Alan Cadman (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

From the day that the concept of a new approach to trade training and trade education was discussed by the government—beginning with Brendan Nelson, who at that stage was the Minister for Education, Science and Training and raised the significance of technical education—those thoughts have been rejected by the ALP. They have consistently knocked the concept of any change. They have said that the states know how to provide technical and further education. The fact is that they have all been failing  to do that. There are a reduced number of apprentices and trainees, with skills that are sorely needed by Australia. They have failed to recognise this. There has been consistent denigration by the ALP of any proposal for change. There is no doubt that that rejection of any change in or improvement to technical and further education has been shown today, here in the House, by the opposition spokesman.

As I understood it from his speech, here is what the Australian Labor Party intend to do. In government they consistently failed to support technical and further education. So will they do the same thing again if they ever have the chance to govern? Of course they will. The opposition spokesman said today that they would close down the Australian technical colleges and that he is negotiating the process by which that would be done. So a whole band of new and alternative education, a challenge to the status quo, a challenge to the way in which things are done—a combination of industry and education working together, possibly for the first time, in an effective, cooperative arrangement with the flexibility of delivering education programs that are attractive to young people and that provide an opportunity to move quickly into trades when they leave school—will be rejected by the ALP. A rejection of that will, I believe, bring on a conflict that will mirror the current conflict between government and non-government schools. It will also highlight the continual backing of the teachers unions by the Australian Labor Party.

Instead of working out what is best for our students, for our families and for Australia’s needs, and having participants cooperate to get a result, it seems that the Australian Labor Party, by these pronouncements today, have stuck with the old framework. Their attitude is: ‘The states will deliver it, and whatever they want to do will be okay with us because we have no real priorities.’ From the policies repeated today, the intention of the Australian Labor Party seems to be that the states will deal with technical and further education and that we will give them more money to do the same thing over and over again. I think that is a crazy and wrong approach.

One only has to read about the priorities in my own state to see what should be happening there. One only has to look at the way in which New South Wales residents have been let down by their government on these issues. There are 47,000 job vacancies in New South Wales. The demographic changes will cut the size of the workforce in the coming years. There are significant skills shortages in the public sector and in regional New South Wales, despite its poor economic performance. There is an apprenticeship completion rate of 45 per cent in New South Wales.

Victoria and New South Wales have a heap to answer for for the failure rate of their TAFE students. It is about the way in which they present their courses. It is about the way in which they charge. It is all about cost recovery. The system is rigid and incapable of change. Unfortunately, in both of those states, the completion rate is low compared with other states. I think that is a let-down not by the federal government but by state governments incapable of delivering programs in trades and further technical skills that are attractive to young people, who are sorely needed in those areas. Australia has a proud, world-class training system. When our students go to compete at the trades ‘Olympics’ they score extremely well. They beat many other countries time and again. Students from my own electorate have topped their trades in the world.

The Australian government, since about the year 2000, have been trying to discuss with the states how we can do things better. The frustration of Brendan Nelson, the current Minister for Defence, day after day at the dispatch box trying to persuade, cajole, argue with and threaten the states into doing more was just not bearing fruit; in fact, the number of apprenticeships that this government was able to produce by 2004 had grown to approximately 400,000, nearly three times the number of apprentices who were in training in 1995 under the Australian Labor Party. The number then, in 1995, was only 140,000. By the year 2000 this government had successfully raised the numbers but realised we needed to go further. What were the results of those discussions? They were a flop. The states would not shift. They were too locked in. They were too rigid and too controlled by the trade unions and by the teacher’s federation, in my view. The rigidity was there.

A new approach was needed, and the Australian technical colleges are a new approach. Will it be the ideal pattern for the future? Maybe it will; maybe it will not. But it is a brilliant start, because both the young people whom I have spoken to and the tradesmen who will be employing them when they finish are excited by the changes. Let me give an example of what is occurring in Western Sydney. It was difficult to start something in Western Sydney. There are a number of reasons for that, but it is up and running. It was only in January this year that the New South Wales government agreed on what the courses should be. For goodness sake, if anybody is dragging the chain and trying to prevent young people from entering trades, it is the government of New South Wales. I think that its approach has been deplorable. There has been no interest in trying to meet some of the challenges of the future.

If the New South Wales government were to look at what needs to be done, they would continue to support the COAG national reform agenda. They would want to be in there, having a say, instead of being dog in the manger with the future of young people and the needs of New South Wales. They need to work with the Commonwealth and the other states, and they need to have nationally recognised qualifications. But, no, New South Wales wants to have its own way of doing things and its own courses, structured in a certain way. So, when the federal ministers, both Dr Nelson and Mr Hardgrave, spoke to New South Wales people, a blank wall went up. There are destructive disincentives for Australian apprenticeships being practised by the government of New South Wales. Long hours of training—long years of training, in many instances—relatively low wages and the attractiveness of learning while you earn is being offset by hesitancy in making a rigid four-year commitment. Greater flexibility, which the Australian technical colleges offer, is not available.

So there is a need for states to change. They have not changed, and so the Australian technical colleges are working like this: between year 11 and year 12 students work a full day. They start study at eight o’clock in the morning and finish at five o’clock. They have roughly seven months of school. They have a couple of months on the job and they spend the remainder of the year learning skills in their technical trade. What is this producing? At the end of two years, in the time a student achieves their higher school certificate, they have the first year of their apprenticeship completed. They have trade skills, they know about the workplace and they are a very desirable employee. And the changes that have been brought about by the introduction of the Australian technical colleges are going to produce massive effects in the workforce right across Australia—one only has to look at the take-up rate.

