Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Jagajaga has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Louise Markus (Greenway, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could I first clarify that my laughter earlier on while the member for Batman was speaking was actually related to his comment about state and federal governments working together. I will note during my speech that the New South Wales government is indeed working against the federal government putting these technical colleges on the ground in Western Sydney. I have fought very hard and will continue to fight hard to ensure that the tech college in Western Sydney is up and running.

I rise today to support the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006. The Australian technical colleges have been given great support from all sectors of the community. The current act needs to be amended so that funding for 2008-09 can be reallocated to 2006-07. The bill will allow a new provision in the current act to enable the minister to redistribute program funds between particular years by regulation instead of by legislative amendment.

Australia has embraced these colleges as they open across the country, which is why there is an increased need for funding for 2006-07. I can assure those opposite that there is no shortfall, as has been suggested by some of their colleagues, and that the money allocated to the Australian technical colleges, totalling $343.6 million, remains. Given that 22 of the 25 Australian technical colleges have already been announced, it is important that this money is moved forward so that these Australian technical colleges can be established sooner rather than later. Australia will have five colleges opening in 2006 and a further 20 colleges are planned for 2007. This is possible because the Australian technical colleges have received widespread community and industry support. As I have mentioned previously, Australia has embraced these colleges, which is why the establishment of the Australian technical colleges is well ahead of plan.

It is a shame that the Labor Party failed to embrace the Australian technical colleges when they were first announced in November 2004. From when they were first announced the opposition have done everything possible to undermine the importance of these Australian technical colleges. Finally, after much opposition, in March 2005 the Leader of the Opposition, with his tail between his legs, told parliament that Labor would be dropping their stance against the Australian technical colleges. I congratulate him on dropping that stance. They obviously realised what the Australian government and the rest of Australia knew—that the Australian technical colleges are a great initiative. Even when the opposition leader gave his party’s support in March 2005, the original Australian technical colleges legislation was delayed in the Senate by the Labor Party until October 2005. Given that funding could not be accessed due to the delay caused by Labor Party senators, it is a great achievement that over half the funding agreements have now been completed.

Not surprisingly, amongst all this the union got on board, trying to blame the federal government for bypassing the TAFE system because, according to Pat Forward, it is ‘unable to establish a positive and productive relationship with the state governments’. It is ironic, considering the above comments from Pat Forward, that all states except New South Wales and Western Australia have signed up and have moved forward with the Australian technical colleges. One of the colleges that is being held up as a result of the New South Wales government is in Western Sydney, where my electorate of Greenway is located. Why is it that every state except New South Wales acknowledges the academic and vocational education that these colleges will provide? These colleges will provide our young people with jobs. They will provide our young people with the opportunity to become the business leaders of Western Sydney. These school based apprenticeships are a way for young people from all over Australia to engage in education and training and employment but with the added element of the business community, who have embraced this initiative.

I have been extremely frustrated with the games being played by the state government. Recently in parliament I asked the Prime Minster what barriers the Australian technical colleges were facing in New South Wales. It appears that these school based apprenticeships are facing opposition due to a union dominated award. This union award is depriving youth from my area of Western Sydney—and youth from other regions of New South Wales, including Dubbo, Queanbeyan and Lismore—of the opportunity to advance in their chosen careers. These union barriers are holding back the training opportunities that our youth and their parents want.

I have spoken to union members who have sons and daughters who would like to go to these Australian technical colleges but cannot because they are being stopped by a union dominated award system. They want their children to consider a career in a traditional trade, where their training is strongly supported by industry and business. This is an opportunity for their children to stay at school, complete their year 12 certificate and undertake a school based apprenticeship. It is about time the New South Wales Premier stepped in and stopped playing politics. When infrastructure, schools and hospitals in New South Wales need a serious cash injection, what does the Premier do? Rather than investing $18 million in these areas, the Premier announced that the government would create state skills colleges in Western Sydney.

I find it amazing that the state government wants to create a trade school which only allows pre-apprenticeship certificate II level—which in school study terms equates to fewer than 40 days a year—when the Australian government has technical colleges ready to commence which offer certificates III and IV trade apprenticeship courses, which equate to 100 days a year and a job. As Gary Hardgrave said, there is nothing revolutionary about throwing $18 million at something that is already in place. Do I smell an election coming? Has the New South Wales government delayed signing off on the Australian technical colleges so that it could announce its own? Is it trying to win the votes of Western Sydney? Surely not!

These Australian technical colleges will enable up to 7,500 students to gain the vital education and experience needed to excel in their chosen trades. We have the opportunity to give our local youth the guidance, education, mentoring and support they need through these colleges. We have the opportunity to fill the gaps in local skills based jobs as well as create the opportunity for many more. Other members of parliament have seen first-hand the benefits of the Australian technical colleges and the benefits they bring to the community, including the member for Petrie, Theresa Gambaro; the member for Braddon, Mark Baker; and the member for Kingston, Kym Richardson. The success of these colleges is why we need to bring the funds forward to support the establishment of colleges over the next two years.

