Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Cyber Security and Defence) Share this | Hansard source

Thanks very much for that; I'm talking about VET. Those opposite wasted $24 million on a bungled apprenticeship IT system and failed to meet their apprenticeship targets. For more than one year, those opposite failed to spend one cent of its flawed Skilling Australians Fund on an apprenticeship. Those opposite have provided no leadership on vocational education and training. Those opposite have ignored the underlying flaws in the system and instead continued to cut funding and continued to cut support to skills formation.

Contrast that to Labor—and this isn't just Labor's opinion either—in terms of what those opposite have done, in terms of the decimation of the VET system in this country. The Productivity Commission called the system 'a mess', the OECD has found Australia doesn't have the skills to engage effectively in global value chains, and an independent report by Terry Moran, one of the original architects of the national scheme, says that it's fragmented and devalued, that there is no effective governance, that the funding arrangements are chaotic and that there is no national strategy.

VET plays a vital role in our skill formation system. It is essential—absolutely vital—to Australia's future prospects and to our domestic and international competitiveness. We have an obligation to ensure that VET is excellent. We used to be world leaders on VET. We were one of the few countries that had a really sophisticated VET system going. There was the polytechnic system in the UK, the Germans and us—we were the world leaders. And now this is a world-leading system that has been starved in every way thanks to those opposite, including The Nationals. We have an obligation to ensure that VET provides an environment where students flourish, where they achieve things they've never imagined and where they reach goals they may never have felt possible given their personal circumstances and experiences. This cannot be achieved if, when it comes to cost cutting, VET continues to be treated as the poor cousin of the university sector and the scapegoat of governments.

We need a VET system that equips people more appropriately for a rapidly changing world and encourages people to take part in that world and continue that process of lifelong learning. The way forward will be complex and challenging intellectually and practically. And a clear example of the need to equip people for a rapidly changing world is evident in the area of cybersecurity. As I've mentioned, the cybersecurity industry is only 11 per cent women, and we are screaming out for skills. We will need 19,000 cybersecurity experts for next year alone. There is an international and national cybersecurity skills shortage: six million jobs in cybersecurity globally and only 4½ million people with the skills to fill those jobs next year. We need cybersecurity experts yesterday and we need them in a broad range of fields, from coders to policymakers.

So how do we get them quick smart? We need to think creatively and we need to think laterally. We need to learn from other nations. We need to think about compressing undergraduate degrees into two years, including industry experience. We need to think about intensive degrees, where the student studies throughout the year with no break, completing the degree in 12 months. We need to think about pathway degrees, diplomas and certificates, which can be completed in a summer school. We need to think about pathways through primary school and secondary school to cybersecurity careers, identifying that talent early and fostering and nurturing it through the education process. We need to think about managing the security risk of newcomers awaiting their positive vet: getting them into the workforce but keeping them on less sensitive work until they're cleared, or graduating them up the scale as their positive vet progresses. We need to think about starting the positive vetting process during high school, TAFE or university so graduates aren't stringing a living together through a series of part-time jobs for two years while they're waiting for their clearance. And we need to think creatively and laterally about how we accredit these courses, certificates, diplomas and degrees. Cybersecurity is the new black. It is the Y2K of the 2000s, and there is not a day that goes by where an institution doesn't come up with a new cybersecurity course. But at the moment we only have an assurance mechanism to accredit some of these courses, not all of them, which means we have quite a large blind spot over the skills, quality and readiness of many of our cybersecurity graduates—and I say 'not all' these courses because, while I understand the Australian Computer Society accredits undergraduate and postgraduate ICT courses, the push now is for cybersecurity graduates from multidisciplinary backgrounds, across a range of disciplines—that is, those with a combination of ICT and international law, risk management and coding, or psychology and ethics.

We now have a national curriculum in TAFE on cyber, and that is being rolled out, and I applaud that. That said, we need more of this and we need it now. We also need to be assured that the courses that are rolling out across TAFEs and across institutions right throughout the nation are actually accredited. Labor believes no-one should be excluded from access to vocational education and training as a result of financial disadvantage, course cost, fear of debt or regional disadvantage. The inquiry into postsecondary education will build on the best of Australia's vocational education and training system and repair the damage done by shonky providers and the neglect of those opposite, including the Nationals. Labor has always championed quality apprenticeships and will continue to ensure more Australians can follow that trusted path into decent work.

See this speech in context