Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Braddon for his question and I know that he is someone who has dedicated his life, both within and outside this parliament, to education. I am asked about our investment in TAFE. Can I say that TAFE is the engine room of skills development in this country. TAFE institutes around Australia have about 80 per cent of the training market. What TAFE is all about is jobs—preparing people for jobs, preparing them to get life’s opportunities through access to work and preparing them to get better jobs as people go back to TAFE for retraining and reskilling. As a government we are committed to the further development of our TAFE sector. We know that it will be one of the main ways in which the nation provides the skills and opportunities that Australians need for the future. And in the forthcoming economic recovery we want Australians to be trained and ready for the new economic opportunities when the economy turns to stronger growth as we move into a new future.

Mr Speaker, I invite you to compare this government’s approach to investment in TAFE to that of the former government. I was asked about previous approaches, and I can summarise the approach of the former government very easily. If we look at the years 2005 to 2008 and the funding deal under the former government, they were investing in vocational education and training infrastructure $185 million per year—remember that figure—whereas the Rudd Labor government, in the year 2009 alone, is investing in VET infrastructure a staggering $897 million. Those are two figures that should be compared, and they say something very important about how we see TAFE and how we see skilling for the future. You would have to assume from the Howard government’s approach to TAFE that the Howard government ministers did not understand that if you invest in TAFE infrastructure you are investing in jobs—you are investing in the jobs that you use to build the infrastructure and you are investing in jobs tomorrow because you give people an opportunity to train.

But perhaps I am being a little unkind, because it has been drawn to my attention that there was one former Howard government minister, just one former Howard government minister, who did understand something about the connection between training and jobs. I am talking here about the member for Higgins, who has been engaged in a bit of job training himself. It was drawn to my attention—and it should be compulsory reading for all members of the House—that last week the member for Higgins delivered an adjournment address. This is a historic thing, because the last time the member for Higgins delivered an adjournment debate address was 17 years ago. Three Prime Ministers and 10 opposition leaders later, we have the member for Higgins delivering another adjournment address, having not served as Prime Minister or opposition leader for one day of the 17 years intervening. What is interesting about this adjournment address is that it is about the Liberal Party and its achievements and its leaders, but there is one leader’s name you will not find referred to in the words of that adjournment address.

See this speech in context