The ability to reallocate funding from 2008-09 to 2006-07 will mean that students will be able, sooner rather than later, to commence the new school based apprenticeships. It will mean that students will be able to continue with their academic study of English, maths, science and technology so that they can gain their year 12 certificate, plus be given the opportunity to be educated in the running of a business, plus business tuition. It will mean that students are able to take part in practical experience in their chosen area of interest as well as be given the opportunity to form a relationship with a potential employer.

The Australian technical colleges are an important part of our nation’s future, the future of our youth and the future of our regions. We have an opportunity to have an Australian technical college in our region which will focus on the needs of Western Sydney. I am proud that in my electorate of Greenway unemployment went down from 4.9 per cent in December to 4.5 per cent in March, compared to 8.6 per cent in March 1996, when Labor was last in government. This unemployment rate is low because the people of Greenway and Western Sydney are hardworking people who want what is best for their families and for the future of their children. Wanting what is best for their children includes wanting the opportunity for their children to choose to attend an Australian technical college, to give them the best start possible.

The opposition can go on about skills shortages but, while they do, the state government of New South Wales continues to put up barriers to the colleges being put in place. I am proud to be part of a government that will spend $10.8 billion over the 2005-08 period on vocational and technical education. We are absolutely committed to the youth of Western Sydney. We are absolutely committed to providing an opportunity and an environment where they can achieve their potential. I am proud to be part of a government that listens to the needs of our youth and the future needs of the nation and acts on them—which is why I am here to support the bill amending the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Act 2005.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make some comments on the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006. I do not disagree that money should be brought forward in the budget to provide training for young people. If the election promise of the Prime Minister to establish these colleges comes to fruition, there will be a college established in Sunshine in western Melbourne. As I understand it, the consortium seeking to oversight that college will have four campuses, two of which will be in the electorate of Gorton. So it is a significant matter for the constituents in my electorate and the surrounding areas.

However, I have to challenge the motives of the government in the lack of preparation and true consideration of the needs of young people, particularly because of the way in which the Prime Minister announced the colleges. If there has been a need to provide greater training, why has it taken almost nine years after the election of the coalition to do anything about it? If it is not to ideologically pursue Australian workplace agreements why not just provide the funding and use the institutions already in place, which are mainly TAFE colleges? There are a lot of questions.

Forgive me, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I am somewhat cynical about the motives of the Prime Minister and the government. I recall that the Prime Minister did say at the election launch in 2004 that a re-elected coalition government would ‘establish 24 Australian technical colleges to accelerate national skills development in traditional trades’. In principle I support that contention, but I have to say that it seemed to me to be policy on the run. It was a paragraph to be placed into the campaign launch speech of the Prime Minister, and no real thinking was undertaken.

I guess that is why in June 2006 there are still many questions that members in this House are asking about the operation. In this debate we have already heard the member for Hotham, and I imagine others, talk about the fact that, notionally, we have colleges in place but that they are not training too many young people. We have the absurd situation in Gladstone, Queensland, where a college is in place but it is teaching only one student. I guess the spin doctors of the government could say: ‘We’re really intensively training these young people. We’ve got a whole college set up to train one person.’ But clearly, and more seriously, that does show a deficiency in government planning. It shows a lack of sincerity in its concern for young people and their training when promises do not come to fruition, and indeed when a college has been set up, as is the case in Gladstone, but is not training the young people in that region who are in need.

I attended a meeting that the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education, Mr Hardgrave, held in Taylors Lakes in my electorate in February 2005. I have to say that, whilst I was and remain sceptical about the motives of the government, if one or more young people were trained in my area I would of course welcome that, even if it were not undertaken in a manner that would reflect good government. The promise that Minister Hardgrave made at that meeting in Taylors Lakes was that we would be up and running earlier than would now appear to be the case. That might be because there have been difficulties in convincing organisations to involve themselves in this process. I have to say it is clear that many ran a mile from the proposition, because they really did not believe the government’s heart to be in Australian technical colleges. The website that refers to the proposed Sunshine college indicates that it may commence its first training in 2007. That is not that far away at all, but I am yet to be convinced that this college will be up and running at that time.

I think it is important, certainly for my constituents and for the public at large, to realise that when the government talks about technical colleges it does not mean it is going to build colleges. There are no bricks and mortar involved in most of these colleges. People have made the assumption that, in each and every case, there will be construction. For example, in the proposal in Sunshine in western Melbourne they will be using the facilities of existing organisations. They will be looking at up to four campuses; therefore, they will be using those facilities. So let us not get too carried away with the notion put forward, I think by the Prime Minister, that somehow the Commonwealth will enter this field which has been the domain of the states for many a year, with enormous amounts of funding. That is not the case. It is a very small amount of funding. The government is looking to use existing arrangements. I have no problem with that, but I just do not want the spin doctors of the government to try to suggest to the community that it is constructing genuine colleges and has invested a lot of money in doing so. That is not the case.

