Gary Hardgrave (Moreton, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

There are 350, and you would have had zero if you had been elected. Let me make it very clear to those opposite: this bill allowed the bringing forward of funds. We need to do this as a result of our achievements in establishing these colleges exceeding all expectations. The member for Jagajaga does not appear to care about, or indeed understand, the difference between the total commitments for funding arrangements—so far over $250 million has been committed and signed off on—and, indeed, cash flow.

The commitments relate to funding up to the end of 2009. I am wondering whether the member is suggesting that we should be providing all that funding in advance instead of providing it in accordance with the agreed payment schedules. This government believes in good financial management. We believe that this practice should not include providing funding until it is actually needed. Nevertheless, the money is there for it.

The Australian technical colleges are all receiving their agreed funding amounts in accordance with the agreed timing of payments, which has been spelled out in each of the individual funding agreements. This is based on the timing of the Australian technical college’s requirements in each case. These are requirements which they have requested—for example, for land acquisition, for progressive payments for construction works and so forth. Expenditure will increase significantly from now until the end of this calendar year as the Australian technical colleges ramp up their own activities for 2007 school openings. This bill greatly increases the funding available in 2006 to meet the speed of implementing this initiative, which has exceeded all estimates.

I think all members opposite would have contributed to this, but they followed the lead of the member for Jagajaga in making this unfortunate confusion on so many levels about the progress in establishing the Australian technical colleges. The member for Jagajaga is guilty of a continual denigration of the Australian technical colleges. This flies in the face of the overwhelming support of the community and industries they are serving throughout Australia.

For instance, the member for Kingston strongly supported his community and industry consortium seeking to establish an ATC in Adelaide south. Recently the consortium called for a community meeting to gauge the local support for the establishment of an ATC and possible enrolments from the area. Over 400 parents and industry representatives attended on one night. The college’s initial intake for students in year 11 in 2007 may need to be revised as a result of this amazing surge of interest amongst people in Adelaide south. It is anticipated that when fully operational this college will now need to cater for at least 425 students, not the original 300. This is significantly greater than the commitment the government originally gave for the college in that area.

Residents of the electorate of Hindmarsh would have every right to be worried about the logic expressed by their current member and to be disappointed with his speech. Following the member for Jagajaga’s approach, the member for Hindmarsh has taken a stand in the face of his own community’s support for this technical college in Adelaide south, so close to his electorate. The new member for Prospect has clearly come out to denigrate Australian technical colleges. I invite him to state his position to industry employers and to the community in his electorate, where young Australians will be given the opportunity to attend an Australian technical college. The member for Prospect’s failure to appreciate the widespread support for the project within his own community in the wider Western Sydney area portrays his arrogance and is a demonstration of his incompetence and inability to understand the program. He should not follow the advice of the member for Jagajaga.

The member for Prospect and all of those opposite have not bothered to read the Australian technical college election policy document in respect of the phased implementation of this program between 2006 and 2008. In addition, the member for Jagajaga is in total ignorance of the difficulties of establishing ATCs in a number of states—for example, Western Australia and New South Wales. At any time, the member for Jagajaga could have contacted her state Labor colleagues and union mates to remove the industrial and award impediments that have stood in the way of establishing Australian technical colleges in those states.

New South Wales regions have been allocated eight ATCs, five of which have been announced but none of which have been supported by the New South Wales government. Non-government schools have had to step up to the plate where the New South Wales government has failed, and local industry and community have worked together with these non-government schools to build an ATC in their region to their specifications. Despite this, the New South Wales government continues to stand in the way of local communities and young Australians who are being provided with a real choice in respect of traditional trade apprenticeships.

The member for Jagajaga continues to misrepresent the situation in respect of vocational and technical education in schools and the Australian technical colleges in general. New South Wales schools have not offered their students school based apprenticeships at certificate III level, which is a cornerstone of Australian technical colleges; rather, they have given students opportunities to undertake traineeships, mostly at a certificate II level. These are not apprenticeships. The member for Jagajaga’s complete confusion about this is an embarrassment. Her reference to St Joseph’s College in Port Macquarie further demonstrates her complete confusion about vocational and technical education in schools and about the purposes of Australian technical colleges.

For the benefit of the member for Jagajaga—and for the benefit of those opposite who, sadly, seem to listen to her—Australian technical colleges are about combining academic study at year 11 and 12 with a school based, trade based apprenticeship linked to a local employer in a traditional trade. Also for the benefit of the member for Jagajaga, study at senior secondary high schools commenced at year 11 and is completed at the end of year 12. The expectation of the normal course of events is that year 11 students will go forward to year 12 and that in the following year colleges will receive another cohort of year 11 students to allow a college to be fully operational. It is not a hard process, but the member for Jagajaga has difficulty with it.

Based on current achievements, it is anticipated that at least 20 Australian technical colleges will be operational in 2007. Five of these will be fully operational, with year 11 and year 12 students. It is expected that the total enrolments in the 2007 school year could be 2,000 or more. Passage of this bill will ensure the progression of the Australian technical colleges initiative which over time will enable 7,500 Australians per year to undertake high quality education and training relevant to a nation-building trade career. This government is committed to raising the profile of vocational and technical education, not to talking it down. Attracting young people to the trades is vital for Australia’s future. It is an important step in addressing our skills needs across a number of industries. These colleges will promote trade qualifications as a highly valued alternative to a university degree. The colleges will develop a reputation that will show students and parents that vocational and technical education provides access to careers that are secure, lucrative and rewarding.

See this speech in context