Laurie Ferguson (Reid, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Consumer Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I refer to the rather oddly named Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006. It is oddly titled, because its flexibility is very questionable. One of the fundamentals of this bill is an attempt to, in a draconian fashion, force people to adopt AWAs. Those sectors that are unwilling to participate and that have different points of view on Australia’s industrial relations processes are essentially marginalised and ignored in this process. Its flexibility is questionable because it is also an attempt to centralise education in this country. The seat of Parramatta, which is adjacent to my seat of Reid, has been represented by Sir Garfield Barwick and Sir Nigel Bowen. They and other great jurists on the opposite side of politics, such as Sir John Latham, would be quaking in their shoes at these proposals, for this bill represents a fundamental derogation of conservative political views in this country for the last century.

The opposition supports the bill not through any great enthusiasm but in the context of the second reading amendment, which points out the skills crisis after 10 years of the current government, alludes to the failure to provide the necessary training opportunities for Australians and speaks of the reduced overall percentage of the budget spent on vocational education and training. On that point, many speakers have pointed out that the OECD has been critical of the effort made in this country and says that we are essentially on the bottom rung in that group of advanced Western nations on expenditure on education, particularly in the tertiary and TAFE sectors. The second reading amendment also refers to the incompetent fashion in which this new ATC project is being wheeled out, and it points out—and the Australian Industry Group has very strongly made the same point—that there will be a dearth of 100,000 skilled workers in this country by 2010.

Finally, there is the question of transparency. The government and, in particular, the minister have not been open and accountable in the way they have presented these changes. We know that, throughout the country, the changes are behind schedule in a very obvious fashion. Promises of 7½ thousand students, promises of 300 students per college and promises of 25 colleges now look more distant. We do of course support the early expenditure of money on this program, because it is in dire straits. One government member from rural Victoria has said this evening that she is pleased that her area is being touted as a possibility for one of these colleges. But the only reason for that is that so many suggestions have apparently been rejected in a secretive fashion—whether it is because they will not proffer AWAs or whatever. It is unclear why so many proposals have been knocked on the head.

During the election campaign, in one of his more grandiose pronouncements, the Prime Minister said:

... the technical colleges are the centrepiece of our drive to tackle skills shortages and to revolutionise vocational education in Australia ...

I guess that we should be kind to him, because he certainly needed fine words. This was preceded by the government’s total failure to recognise the skills crisis in this country over the term of the previous parliament. The contribution of the then Minister for Education, Science and Training, Dr Nelson, was to constantly belittle our TAFE system, to constantly belittle our universities, to attack the ‘too wide’ provision of courses and to run around the country and spend hours of his staff’s research time to find the most ridiculous-sounding courses that might be taught at Woop Woop. His contribution was basically to belittle and dumb-down this country. He said there was no need for people to have skills, and that education is not something that should be esteemed and valued. The Prime Minister did need grandiose measures but, given the performance of the minister in wheeling this out, I do not think talk of revolution is ringing in his ears by any means.

The Australian government’s latest vacancy report from the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations said there was a 1.2 per cent fall in skilled vacancies in this country in July. However, that has to be viewed in the context of the more important figure that, over the year, the vacancy rate in that sector was 17.7 per cent. So, whilst there may have been a fall in skilled vacancies in the DEWR ICT vacancy index, the actual overall figure in this country shows an increasing requirement for skilled workers.

I note, as have others, the dearth of speakers from the government side in this debate. Frankly, the government has many more graduates of Granville TAFE College in my electorate than the opposition has. I can think of two of them straightaway. But they are not here defending this measure, because they know that this is essentially an assault on the structure of TAFE in New South Wales. The government is engaging in petty politics to attack the efforts of state governments on TAFE and, as I said earlier, to enforce a particular set of industrial relations on those organisations that might be interested in participating in this scheme.

Granville is the second oldest TAFE college in New South Wales. It is a very venerable institution, it is still one of the largest colleges and it is respected as a provider throughout the state. I feel some passion about these matters because, whilst we have the skills shortage in this country, we have local unemployment. I refer to the Parliamentary Library’s research note of 31 October 2005 on the pattern of unemployment of particular groups in this country. It noted that the unemployment rate at that time was 5.3 per cent, among single parents it was 12 per cent, among the overseas born—particularly North African and Middle Eastern residents—it was 12.1 per cent, amongst the recently arrived it was 10.9 per cent and among non-English-speaking people it was 13.2 per cent. I cite those figures because each of those groups is characteristic of my electorate. Whilst we have skills shortages in this country, we have pockets of very serious unemployment in my electorate—and, in that area, we have a TAFE college. I would prefer that those resources went into an institution that is respected and has been successful for many generations, rather than into a costly and, at this stage, totally failed alternative. It is also interesting to note that 76.4 per cent of people in my electorate depend on wages and salaries, compared to the national figure of 71.1 per cent.