Other than to put a paragraph in the Prime Minister’s speech at the campaign launch, what seems to be the motivating factor of the Commonwealth’s prevailing over state jurisdictions—that is, entering into the field that historically been undertaken by the states? I am afraid to raise industrial relations—I am a little tired of having to raise IR in matters that are supposed to be about other public policy areas—but it appears to me that the primary reason for the Commonwealth to establish these so-called colleges is to force staff in the post-secondary education field into Australian workplace agreements.

In fact, as Deputy Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Workforce Participation, I asked the department, when we had its officers before us, about this matter when we were inquiring into participation in the workforce. I inquired of the departmental officers: why is it that in the brochure that was put together for these notional ATCs—this was early last year—the only reference to employment arrangements, in a paragraph to do with the staffing of these ATCs, included a reference to Australian workplace agreements? If the government agreed that there should be choice and if the government were suggesting that an employer should be able to offer AWAs—which is their right, even under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 prior to Work Choices—why were there no references to other industrial instruments? Why was it the case that the only reference to an industrial instrument in the entire summary of employment arrangements for Australian technical colleges was the reference to individual contracts?

Again we see that the government’s ideological pursuit of an instrument that has been wholeheartedly rejected by the overwhelming majority of Australian workers is being foisted upon teachers. Since 1996 we have seen the capacity for employees and employers in the federal jurisdiction to enter into Australian workplace agreements. That has been going on for nearly 10 years. In this instance, and I want to talk specifically about Australian technical colleges, the Commonwealth are suggesting that they will set up these establishments and effectively force the employees, those in the teaching profession, to enter into Australian workplace agreements whether they wish to or not. There is no choice in that arrangement.

It is extraordinary to think that a government would actually create a set of circumstances, in establishing a series of colleges, to, as much as anything else, force individual contracts on teachers. The fact that the government’s priorities in education and training provision have even a skerrick to do with the industrial instrument of the teaching profession shows how skewed the government’s thinking is in relation to industrial law vis-a-vis education services. We have seen it in the threat to university funding if universities do not offer AWAs. We are now seeing it with the notional ATC establishments, where they will be forcing teachers to take up Australian workplace agreements. And these are Australian workplace agreements in which there is no no-disadvantage test. The no disadvantage test that was placed in the Workplace Relations Act 1996 has effectively been removed and therefore the office of these instruments can be below the teaching awards that would apply to the teaching profession that would be providing training or education to any of the young people in these colleges.

Unfortunately, the Commonwealth government has this obsession with smashing unions. Because it does not want to allow collective bargaining, it creates a world—if you like, a greenfields site—which obviates the proper processes of industrial negotiations. I really think the government needs to get collective therapy. It has such a perverse obsession with individual contracts that all its public policy is polluted in so many areas. I need to make those points because they demonstrate one of the reasons why some of the organisations that would normally be interested in taking up a role have chosen not to do so. That is a real concern for me and it is certainly a concern for organisations that I have spoken to when the matter was raised with them.

Having said all of that, can I say, having questioned the way in which the Commonwealth has chosen to set about entering the field, that if a college were established in Sunshine of course I would want to play a positive role. I offer the caveats that I have just mentioned in relation to the IR instrument and the fact that it has turned people off; they do not want to get into an industrial battle with particular organisations. In the event that we do end up having a college, which has certainly been promoted far and wide—the government has spent a lot on advertising to date—I want to play a positive role. I have said as much to Minister Hardgrave because, in the end, notwithstanding those reservations, western Melbourne’s young people have serious skill deficiencies and they need an opportunity.

When you look at the demographics of western Melbourne compared with those of the other side, eastern Melbourne, you clearly see fundamental differences. In fact, in some ways the demographics of the areas of western Melbourne that I represent share some of the problems that are associated with regional Australia in terms of people not having as many opportunities as those in the wealthier suburbs of the city of Melbourne. For example, if you compare the Treasurer’s electorate with mine, and refer to the ABS data on educational qualifications, you see it is three or four times more likely that a constituent in the Treasurer’s electorate will have a postgraduate degree than is the case in the electorate of Gorton—and I am hoping these figures have changed because this ABS data is a little dated. As the census is coming up shortly, I will be interested to see its findings on this matter. It is over three times more likely that a 10-year-old in the Treasurer’s electorate will be online at home than a 10-year-old in my electorate.

