Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to have this opportunity to make a contribution to the debate on the Trade Support Loans Bill 2014 and the Trade Support Loans (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2014. In doing so—and I assure you, Deputy Chair and members, that it will be a brief contribution—I think I need to touch on one aspect of the previous speaker's contribution where he characterised the previous government's approach to trades training and skill development as lose-lose.

As this debate has already shown, nothing could be further from the truth. He made particular reference to the trades training centres and characterised them in a manner which indicated that they were not meeting the needs of industry or of young people. I know from the experience that I had with the Outer Northern Trade Training Centre in Lalor that nothing could be further from the truth in terms of matching the aspirations of some talented young people to viable career paths and getting some terrific engagement with significant local employers.

These bills before us establish an income-contingent loan program for apprentices undertaking qualifications leading to occupations in respect of which there is a skills shortage. I note that they are intended to provide incentives to address barriers preventing people from otherwise undertaking apprenticeships and that loans will be available in amounts up to $20,000 to cover tuition and living expenses.

If the question before us is, 'How do we meet skills shortages while giving all young—and perhaps not so young—people every chance to pursue their chosen trade?' then that is a serious matter worthy of a considered response in this place and in the community. But, notwithstanding elements of this package like the completion discount, I am not sure how this loans approach answers that question. We should be asking, for example, about the evidence around this challenge. In this regard, there is no clear evidence to the effect that financial considerations are presently a barrier to taking on or completing apprenticeships. If the government has any evidence, it has not adduced it.

The loans will, unfortunately—and this goes to the heart of this issue—replace the Tools For Your Trade program. This is a program providing up to $5,500 tax free and making a real difference as a real incentive to keep people earning and learning effectively—a matter dear to this government at a rhetorical level, but very little in evidence in its decision making to date. Supporting and opening up trades training is vitally important to families in Scullin, and it is important to me, but these bills before the House carry with them some significant concerns.

At their core, these bills represent yet another example of this government saying one thing prior to the election and doing quite another after it. I refer, in this regard, to the scrapping of Labor's billion-dollar Tools For Your Trade program. Let us think about what that means for apprentices and their families who thought, quite reasonably, in the course of the election campaign, that they may have been able to access an optional loan on top of the Labor program—on top of the $5,500. It is a very big difference for these apprentices and their families to now see this loan program as the sole means of financial support provided. Indeed, let's think about our apprentices and give them a voice in this debate—those who in Victoria have also been hit by closing TAFEs and significant increases to fees.

I was struck by a discussion I had a few days ago with an electrical apprentice, Greg, someone who started his trades journey at a mature age, having undertaken university studies at an earlier juncture. He started his trades journey at a point in his life when he had young children. He left me in no doubt how important the Tools For Your Trade program was in giving him every opportunity to meet his aspirations—to do the job, to acquire the skills he wanted to. He took me through the cost of the tools he needed; and, as someone who is a long way from being a trades training kind of guy, it was quite an eye-opener to understand the real cost to him of being in a position to undertake his training and to do his job first as an electrical apprentice and then as an electrician.

His passion for his trade and for the pathway it should offer others struck me. In response I assured him that Labor stands for removing barriers to skills, for equity and for maximising our productive capacity, the challenge that I set out earlier in this contribution. When he says, 'Those speaking of rims and tatts haven't worked on $7.50 an hour and tried to raise a family,' I listened. I hope members opposite do too. He also reminded me and pressed upon me the inconsistency in this government's message to young people. On the one hand they lecture them and, indeed, us on the dangers of debt while on the other burdening young people with just that as they start their working lives—in trades training, of course, and also in universities.

He also spoke to me—and I think this is important in the context of this debate as we consider the circumstance of people as they start their journey in workplaces and the power relationships that govern their working lives—of the difference his union had made to his working life as an apprentice electrician. I say this because it is important to recognise the great work that unions do, keeping people safe at work in dangerous trades and ensuring a fair day's pay is received for hard work done and that workers can have their say in their workplaces. They should also be heard in this place. So I speak for Greg in this debate, and I hope to do justice to his cause and his concerns.

In the seemingly long remaindered Real solutions policy document, the now Prime Minister committed the coalition to 'provide better support for Australia's apprentices'. I guess now we know that this can be filed with the rest of the coalition's election promises along with 'no cuts to health and education, no cuts to the ABC or SBS, and no changes to pensions'—no new taxes as well, of course.

Support for apprentices has been seriously, severely cut under this government. On top of the actions of conservative state governments in attacking TAFE—I think of the pressures on NMIT in my own electorate and the proposed sell-off of the Greensborough site—the Abbott government has also axed a number of important programs, including the Australian Apprentices Access Program, the Australian Apprenticeships Mentoring Program and the Apprentice to Business Owner Program.

I am aware it has been suggested in the course of this debate by members opposite that the Tools For Your Trade scheme would be replaced under the coalition. That comes as some news to me. Let me just say this: can the minister assist me, apprentices in the Scullin electorate and their parents by adducing evidence for his colleague's claim? I suspect he cannot, but I look forward to his contribution at the conclusion of this debate.

On the other hand, I am all too aware of the sneering remarks directed at this program after the election, wilfully mischaracterising apprentices as well as this important program, which has been effectively providing tools for your trade. Of course, there is a wider context here that we must be mindful of. This is a government that will not invest in our future. We see this in the attacks on higher education, which sit all too neatly with attacks on apprentices. Indeed, through the education system, from child care to high-level university research, we see this government undermining access and achievement. Back to the future appears to be the watchword. Of course, when we think about this government and young people, for those under 30 we think about the harsh regime, the six months of no income support, that is put forward for many in circumstances where youth unemployment is high and forecast to continue to be high.

It has been a while since we've heard a member of this government refer to the age of opportunity. Funny that. I guess it shows there are limits to the Orwellian language members opposite like to hide behind. There is no longer any pretence around opening up life opportunities, and this is shameful.

I turn briefly to a few other matters. I place on the record that I share the concerns of the ACTU about the relative vulnerability of some apprentices vis-a-vis their employers and in this regard the possibility of people being pressured into taking out loans to pay for items that properly should be paid for by others. And, of course, the adequacy of the proposed privacy provisions and protections is a matter that requires proper attention and assurance. These are things that have not been done to date. What does the government have to say to assuage these concerns? Again, very little, I suspect.

Having made these remarks and expressed my concerns about some elements of these bills but, more fundamentally, the attitude of this government towards trades training and opportunities for young people, I indicate formally to the House that I support the amendments moved by the member for Cunningham and I support this government being kept to its word, which was to offer more support to Australia's apprentices. To date they have done the reverse. For all the rhetoric of 'earn or learn', this has not been matched by any commitment of this government to young people. It is not enough and it is a breach of faith.

See this speech in context