Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

That was quite an intriguing contribution from the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education, because he really did not at any stage defend himself on the points raised in this matter of public importance. He had a great deal of interest in the member for Jagajaga and where she has been and where she is going. I can understand that somebody would wish to follow the career of the member for Jagajaga, but that is not what we are here for today. It is not about one job; it is about many jobs. It is about the state of the Australian economy and it is about the fate of families who are confronting increasing interest rates and increasing petrol prices. I would have thought, as I understand the seat of Moreton, the electorate of the minister, that he in particular would understand that the people he represents in that area of Brisbane, the outer suburbs of Brisbane, are confronting those dual problems in their day-to-day lives.

It is clear that the increase in interest rates and the threat to the consumer price index because of increasing petrol prices affect all Australians, but there are pockets in regional areas where the effect on people is even greater. Interestingly enough, there are studies now that clearly show that families in outer urban areas, such as the electorate of Scullin, who are confronting these dual phenomena at the moment are really finding it tough. The minister ignored the fact that the basis of today’s matter of public importance was comments in a Reserve Bank document of 4 August which, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition clearly indicated, merely iterated concerns about the skills shortage.

These concerns have been clearly identified for several years, and the member for Jagajaga went through in detail the times when this government had the opportunity to have the light globe go on and say, ‘There is a problem.’ But in defence of the accusation, which is factual, of a decrease in Commonwealth resources given to university and technical training, what does the minister say? He goes back to this 1996 black hole—the great spin doctoring of this government. But he did admit in making that contention that they did make the cut.

So the government have now had 10 years to drag themselves out of the black hole they are supposed to have inherited at the same time that the Prime Minister said they had inherited an economy that was not bad, and very good in some parts. But forget about that 10 years down the track: ‘Oh, no, it was only the way we did the accounting and what we were told—what we didn’t know until we got the blue book.’ But they have had 10 years to redress this problem. In the last few budgets the government have not been fainthearted in the way they have thrown money at problems. It is just everywhere. The member behind reminds me of a comment I first heard from the member for Rankin: ‘They have just thrown money around like drunken sailors.’

That is one of the things that the Reserve Bank is concerned about: this is a mob who, in the way they run the economy, think it runs on autopilot. When you have something running on autopilot, you have to have the gizmo that is the autopilot. They did not put in the gizmo, and they let go of all the levers. When PJ Keating, the former member for Blaxland, was Treasurer, he often said that the way in which a responsible government made sure that the economy was working in the best interests of the Australian community and Australian families was by having its hands on the lever of economic management. He decried those opposite who parodied him about that. He was no shrinking violet and would take those sorts of criticisms with a grain of salt.

I was interested in looking at some of the things that he said at that time about using the levers of economic management to ensure that the government was guiding the way forward for the Australian economy, and he made some comments about his predecessor. At one stage, back in 1988, he talked about a member of this chamber called ‘Mr Nearly’—that is a very unparliamentary term, which is beside the point as I am sure our standards have changed. I would suggest that he was referring to the Prime Minister as ‘Mr Nearly’. He said:

He nearly floated the exchange rate. He nearly deregulated the financial market. He nearly got control of the Budget. He nearly cracked down on bottom of the harbour schemes.

And those opposite want to lecture us about matters economic! Let us get this clear: if they want to enter into a dialogue about those matters then the conclusion that we could make is that they have had it pretty easy and that they have squandered their opportunities. One of the things that they have squandered is maximising the potential of our human resources.

Because of commodity prices being the way that they are, the government has tended to see economic growth continuing on the basis of what we rip out of the ground or what we are able to generate as primary producers. Regrettably, that is where coalition governments always seem to drop back to. They just do not want to say: ‘We’re working in a modern global economy. We’re acting upon an economy that has changed because of the Hawke-Keating years, and we need to recognise that. So why would we be so foolish as not to invest in our human resources and ensure that our people are skilled to the hilt when our competitors—especially countries in the Asian region such as China and India—are growing and putting out graduates in the millions while we are struggling in the thousands?’

What is really amazing is that this government says: ‘We had this bright idea. At the election we announced that we would have 25 new technical schools.’ Wow! That is spectacular, isn’t it? There is a skills shortage of about 100,000 people. When you convert the loss of resources back to the schools sector, it means a reduction of 122,000 people who could have undergone training. Then you have to factor in that the promise of 25 colleges has come out as only 20. I thought the minister was getting close to admitting what the government’s idea for the Australian technical schools was really about. It was really about ideological hatred and differences. A couple of days ago I said that it concerned all the state administrations. Perhaps I was wrong, because the minister did not seem to want to have a go at Western Australia and New South Wales today. That is just amazing. He said again today that the solution for the Commonwealth not putting any effort into a portfolio area is to say that it is the states’ responsibility. This denies that there have been nearly 15 years of full-blooded cooperation between the states and the Commonwealth in the area of TAFE colleges.

How can a minister of the Crown come before us today and say that this is really the states’ responsibility but then champion the Australian technical colleges as the only response that the government has to Australia’s skills shortage, the effect that it is going to have on families and the way that they will be able to cope with the economy? That is a duplication—a dual system. Instead, the minister should sit down and cooperate with the states and look at places like Northland Secondary College in East Preston, the VCAL and other things that the Victorian government and other state governments have done. There is no need to re-invent the wheel: just get in there and cooperate. But unless this government acknowledges the shortages of skills and the infrastructure deficiencies, we will not see families being able to tackle the economic constraints that confront them. (Time expired)

See this speech in context