne that I represent share some of the problems that are associated with regional Australia in terms of people not having as many opportunities as those in the wealthier suburbs of the city of Melbourne. For example, if you compare the Treasurer’s electorate with mine, and refer to the ABS data on educational qualifications, you see it is three or four times more likely that a constituent in the Treasurer’s electorate will have a postgraduate degree than is the case in the electorate of Gorton—and I am hoping these figures have changed because this ABS data is a little dated. As the census is coming up shortly, I will be interested to see its findings on this matter. It is over three times more likely that a 10-year-old in the Treasurer’s electorate will be online at home than a 10-year-old in my electorate.

These are really compelling gaps, and I do not think governments can arrest that imbalance themselves. Of course, they are the result of a variety of factors, such as people residing with like. There are so many reasons why those inequalities exist in parts of cities or between regions. But governments should play a role to at least increase the likelihood that people in the electorate of Gorton can get access to training and education in a similar manner to the way in which people in other parts of Melbourne—or indeed in other parts of the country—can. To that extent I accept that we need more funding for education in the west of Melbourne.

I have been railing against this government over its failure to provide sufficient resources in education, transport and health in western Melbourne. I have been attacking the government over its failure to worry about my constituents. If you look at the sort of money that goes into my electorate in any of those public policy areas compared with what goes into some of the other electorates, you realise that the government has an obsession with marginals rather than the marginalised. You see the government concerning itself with someone who has a one per cent margin. It is a case of: ‘Let’s make sure we secure that seat,’ or ‘Let’s make sure we hold that seat.’ Then all of a sudden you see the government putting millions of dollars into that area rather than looking after people who are in need.

See this speech in context