Dai Le (Fowler, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I actually went to TAFE, more than three decades ago. I was in a transition phase. I did not know what to do with my life, so I thought I'd do an accounting course at TAFE—Liverpool TAFE, to be precise. There were lots of students like me from non-English-speaking backgrounds. We had a good time. But either the course wasn't engaging enough or I wasn't really focusing on the subject of numbers, because eventually I dropped out. Then I ended up getting a job as a journalist for the Liverpool Champion in the early nineties, so my career as a journalist began. It was a short TAFE experience. I did make friends, but it didn't give me the skills—or, as I said, perhaps I wasn't totally drawn to the subject. Thus I found that the time was not very valuable—for me, at least.

I understand that the Labor government is so committed to investing in TAFE, with the belief that it will somehow solve our workforce skills shortages—investing so much money into providing the 500,000 fee-free TAFE places. TAFE has certainly played an important role in the development of a skilled workforce in Australia in the past 141 years, and I want to acknowledge that contribution.

Skills and training have never been as important as they are today. Whilst the industrial revolution had a hugely disruptive impact on blue-collar workers in the 19th and 20th centuries, the internet and the development of AI are having a similarly disruptive effect on the white-collar workforce in the 21st century. Many of the sources of employment that have become the norm for the past hundred years are going to either transform or vanish altogether as technology progresses. Jobs and Skills Australia released its report this week identifying that our labour market is remarkably resilient but there are also considerable economic challenges and uncertainties. Our labour force has shifted dramatically, with healthcare and social services becoming the largest employing industry, whilst in 1994 it was manufacturing. The rise of social media and AI technology has huge ramifications for our labour workforce. But, in speaking with many small to medium sized businesses in a recent manufacturing round table in Fowler, my electorate, I heard a different story, about the needs of many of our manufacturing businesses. Fee-free TAFE might be an incentive for young people to engage in vocational careers, but business owners in Fowler have other concerns. Many of them in key sectors have an average workforce age in the 60s and find it very difficult to persuade young people to enter their industries. This is because the culture has told them that manufacturing jobs are second-rate or lack prestige.

More than simply throwing money at fee-free TAFE, we need to reshape the narrative around trade based occupations. Parents need to be convinced that it's a good option for their children. Schools need to promote the value of entering trades as well as that of university education. Fee-free courses don't house or feed students. What plans are there to provide grants or loan programs, perhaps via industry, to get Australians into these jobs? That is how you encourage young people in these industries or allow those already in one trade to retrain into an emerging industry. It also explains why business owners tell me that the dropout rate for young staff is very high.

With many businesses in key sectors having an average workforce age in their 60s, time is of the essence. In Fowler, many are having to look overseas to bring in skilled workers to make up the shortfall, and then they're faced with enormous compliance costs and time-consuming red tape—and, increasingly, green tape. This needs to be addressed urgently. In Fowler, we have amongst the highest rates of residents whose first language is not English and government support for English language competency is vital. The many refugees that have settled in Western Sydney could be a significant boost to employment in industry. What is being done to enable them to do this? We will certainly need new skills available to combat cybercrime to harness technology in developing businesses and for who knows what the future might bring. It's an uncertain time but also an exciting time.

But what about other labour skills that are needed to kickstart our economy? The skills required to build houses, to fix your plumbing, to install your hot water system, to build pipes or to monitor a technology system at a water recycling plant, for example, are so hard to source. As I said, TAFE has played an important role in upskilling Australians. The provision of fee-free places is a great help in providing the opportunity, especially for those who are from lower socioeconomic and poorer areas, to be able to develop a meaningful career. That benefits all of us. But that doesn't mean that this bill should be waved through uncritically. The bill is heavily favourable to TAFE as a provider of vocational education and training. I'm concerned that other providers of VET might be left behind or unduly discriminated against, and I wonder if the minister can provide some reassurance that this is not the case. I can understand the practical benefit to governments in drafting free TAFE agreements with a single entity, but what is immediately easier is not always best in the long term. I'm of the firm belief that we shouldn't put all of our eggs into one basket. It doesn't bode well when public funds are just invested in one area that's proclaimed to be the cure to solving our workforce challenges. The government should balance its spending and ensure that reputable RTOs who can deliver specific industry needs be included in the vocational education and training funding.

This is for both sides: I think, whenever one side comes in, it focuses on one area that's more aligned to its values and politics, and then another. We need to ensure that there is a balance in this so that we don't cut anybody out.

I go back to the point—do not put all of your eggs in one basket to solve a problem.

The government has already passed legislation targeting shonky RTO providers, and none of us want to see people getting away with exploiting customers or the taxpayer. But this legislation could lead to a favouring of TAFE over smaller providers of VET, and in Fowler there are many of them. Enabling industry to provide their own in-house VET training would be a real boost, as would providing accessible grants for research and development as they move into emerging markets. I've spoken to many businesses who have got specific skills needs in their industry, in their factories, that TAFE cannot provide but they can provide. Therefore, the government of the day needs to work with many of these industries in electorates like Fowler.

My concern is not only for my electorate but for the general principle that it's best to have as much competition as possible in VET, to drive prices down and so that a wide variety of courses are available. In our exciting future, it's most likely that skilled areas will open up very quickly, requiring a nimble response in what might be very niche areas. Who in this House could have conceived or imagined, before 2016, the need to understand and use TikTok? Some members may have been here since the days of the telex machine!

Another concern I have with this bill is that a primary objective is to enact ongoing funding for a government policy. Despite the Albanese government's huge popularity, there may well come a day when they lose power! There may even come a day when the party decides to change leadership and head in another direction. Like I said, there's an exciting future ahead! We all know that no government can bind an incoming government to spending commitments. This bill seeks to do just that, and any future government would have to repeal the legislation to make their own changes. What a waste of time and money. Why do you overcommit? Why do you commit to something when you don't know whether or not you'll be back to deliver it?

The most important reason for wanting to be able to review fee-free TAFE in future funding would be following an evaluation of its success. I would like to know how successful fee-free TAFE provision has been for the past two years. Whilst many of the courses take three years to complete, many of them are six- to 12-month commitments. What has been the completion rate of the free courses that could be completed in six to 12 months? What has been the percentage dropout rate for all free courses started since its inception? I don't believe in a free lunch. I don't know that many people do. Anything that's for free sometimes does not actually deliver the outcomes.

I'm a proud member for Fowler in Western Sydney, which we all know is the backbone of manufacturing. We are the major supplier of trades men and women in New South Wales. We are the engine of the state of New South Wales and no doubt the country. In funding the one entity, I'm concerned that many people will miss out on the opportunity to create a pathway to skill themselves if they fall through the cracks of TAFE.

I support the principle of incentivising Australians to learn the skills and vocational training that our future demands. It is in all of our interests to do this. If the government can reassure me that this will be value for money and allow competition for non-TAFE RTOs, and show me that they are committed to more than the praising of TAFE, then I could be convinced to vote for the bill.

TAFE has had and still has a significant role in the education and training of people who live and work in south-west and Western Sydney. So I welcome any focus that any government in Australia gives when it comes to investing in skills and training, especially of our labour workforce and in particular the young people in my electorate of Fowler and in south-west Sydney.

See this speech in context