Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

At the outset, I want to deal with the core of the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006. The core of it is simple administrative implemental flummery. What is the difference between this bill and the one that had 2005 instead of 2006 at the end of it? It is a reallocation of funding from forward years backwards. What is it a response to? It is a response to the fact that out of 25 technical colleges—initially 24—that the government decided to set up, only four have started. This is a hurry-up.

What is the second element of this bill to be considered? There is a specific power given under this bill: once it passes through here and then the other place, instead of having to bring a bill like this before this House in the future, the minister, simply by making a regulation, will be able to make these sorts of changes. There are a number of precedents for that, but in the past few years, in workplace relations and also in this area as well—the education area—the government has done similar things. So much for this bill; that is effectively what it does.

I will speak to the background in relation to this bill, and I will also speak in support of Labor and Labor’s substantial amendment. The key context of the discussion on this bill is that we have here a coalition government which is effectively irresponsible. Responsible government did exist in the 19th century. This is a government shackled with its version of how life should be—very much a 19th century thing and inappropriate for the 21st century. This is a government that has walked away from the fundamental responsibilities that Australian governments in the past have not only taken up but have in fact ensured—that is, where work needs to be done, it is done properly.

That happened over 10 years ago, when this government came to power. It brought down the National Commission of Audit. On its instruction, the National Commission of Audit found that the Commonwealth government of Australia should not deliver a single direct service to any Australian and that the only functions that should be open to the Commonwealth government were to audit and benchmark. This is a bit unusual, I suppose. Here is a Commonwealth government 10 years on, starting last year, that has actually gone out and tried to institute something. It has tried to put together 24, now 25, technical colleges spread throughout the regions of Australia.

Why has it done that? Because of the fact that for the 10 years that it has been in government, it has not taken responsibility for the training needs of Australians, other than to do what Dr Kemp did when he became the minister—that is, to run a completely ideological line about this: talk about numeracy, talk about literacy, talk about new apprenticeships, that is, traineeships, where there was a lesser level of learning, a lesser level of scope, where there was an instrumental approach to providing employers with a very narrow focus. If it wanted a particular job done, it would get a trainee to do that job. This is a government that has walked away from its fundamental responsibility to ensure that young Australians get the skills that they need at whichever level of the education system and in conjunction with the states, whether it be at TAFE or at the university level.

Ten years on, we have a fundamental skills crisis in Australia, and it is a skills crisis that lies at the very feet of every one of those government ministers walking in now for question time and the Prime Minister, who has allowed Australia to reach a stage where 300,000 young Australians who wanted a position in TAFE and wanted full apprenticeship training have been denied it. This is a Prime Minister and a government that have preferred to import apprentices from overseas in their new scheme, that have preferred to use a system of four-year temporary entry permits to bring in hundreds of thousands of people to replace skilled Australians. This is a government that has been irresponsible, because it would not take up the charge of governing Australia in a responsible fashion.

The skills crisis that we have does not have its genesis in the Australian people, not even in Australian industry. Its genesis lies at the very feet of the Prime Minister and his government and the fact that they think they can do it by automatic control. Audit, benchmark, but take no direct action to fix the problems that they have created. They should be condemned, as they have been condemned over the last 10 years, for their inaction. They should be condemned because they are not a responsible government but an irresponsible one that will not take charge of this vital issue.

We have got this bill with 24 or 25 technical colleges; we actually need a thoroughgoing overhaul of the entire education system, top to bottom, with a concentration on providing trade training for those people in years 9 and 10 and through to years 11 and 12. We need a program equivalent to what, more than 25 or 30 years ago, was available throughout continental Europe, where people, at the end of their training, could come out with a full apprenticeship.

See this speech in context