These are really compelling gaps, and I do not think governments can arrest that imbalance themselves. Of course, they are the result of a variety of factors, such as people residing with like. There are so many reasons why those inequalities exist in parts of cities or between regions. But governments should play a role to at least increase the likelihood that people in the electorate of Gorton can get access to training and education in a similar manner to the way in which people in other parts of Melbourne—or indeed in other parts of the country—can. To that extent I accept that we need more funding for education in the west of Melbourne.

I have been railing against this government over its failure to provide sufficient resources in education, transport and health in western Melbourne. I have been attacking the government over its failure to worry about my constituents. If you look at the sort of money that goes into my electorate in any of those public policy areas compared with what goes into some of the other electorates, you realise that the government has an obsession with marginals rather than the marginalised. You see the government concerning itself with someone who has a one per cent margin. It is a case of: ‘Let’s make sure we secure that seat,’ or ‘Let’s make sure we hold that seat.’ Then all of a sudden you see the government putting millions of dollars into that area rather than looking after people who are in need.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you talking about Ros Kelly?

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I tell you now, Member for Fisher, if we had to use a whiteboard for this government, it would be the size of a football field because of the way in which the government has chosen to abuse Commonwealth money in this area. I am trying to be quite temperate in my remarks. I am not suggesting for a moment that it has only been the coalition government with an eye to that. I think it is a responsibility of all members in this place to raise the matter when governments are considering the interests of constituents in marginals rather than focusing on those that are marginalised in our society. I think more should be done about that. There should be a more bipartisan approach, particularly from government members who are not members of the executive. They should be making that very clear.

Government Members:

Government members—certainly members of The Nationals—who are in quite poor seats in regional Australia would not always receive sufficient capital if they were seen as being in a particularly safe seat. There has to be a situation whereby we get rid of this cynical approach to funding. I was surprised, therefore, to learn that the suburb of Sunshine is a proposed site for an ATC. I welcome it. There is a great need in my electorate for such a service. In the event that the college is established, I hope that the government does a bit more than train just one person, as is currently happening in Gladstone, Queensland. I hope that the Commonwealth is genuine about the problems in providing training opportunities for young people in the electorate of Gorton, the neighbouring electorate of Maribyrnong and other surrounding electorates that will access this college if it is successfully established.

We support bringing money forward to expend on training, but I am still somewhat sceptical that the college will be successfully established by 2007. I am concerned that not a great deal of thinking or effort has been put in by the Commonwealth to ensure that my constituents who are in need of training are provided with that opportunity—an opportunity that will enable them to get a good job. Let us hope that I am wrong and that the government sets it up. (Time expired)

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Representing the great state of Queensland, I call the honourable member for Fisher.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. You also join with me in representing the great state of Queensland. The difference between you and me, though, is that I represent the best part of the best state—namely, the Sunshine Coast.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the member is misleading the House!

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But I have to say that, having spent quite a considerable amount of time in Townsville, you also are singularly fortunate to have been chosen by your constituents to represent them in the Australian parliament.

My friend the member for Gorton reminded me a little bit of a worm squirming or twisting on a hook, because deep down he sees that this legislation is really an important initiative. He sought to pillory the government, accusing us of pork-barrelling and assisting the marginals and not the marginalised. He suggested that government resources were going where they were not deserved, that government resources were not going to where needy people were. Then he had to stand up and say, ‘However, at Sunshine, in my electorate in Victoria, we are getting a college.’ Then he said that, if this is to be established, he wants to play an important role in it—and I think any member would clearly want to play an important role in a local Australian technical college.

His argument was a bit thin, because he spent an inordinate amount of time condemning us for basically not putting Australian technical colleges where he believes they ought to be, and then he said, ‘However, I’ve got one.’ I think that basically blows his argument right out of the water. This government is placing Australian technical colleges where they are needed. When this policy was announced prior to the last election, it was a very popular policy. The fact that we are now debating the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006, which will bring forward funding, is an indication that the roll-out of Australian technical colleges is proceeding expeditiously and in a very successful way.

Again I want to draw to the attention of the House an inconsistency uttered by the member for Gorton. He talked about 2007 and the proposed Australian technical college at Sunshine. He said that the reason we have this bill is that we need the money now because the colleges are being established more quickly than was anticipated. He then said that, even though we are talking about earlier money, he is not convinced that his college will be open by 2007. The whole reason we have this bill is that his college is about to open. However, I feel deep down that the member for Gorton really wants to support this bill and that he does not sincerely support the second reading amendment moved by the shadow minister.

I am particularly proud to say that the coalition government has always been mindful that we must give our young people the best opportunities in order that they can gain a good education that will lead them into good jobs where they can be solid, contributing members of our society. The Australian technical colleges are a great example of the Australian government putting this philosophy into action. An amount of $343.6 million has been pledged to create 25 of these technical colleges in 24 regions around the country. I have been a strong advocate of the vital role of all levels of government in giving students opportunities. Once governments give students the opportunities, it is then up to the students to exercise them, take advantage of them and achieve the best possible outcomes.