Also on the unemployment front, in the June 2006 quarter, whilst the New South Wales state figure was 5.4 per cent, in the central west district of Sydney it was 7.9 per cent—half as high again. In teenage unemployment, the state figure of 23.3 per cent was contrasted with the figure of 27.3 per cent in the central west of Sydney, which includes my electorate. Looking at actual municipalities, in March this year the Auburn municipality had an unemployment rate of 12 per cent, Holroyd was 7.2 per cent and Parramatta was 5.9 per cent, which contrasts with the national figure of 5.6 per cent. All three municipalities had rates above the state and national averages. So I feel very strongly that we should be out there supporting the TAFE system and trying to make sure that people get skills that are necessary to this country. It is not only the opposition that has expressed frustration at the skills shortage in this country; the Reserve Bank has constantly referred to it as a fundamental problem in the country at the moment. As I said earlier, the OECD and Heather Ridout from the Australian Industry Group have spoken about it. They are all saying that something has to be done, and I do not think they are referring to the measures in this bill.

With skilled migration the government went for the easy option, with a massive increase in numbers of skilled migrants to this country. Government members can talk till the cows come home about our position being racist or xenophobic. I put my credentials in the area of multiculturalism and those matters on the line for all those who might be critical of the opposition, but I am concerned that in the current year there will be 129,000 workers entering the country under the skills category. If we were to go back to 1995-96, we would see a figure of around 25,000. Of course, one has to be reasonable. There is a skills shortage in this country, some of which the government cannot overcome. We have seen changing technology, new requirements and demands, a changing balance in our manufacturing sectors and a spurt in mining which no-one accurately predicted. There are areas where we have to have skilled migrants—we have to look overseas; we have to make that effort—but one has to question what kind of solution it is if we are so reliant upon skilled migration. What employer is going to actually bother to train people if they have an easy way out with skilled migration?

I think we all know that it is not only a question of permanent migration; there has also been a significant expansion in short-term business visas, which is another name for short-term work visas. In 2004-05, for example, nearly 340,000 short-stay business visas were granted, which was an increase of 14 per cent over the previous financial year, which itself showed an increase over previous years. And, of course, large numbers of people have entered on multiple entry visas. The government’s solution to this skills shortage is to rely almost totally upon migration. That brings with it challenges such as whether the people who enter the country are actually employable in their area of skill and whether their skills are equal to what we officially require in this country.

This bill has been criticised in the Bills Digest for having received a lack of parliamentary scrutiny. We have a situation where enhanced power will be given to the minister, who will have more discretion with regard to how this system will operate. At a local level throughout this country there is obviously disillusionment and frustration at our being unable to know what is happening in this process. Today even further power will be given to the minister in a situation where he is already under assault for not being transparent enough.

The opposition’s position is also influenced by the outcomes of the inquiry by the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Legislation Committee. Opposition members of that committee were concerned, as we are today, about the slow progress of these measures, the fact that only four of the colleges are up and running, the fact that the total number of students enrolled nationally is not as large as the number the Prime Minister promised would be enrolled in one college alone, the lack of financial transparency surrounding the measures and the geographic location of the colleges. I have heard no comment from any government member or from the minister about the criteria for selection of areas. One has to question whether they are being chosen because of the marginality of the electorates or because the electorates are held by a particular member of parliament or a particular party. No material has been presented as to why we need an ATC in a particular area—whether it is related to the nature of local industry, the unemployment level or expected changes in the demography or economy of an area. That is of extreme concern. The Senate committee also raised the issue I spoke about a moment ago: the lack of parliamentary oversight.

In conclusion, these measures represent an attempt to establish an alternative system—an attempt which at this stage is well behind time, is not transparent and is causing grave disillusionment amongst a large number of communities in this country. There is no evidence whatsoever that these new colleges are going to contribute in any way to the fundamental skills shortage problems in the country. These are problems that the OECD has made very clear, as I said earlier. The government is always confidently relying upon the OECD in so many areas. When the OECD talks about deregulation of the labour market or opening up the economy, it is often quoted by the government. But here, in a fundamental area that will influence the future of young people and the economy overall in this country, the OECD sees differently to the government. The opposition joins with the OECD in saying that the solution cannot be found through the simple utilisation of a short-term policy of migration.

See this speech in context