The reason for this amendment, this appropriation of additional funds being required, is that the take-up rate during 2006 has been greater. Five colleges commenced in 2006: East Melbourne, Gladstone, Gold Coast, Northern Tasmania and Port Macquarie. A further 16 are to commence this year. North Queensland, North Brisbane, Adelaide South, Gippsland, Bendigo, Perth South, Hunter, Geelong, Northern Adelaide, Sunshine, Illawarra, Spencer Gulf, Warrnambool, Darwin and Western Sydney have all commenced, and Pilbara will open in mid-2007. There will be a further three opening during 2008. They will be Central Coast, Dubbo and Queanbeyan. Two thousand students across Australia will attend Australian technical colleges this year. The Australian Labor Party has knocked this program as having a slow start. It has not been a slow start. From a rapid introduction, there are 2,000 students in colleges this year and the expectation is that around 7,500 will be attending colleges each year once they are fully operational in 2009.

It is an extraordinary achievement, and one that challenges the states, in my view, to do more. I think that the states, particularly New South Wales, need to be providing support for school based career advisers to encourage students to consider professional advice about their careers and about education, training and opportunities for their future. And the trades must be part of that process. There needs to be a ministerial council in New South Wales to work out what needs to be done in vocational education in schools. There needs to be recognition of prior learning. But all that seems to be happening in New South Wales is that they are jacking up fees and saying that they need more migrant tradesmen. They do not appear to be capable of approaching the job and doing something worthwhile themselves. So I really feel that there needs to be a change in outlook.

Let me give the House a couple of examples. Recently I had a discussion with a young man, a mature student, who wants to take up plumbing. He has done his first four years, which I understand qualifies him for certificate III, and he needs to do certificate IV, which is all theory. He is going to do two subjects a year and will attend college one night a week. During this time he will study advanced plumbing to equip him to become a master tradesman who is able to do anything. After four years he is licensed but he needs these additional qualifications, so he needs another two years of study. The cost of study for one night a week for six months is $1,150. I am told that, only two years ago, this course was a fraction of that price. Some centres are even charging up to $2,200 per segment for these last two years of a plumbing course. If one looks at some of the further subjects, which are not compulsory but which need to be added to these single subjects, one is looking at a possible total cost of about $6,000 for the additional two years to get the final trade licensing that a plumber needs.

I think this is so wrong. What they are doing is milking people in need. This young bloke has two kids. He is changing careers. He has a proven career of the past, and he is a mature student. He said, ‘I’m going to battle and find that money because I need to change my career. But I don’t know about the young blokes who are in their twenties with a couple of kids and in the final years of their course. They’re out on the job and need to get that final licence to establish themselves one day as a licensed plumber operating on their own, as a contractor or a subcontractor, but they’re never going to do it.’ Is it any wonder we have such a failure in completion rates? Not only that; what is even more ridiculous is that, of the four subjects that are supposed to be completed in those years, only three are compulsory and they need not complete the fourth.

Let me give you an idea of what they are. There are four components, including advanced gas, water and sanitary drainage. The one that is optional—which is probably the most important of the lot—is plumbing contracting principles. That is the thing that equips a bloke to go out and do the job in a responsible manner. That is optional in New South Wales. You do not have to do it; you can just do the three. You pay for the four and you can do the three, but you do not have to complete the most significant one; it is not mandatory. It is no wonder that we have a dropout rate of such significance in New South Wales. The Financial Review of 9 June said that in Victoria the completion rate for 1998-2002 was 64 per cent, falling to 57 per cent for 2002-05. The figures provided in the recent publication of the New South Wales business chamber indicate that it is down to a 45 per cent completion rate. This is the way it has changed in the two states.

The flexibility offered by the Australian technical colleges is terrific. A lot of students want to go into the trades, but they have not had decent maths or decent English early in their education. However, they can get remediation. A technical college has to take everybody and enrol them and then apply the remediation. The Australian technical colleges can assess students on the way in, design personalised courses for them and give them additional hours. They have the flexibility of employers being involved in the design of courses and they have tradesmen on the boards of the Australian technical colleges, as well as educators. The Australian government has produced a magnificent result, an amazing success that will contribute mightily to Australia’s needs in technical and further education. It is an attractive opening in which students and employers can become involved in a high-calibre career—they can all participate—and the Australian government is spearheading change in this area. Under the current state arrangements operating in New South Wales and Victoria in particular, it is too closed, too inflexible and too difficult. Other states may be more flexible. I believe that the TAFE teachers are trying hard and the institutes are trying hard, but the policies overriding those make it almost impossible to meet the goals of Australia. We need a unified approach to trades. We need to have objectives which are flexible and which allow people to take up trades—objectives which are encouraging and offer people a wonderful opportunity.

My electorate is full of young families, and the heads of those families are self-employed tradesmen. They are in building trades of all sorts, and there are mechanics and people in a whole range of other trades such as pneumatics, hydraulics and all the rest of it. They are very successful people. They work extremely hard, start early in the morning and work long hours. They may be running only small businesses—one or two people or just a single tradesman and his missus running the books—but they are some of the best people in Australia, and they are really committed to Australia’s future. They want to see Australia succeed, and they are committed to their homes and their families. They want to produce the best results for them as well. I believe that any government that restricts, limits or hobbles that process is not worth keeping and not worth feeding. Unfortunately, it appears that only too often Victoria and New South Wales are obstructive rather than supportive of our brilliant, young, new tradesmen.

See this speech in context