The main aim of the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006 is to fast-track funds for the establishment of these valuable institutions, the Australian technical colleges. The funds were originally allocated for a period ending in 2009, but the progress of establishing the colleges is ramping up. It is moving at a very rapid pace and so the money is required sooner. So, instead of the pessimism uttered by the member for Gorton—who seems to wring his hands and say that his local college at Sunshine will not be established by 2007—the reality is that this bill will bring about the availability of the money earlier so that the colleges can be set up more quickly, including the college at Sunshine in Victoria.

The fact that we are expediting and rolling forward the expenditure reflects the dedication and conscientious effort of the coalition government in bringing useful services online in a prompt time frame. It also reflects an ideology that suggests it is pointless to wait until the future when you can do something that can be achieved for great benefit today. Often governments, particularly governments of the Labor persuasion, have been condemned for saying one thing and then doing another—for making rash promises which never attain a situation of reality. But, in this case, we have made a promise. Not only is our promise becoming reality but it is becoming reality much more quickly.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that, as the honourable member for Herbert, you were instrumental in ensuring that one of these Australian technical colleges will be placed in that area you like to refer to as paradise—namely, Townsville—and that other colleges will be established in other parts of the state of Queensland: the Gold Coast, north Brisbane and Gladstone. The north Brisbane college will initially service the Sunshine Coast and I hope that, in the fullness of time, we do get an Australian technical college right in the heart of the Sunshine Coast. We of course have excellent educational institutions, excellent government schools and non-government schools. We have a tremendous Sunshine Coast TAFE and we also have the University of the Sunshine Coast. So an Australian technical college on the Sunshine Coast would of course add another layer of choice to students who come from one of the most rapidly growing areas in Australia.

The areas which were initially given Australian technical colleges were identified as regions that have high youth populations and also a significant need for skills. They are also areas which have an enthusiastic industry base that is supportive of these colleges. The Australian technical colleges are designed to provide high-quality tuition to year 11 and year 12 students in vocational as well as academic pursuits. Tuition in these colleges will be provided in a wide range of areas, including cooking for commercial establishments; metalwork, including fabricating, machining, toolmaking, sheet metalworking and welding; automotive industries, such as mechanics, autoelectrics, panel beating and painting; building and construction; electrical trades; and technologies such as refrigeration and airconditioning. Employers tell me that they often place advertisements in the media seeking people to carry out trade work. They have trade opportunities in their business, but so often these positions go unfilled. So there clearly is a shortage of skilled people. The government, by allocating money to Australian technical colleges, is doing its bit to ensure that businesses are able to grow and expand, which boosts the economy and, in so doing, provides job opportunities. The fact that all of these courses are being offered will help make up those skilled vocations that are always required by a progressive society.

It is unfortunate that many people in Australia have sought at all costs to go to a university—any university—to do any course, even though graduation from that course, while an achievement in itself, does not necessarily bring about a career path. I think trade training has been underrecognised as an important part of Australia’s future. Many people have spurned trade training in the interests of obtaining, say, an arts degree from a university. While an arts degree is a very useful thing to have—I have one—it does not necessarily fit you out for a job in the way that the Australian technical colleges will by giving people trade training in areas much needed by industry and the community.

Students will be enrolled in school based apprenticeships, while also receiving tuition in a new business course and in all-important information technology studies. Those who do enrol in Australian technical colleges will acquire skills not only in a trade but also in business and entrepreneurial operations. This will help meet the goals of equipping our young people with as many skills as possible in their journey towards real, meaningful and rewarding employment. It is envisaged that some of the participants will go on to self-employment, further study at university—maybe in a technical area related to the area studied at the Australian technical college—or further training. The technical colleges are based in existing high schools so that students can continue learning through their usual curriculum and so gain their year 12 certificate. Some of these colleges will be based in a variety of situations, but I think the whole idea is to have some sort of orderly transition from school to a form of tertiary study so that we do not have the sudden break that once was there.

The colleges will have school based new apprenticeships, will be guided by industry and will have a great deal of relevance to industries in the area. The colleges must offer Australian workplace agreements to teaching staff. We see AWAs as a very important initiative which brings about flexibility. Different employees have different needs; different employers have different needs. As has been indicated during question time by the minister, those on Australian workplace agreements earn considerably more on average than those not on Australian workplace agreements, and it is important that these AWAs are offered to teaching staff.

