Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Hansard source

or subsidies—would be reduced or scrapped. We note that for the record. The government should at least acknowledge that. It cannot hide that fact. It cannot hide the fact that what was in its pre-election policy is completely at odds with the early action of the minister for finance. That is something that the agricultural and horticultural industries are becoming well aware of. Specifically, we refer to the $800 to purchase tool kits and the contribution of up to $1,000 to their fees. On the one hand, members opposite claim that nothing was done by the previous government yet that their abolition of all these incentives is necessary for the creation of this body to do all the things they hope it will do. You cannot have it both ways. That range of incentives was there to provide resources to people wanting to take up a trade and an apprenticeship. They were extended to the agricultural and horticultural areas and they were extended in a number of other ways, as the shadow minister outlined.

Those opposite should at least acknowledge that the incentives were all there. They are abolishing them all because they have one single solution which they are sure will work. We are giving this qualified support. We have our doubts but we say to those opposite that while advice is good—and I do not speak disrespectfully of the advice that they are getting from their departments—quite often it is worth having an open mind about these things. We will not know for quite a period of time whether this is working. This is the only shot in the locker for those opposite on this important area so I urge them to implement it very carefully and, as the shadow minister said, to ensure that those who are appointed to that body are of the best calibre and include a good mix of representatives.

I also want to address some of the other initiatives that those opposite have mooted, particularly in the pre-election period. The trades training centres in schools in particular are another plank, I suppose, of their approach to skills. I urge those opposite to re-examine this. It will not work. There are 2,650 secondary schools across Australia. The Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, stood here at this dispatch box giving his speech in reply to the budget and promised to create a trades training centre in every single one of those 2,650 secondary schools. It sounded good. It was designed for a budget night reply but it was not designed with any deep policy thought. This is the government’s alternative to the Australian technical colleges.

The Australian technical colleges were created to make up for the failure of previous state governments—and I say Liberal and Labor—who did this country a great disservice in abolishing technical schools. I do not say that in any partisan way. There is enough blame to go around from those decisions of governments in different states 20 and 30 years ago. And because the state governments today will not acknowledge that fault, the federal government set about establishing the Australian technical colleges. We had established, I think, 23 heading towards 28 and pledged another 100 during the election campaign. Leave aside the election promises and what was popular and what was not, the reason the previous government did not say we will have a trade training centre in every single school is that in policy terms it was clear it would not work and it cannot work. If those opposite backflip on this policy, I will applaud not criticise. It will not work. For those ministers responsible for this, you will be explaining this away for a long period of time.

The technical colleges were established so there was a scale of things. These were to be real, dedicated colleges, and some exist today. There was key business input at the board level in their establishment, creating a clear link and pathway into the job fields in those particular local communities. Local community input is critical. There is no group of politicians or bureaucrats in Canberra that is expert on a particular local community and the job prospects that are going to be there in the next two, three, five or 10 years. Getting industry involvement in the creation of these technical colleges, having them part and parcel of the board of management and having a scale of things and a scale of investment so that the students attending them actually got the best possible trades education were the motivations behind it. Those opposite in their heart of hearts know that. Their policy was created for television consumption and to get through an election campaign. It was not created to help fix the skills crisis.

When you think there are going to be 2,650 trades training centres in name with an investment of between half a million dollars and $1.5 million—on average, I think, $900,000, as the shadow minister said in earlier remarks in this House and in the media—anyone with the most paltry knowledge of trades will know that is not going to buy very much. It will buy the trades training centre sign to hang onto the workshop door, and those opposite will dutifully go round and open the centres. It will buy some equipment. If you look at the hospitality industry, with which I am familiar, it is not going to purchase much. It will purchase an oven—not a good one; not one you would get at a proper Australian technical college. So you will have these small centres, many of which will be glorified garages, but what happens if the school decides its trades training centre is going to be in hospitality and a significant proportion of the school population want to do automotive? They will be studying in the kitchen or they will be going to another school.

I appeal to those members opposite: this will not work. It is over a 10-year period and it is a small investment spread across 2,650 locations. Twenty and 30 years ago, we would all agree, unless I am mistaken, that it was a mistake for state governments, both Labor and Liberal, to abolish technical schools. That is what happened, and I have heard members on both sides of this House say that was a mistake. The reason there were not small-scale facilities at every single secondary school is precisely that they did not give the scale necessary. That is why the solution is to right what was wrong and go back to the way it was.

Let’s take suburban Melbourne, because the member opposite and I are from the great state of Victoria. When we grew up—and I think we are about the same age; he just looks a bit older than me—

See this speech in context