David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Labor's record in this area is particularly bad. We need to go back to 2007 and that era of the former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd walking around carrying laptops and talking about working families and so on. What he said then was that 2,650 trade training centres would be opened across the nation, one in every high school. In order for the program to work, three things need to happen. Firstly, the program needs to be funded, secondly, the centres need to open and, thirdly, they need to teach people in an effective manner.

There were problems in all areas because the first thing that happened was that the total number actually built over six years was 11 per cent of the high schools in Australia. So about 300 of the 2,650 trade training centres were built over six years—11 per cent of what was promised in 2007. The next problem was that the first 250 of these centres cost $1.1 billion. The entire program, covering 2,650 schools, was supposed to cost $2.5 billion. The first 250, less than 10 per cent of the total proposed, cost $1.1 billion, and that suggests that the other 2,300 or so remaining would cost a whole lot more than $1.4 billion were they in fact ever to be built, which, of course, they were not. The other big problem was that the academic results of these centres were mediocre to say the least. We have a situation where, according to documents obtained under freedom of information, only 20 per cent of people who attended one of these trade training centres actually obtained a job in the area for which they trained. Only 20 per cent of people actually got a job in the area that they were supposedly trained in.

What does an incoming government do? Does an incoming government continue with a flawed project or does an incoming government say, 'Let's make a more constructive contribution to the very important area of trades training'?

That is by working with industry, recalibrating the program to make sure it is focused on the needs of industry so that people get jobs at the end of it. It is very hard for those opposite to sit there and argue that a program is a success when it led to 20 per cent of people trained in a particular area getting a job. That is a very low threshold for success.

The Labor Party has a low threshold for success in many areas. This is only one of them. It is another example of appalling budget management. I do note that those opposite made some appalling statements about what they would deliver in budget management and they failed, time and time again. The member for Kingston, who so helpfully raised this motion today, was an enthusiastic advocate of the previous government's policies on budgetary matters.

In May 2010 the member for Kingston put out a press release. It said: 'This budget builds on that strength to deliver for the people in our community while getting the budget back to surplus three years early—which is in the extraordinary achievement.' If it had happened it would have been an achievement of some kind, but it obviously did not happen. She pressed on with this theme. In May 2011, in an appearance on the ABC—we have been very exhaustive in our research here—she said:

What we’ve also said is that we are committed, as the economy grows, we will return the budget to surplus in 2012-13. That’s what we’ve committed to do. … That’s why Penny Wong, Wayne Swan and a whole range of ministers including the Prime Minister have been working very hard on this, but we will commit to getting the budget to surplus in 2012-13.

In May 2012 she said it was an incredibly responsible budget. She said:

This budget puts us on track for a $1.5 billion surplus in 2012-13. We are returning the budget to surplus, as I said, on time and as promised … We are doing it ahead of every single advanced major economy. I think this is very, very important …

What is important is getting things done for the Australian people. In this area of trades training, as in so many others, we are cleaning up the problems that were left behind. (Time expired)

See this speech in context