I was quite appalled at comments made by the Leader of the Opposition when he did a complete somersault on his previous support for AWAs and said that a Labor government would abolish AWAs. Of course, we are not quite sure what a Labor government would do with respect to existing AWAs, because there has been some conflict, Mr Deputy Speaker Lindsay—and you may well have seen reports of this conflict—between what the Leader of the Opposition says about allowing existing AWAs to serve out their time and what some union officials are saying, which is something to the effect that only ‘genuine’ AWAs will be allowed to continue. In other words, if a union does not like an AWA, it will rip it up. The ALP has been pilloried, and appropriately so, for quite irresponsible comments. It does not look very good for the Australian Labor Party or for parliament generally when that side of politics is prepared to junk perfectly good policy—in fact, outstanding, progressive policy—in the interests of knuckling under to the trade unions.

People throughout our community, particularly in the private sector, have been voting with their feet and walking away from trade unions. I think that trade union membership is somewhere below 20 per cent now, so it is a pity that such organisations have such a stranglehold on the Australia Labor Party. They used to say that the Labor Party in government was the government of the unions, by the unions, for the unions. To give them credit, I thought that Labor was moving away from that, but, when I saw the fairly disgusting knuckling under to the union movement in the announcement that a future Labor government would scrap AWAs, it was clear that the Labor Party certainly has not changed its spots.

The design of the colleges will be determined by the management bodies. The roll-outs have already started. A number of colleges are opening and it is expected that large numbers of these colleges will progressively come on line. Agreements have been reached with around 13 management consortia—and this is expected to increase to 16 by the end of this month—that will be providing school based initiatives from next year. Management of these institutions is carried out by various consortia made up of local business operators, schools, training organisations such as TAFE colleges, universities and industry representatives. The colleges will have the added effect of promoting general pride in the acquisition of skills in trades. They are skills that are valuable not only to the individual but also to the wider community.

The Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006 is a very positive initiative. Even though the ALP will huff and puff and say that they see some warts in this legislation, the bill is before the House because we are ahead of time with respect to Australian technical colleges. We want to provide the money sooner, because we have achieved so much and there is no point in postponing this initiative. This is a case of a government actually expediting the implementation of a promise given at election time—quite contrary, of course, to the record of the Australian Labor Party, who say what they want before elections and then tear up their promises afterwards. This legislation is positive. It is bringing forward expenditure on the Australian technical colleges, which will be a very strong arm in the skilling of Australia’s workforce. This is a wonderful initiative by this government and I am very pleased and proud to stand in the parliament today to support the bill before the House

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought the contribution by the honourable member for Fisher was a rather weak one. He normally speaks quite well, but most of his speech was about attacking the Australian Labor Party and there was no substance to his comments. That reflects the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006. It is hard for anybody on that side of the House to get excited when they know that this is really a nonsense bill and that there are a lot of other ways that things could be done instead of introducing this legislation.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Act 2005, which provides for the establishment and operation of Australian technical colleges. The act provides funding for colleges over the period 2005 to 2009. It also establishes a regulation-making power to allow for funding to be carried over or brought forward into another calendar year, removing the need for future recourse to legislation such as this bill to alter the timing of funding. Of course, there is so much uncertainty about these colleges that the government needs to have that sort of flexibility, which is probably a very bad thing from the point of view of accountability, auditing and so on.

Labor supports this bill, though these colleges seem redundant. Why on earth are we setting up a whole set of new colleges around Australia with new associated expenses when we have a perfectly good TAFE system currently operating? Not only that, it is very difficult to get information about the setting up of these colleges, what courses there will be and how they will be run. A bit of a secret operation is going on around what is actually happening. There have been disputes in Tasmania as rival private groups rally to pick up the extra money. The new colleges have been structured so that groups which should be working together to support training have been pitted against each other and are fighting to get influence and control. I have no problem with putting more funds into the hands of tertiary and further education providers, but why is it necessary to have a whole new system in place to do that? We could provide more places if we beefed up the TAFE system around Australia. As there are only four colleges operating in 2006, with enrolments of fewer than 100 students, only 100 students will be qualified by 2010. That is the contribution of this government to addressing the skills shortage.

The Australian Industry Group estimates that we will need an extra 100,000 skilled workers by 2010. So the situation is that only one-thousandth of the skilled workers Australia needs will be trained under this regime, which is a pretty appalling effort to address the urgent need of the country. The colleges have far too narrow a scope and their implementation has been very bungled. They seem to be years away from being useful in the push to skill our workforce. Added to this are the draconian industrial relations laws, which prevent the recruitment of good college staff. They have been frightened off by the insistence that if they go into these colleges they will have to sign an AWA before they are employed. That is frightening off lots of good staff who might have been given a job there.

The Labor Party has a much better plan and a more systematic approach to dealing with the skills shortage. I remember, when Working Nation operated, we managed to reach many of those young people who found college entry very hard but could access on-the-job training very satisfactorily. Some refinements could have been made to that program but essentially it managed to set many more students on a good training path and gave them an opportunity for a start and to get into formal training—something that this government does not seem to have any understanding of. We must invest in our skills base through a strong education and training system.

