Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

In response to the minister, I would like to remind him that he has a responsibility to tell the truth as well and on many occasions I believe that he has been quite loose with the truth. Before the point of order I was talking about the government’s approach to Australian technical colleges and the requirement that all workers will have to sign AWAs. When the original piece of legislation was introduced into this parliament, TAFE teachers from Belmont TAFE within my electorate contacted me and expressed their concern. Firstly, they were concerned that it was duplicating a very fine system of TAFE colleges that exists throughout the country and, secondly, they were very concerned about the impact that the legislation would have on their conditions and their ability to develop and deliver quality education for their students. They are totally committed to delivering that quality education to the students that they teach. They take great pride in their work and they work together as a unit.

I do not think that Belmont TAFE is any different to other TAFE colleges within Australia—all the teachers are very dedicated to their students, dedicated to learning and dedicated to teaching those young people so that they can become part of the workforce of Australia and have the skills that we need to compete against other countries. They were also concerned about the fact that included in this legislation was a clause that said that college principals will have the responsibility for the employment of staff. Whilst it will be overseen by an industry-led government authority, they still have serious concerns about it because they have seen in the past how the government’s administration of such schemes has lacked transparency and accountability. I would have to say that I still share those concerns in relation to that original legislation. I had those concerns at the time that this legislation went through the parliament in June 2005 and I still hold those concerns today.

I believe that this response by the government is, once again, a knee-jerk response. It has happened because the government did not allocate funds properly originally. I believe that it will do nothing to solve the problem of our skills shortage; rather it is duplicating a system that has operated very well in Australia. It is not offering anything new. There is no new direction coming through this; rather it is the Howard government saying, ‘We can do it better than the states.’ I do not agree with that. I think you only have to look at a number of areas to see how the government blames the states for its own inadequacies.

Labor’s skills blueprint, which we released in September 2005, outlines a program for getting skills into our schools. It outlines a program for the future. Labor’s skills blueprint is a blueprint that has hope, a blueprint that will take Australia forward in this century. It offers young people better choices by teaching trades, technology and science in first-class facilities and ridding our schools of the dusty workshops that exist now, workshops that are inadequate. It establishes a trade school scheme to double the number of school based apprentices, it establishes specialist schools for senior years of schooling in areas such as trade and technology, and it establishes a trade taster program so years 9 and 10 students can experience a range of options which could also lead to pre-apprenticeship programs.

Since this government has starved the TAFE system of funding there has been a massive decline in the number of pre-apprenticeship courses run in our TAFEs. Pre-apprenticeship courses are the courses that prepare young people to undertake trades. Once a young person has completed a pre-apprenticeship course, they have the skills and learning to go into a workplace and actually be an effective member of the workforce. A young person who has completed a pre-apprenticeship course is in a much better position to be an effective worker, and employers relish taking on a young person who has completed one of those courses. I think the Howard government really stands condemned for its failure to invest in young people and to invest in TAFEs. Labor’s plan is to increase the number of young people completing apprenticeships through incentives such as an $800 per year skills account, which would abolish up-front TAFE fees.

It is interesting to note that, when the Howard government first talked about Australian technical colleges, the Prime Minister said there would be no fees. Surprise, surprise, surprise! Students attending Australian technical colleges will now have to pay up-front fees. Once again, this is an example of how the Australian people are constantly being misled by the Prime Minister.

For every student doing a traditional apprenticeship, $800 will be paid directly into a skills account—and it is in the traditional apprenticeships and traditional trades that we have a massive skills shortage throughout Australia. It is very important that young people train as apprentices and become tradespeople, otherwise Australia’s future will be very gloomy. Under the $2,000 completion bonus scheme, traditional apprentices would be paid $1,000 halfway through their training and a further $1,000 on completion. This scheme aims to achieve an 80 per cent completion rate. There is already a 70 per cent completion rate for traditional apprenticeships, whilst 40 per cent of people who undertake apprenticeships under the New Apprenticeships scheme drop out. This is about developing real skills for the future.

The government stands condemned for the way it has implemented the Australian technical colleges legislation. The facts that only four colleges are operational and only 100 students are currently attending them speak for themselves. It will be 2010 before the first apprentices to complete their training through these technical colleges actually hit the workshop floor as fully trained tradesmen. This certainly is not good enough. I support the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and will be voting accordingly.

See this speech in context