This government has an appalling record of allowing Australia to be the only developed country to reduce public investment in our TAFEs and universities. Public investment in our universities and TAFEs has fallen eight per cent since 1996. The OECD average is a 38 per cent increase. So we know where this government is going. It is a shocking record. Those new colleges will go nowhere near fixing this lack of training. We need to work with the states to improve the education and training that already exists, firstly by improving the conditions that many of the schools and colleges work under now. Labor’s approach would be to improve the workshops and trade facilities in the secondary schools and to refurbish the technology and science labs across secondary and TAFE establishments. We could then improve on the skills and trades on offer.

So many things have changed as technology has changed. The types of skills needed now will require a whole new set of workshop facilities and training opportunities. Australia has always been at the forefront of innovation—and we are still there—but most of our good ideas go offshore because of the lack of skilled people to undertake the development work. I will quote from an article by Chris Styles, who is a senior lecturer in marketing at the University of New South Wales, and Tim Hardcourt, who is the chief economist of the Australian Trade Commission, on how they see innovation and where our skills need to be honed:

Business innovation can also be about new ways of manufacturing products or services (or, indeed, adding services to products), novel ways of working with and configuring supplier and distribution networks, and different approaches to attracting and retaining the best staff. In sum, its about being truly different from rivals on a number of fronts (and receiving the substantial rewards for being so), rather than playing the same game as everyone else and competing on implementation and price (while blaming the resultant low margins on being in a ‘mature industry’).

All these areas of business innovation are crucial if ideas are to create value for customers, shareholders and society though increasing the number of sustainable jobs. Of course, new scientific technologies play a crucial role in all of this. But they are only the means to execute brilliant customer driven business ideas, not ends in themselves. Companies that developed innovative businesses—such as Dell in the US, IKEA in Sweden, and Servcorp in Australia—created new categories, established new competitive rules, and forced others to play catch-up.

Of course, we see this principle at work in sport every weekend: the Australian cricket team plays a very different game to the rest of the world; Kevin Sheedy of Essendon and Rodney Eade of the Sydney Swans invented radical new tactics in the AFL; and no-one drives a formula 1 car like Michael Schumacher or devises race strategies like his Ferrari tactician Ross Brawn. All make use of technology—particularly IT—but its the way they think, challenge existing assumptions and keep others guessing that makes them stand out from the rest. That’s innovation. And while Ian Thorpe’s ‘fast skin’ swimming suit is an example of an important technical innovation, it combines with his natural talent, work ethic and unique training regime to bring him success at the Olympics and FINA championships (those big feet of his also probably help).

The article continues:

At both the country and firm level Australia needs to put more effort into encouraging and supporting scientific research. However, turning great ideas into sustainable jobs and shareholder value requires more than this. Research into business innovation, and education to develop managers capable of creating innovative businesses, must also be a priority. Commercialisation is different from inventing. Otherwise, at best, we may just end up with a whole lot of better mouse traps.

Unemployment will always be one of the major drivers of all forms of social dislocation, from poverty to poor outcomes in health and crime. We have seen this particularly in our Indigenous communities lately, but it is still there among the whole of the Australian population. Despite this government’s rhetoric that we have much lower unemployment nowadays—they say under five per cent—it is all in the manipulation of figures.

Chris Pearce (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Pearce interjecting

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are paper figures, Parliamentary Secretary. Evan Thornley recently told us on the ABC radio:

If you add up the total of unemployment, disability and sole-parent benefits together, there are more people now than when the official unemployment rate was much higher. This, despite a decade of boom. It works like this: We used to have about a million unemployed and about 100,000 disability pensions. Now we’ve got half a million unemployed and 600,000 disability pensions. We’ve just rearranged the deckchairs, and declared victory. That’s why we still have one in six children growing up in a jobless household. … The truth is we have about two million people who have less work than they want.

Everyone who is on a benefit is quite aware of this. They wonder how they have been written off. Many of them would like to access much more retraining and have more opportunities but cannot afford to even try. He goes on to say that, although we have a skills shortage, there are employers everywhere who say they cannot fill their job vacancies, and therefore it is possible to have real unemployment and skill shortages running together:

Because the skill levels and geographic locations of the unemployed don’t match the jobs available. We have unemployed timber workers, but a shortage of mining engineers. We have unemployed textile workers, but a shortage of bricklayers. We have large pools of unemployed people living in our urban fringes, and shortages of fruit pickers in the Riverina.

That particular gentleman explained that, while demand for labour and skills can change quite quickly, the supply of people and the skills they have to meet new demands can only change with long lead periods. To skill people up takes time. He continued:

That’s why you try to equip your workforce with a large range of transferable skills, and think about how you’ll develop your regions.

That is what we should be doing. That is why I believe that we have to put training in the areas where the skills are likely to be needed. By using the regional high schools and having TAFE annexes, it will be possible to keep our young people up to date with future jobs of the region and also have the flexibility to upskill older workers whose jobs are changing or when new ones are becoming available that require a whole new training component.

Evan believes that we are not investing highly enough in the skilled workforce, nor are we competitive in helping what innovative local industries we do have to build up for export. There are few incentives and few avenues to find help to develop products. Just look at what happened with the removal of the renewable energy targets. Look at what is happening there, and that is going to impact on my state of Tasmania, where we might lose a factory in the future. Most of our research in the private sector is going offshore, and what we do ourselves is squeezed into our universities and places like CSIRO and maybe some CRCs, which manage to do a bit around their so called ‘core’ activities.

Evan is right: we cannot compete with the likes of the US. Our scale is all wrong. We have to be more clever and niche orientated with the things we do well now or could do well given the skills and incentives. This is what Labor wants to assist in and what we think we have the answers for. We have three commentators here who believe that we must change direction as far as training and innovation goes. To see that is really not rocket science, yet the minister has very little idea about how to deal with educating and skilling up our young people, let alone reskilling those who have been pushed out of the system by technology and are languishing in one of our unimpressive unemployment benefit schemes for the lack of any other form of subsistence. I am not impressed with these so called new colleges, as they do not offer anything different. Nor do they seem to allow any school links or provide any specialist training that does not cost the student an arm or a couple of legs.

You only have to look at the disasters in the rural sector. A recent article in the Australian Financial Review bemoaned the fact that it was ‘the end of the road for the family farm’, as they were ‘too small, too inefficient and not viable’, and it was happening across Australia. Farm workers are being laid off and, because they have had little access to training in the past and the wages have been low, no new ideas have been filtering in to boost changes to farming. Farmers are growing older and there is no-one coming to replace them. Our farming sector is likely to give up, and our farm produce will come from offshore. It needs a whole new mindset to change this and a whole new approach to training so that there is publicly available training to deal with shortages, not just today but planned for the future, 10 and 20 years down the track. We need training that means something, which can be developed on an ongoing basis, not just a static qualification which you get at the end of your schooling. This cannot be fixed with single, highly specific courses as, by the time the student has finished, some of it might be out of date.

I am not happy with this bill. I feel that the funds taken to set up a whole new sector would be far better employed in using the infrastructure that is there now and by boosting the ability to continue to add to courses, to research the needs of industry and the private sector generally and to come up with courses in conjunction with enterprises, to ensure we are in front with training and that employers value their employees because they are the key to the growth of their enterprise or industry. There is a danger here that, if we do not provide training that is relevant and inclusive to allow all our population to enter the workforce in the areas where they have the greatest chance of succeeding, we will be allowing in more and more migrants. I saw last weekend in an article in the Daily Telegraph that this government is planning to bring in 97,000 skilled migrants to work in businesses where it is claimed there are not enough local skilled workers to fill the vacancies—yet we are turning our own youngsters away from training institutions. Three hundred thousand have been turned away from TAFE since 1997, over 14,979 qualified students were refused a university place in 2006 because of the lack of funding and 4,000 fewer new apprentices were in training at the end of last year. More than 33,000 of those who start one of the new apprenticeships quit before— (Time expired)

Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to speak on the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006, and I have listened to some of the debate in this place this morning. I particularly appreciated the contribution of the member for Riverina, and my comments follow along a similar line. If ever we needed flexibility in meeting Australia’s skills needs it is now, and I really welcome the government’s responsiveness to contributing to meeting those needs. A view in the community that I believe has prevailed for many years is that every student must reach university to succeed. This attitude has caused many young people to lose heart, as they have felt other abilities and skills are not valued, and they are defeated before they even start. This has been a real tragedy for Australia. It is beyond time that we acknowledge the technical skills that go hand in hand with the academic abilities to create valuable and crucial synergies in areas of science, engineering and medicine, to name a few. I think my colleague the member for Lyons mentioned innovation and the very important contribution that makes.

Yesterday I had the privilege of meeting Professor Ian Frazer, the recent winner of the Nobel prize for his work in finding a cure for ulcers. As I prepared this speech, I could not help but reflect on where Professor Frazer would be without his lab technicians and the people who design and manufacture the lab equipment. I think he would be the first to recognise and acknowledge that the team around him has allowed him to have such great success in this groundbreaking medical work which improves the quality of life for many people who suffer from stomach ulcers. Indeed, where would a heart surgeon or aeronautical engineer be without the designers and the welders? The engineers and the architects who design our buildings or our homes would be unlikely to see projects come to fruition without the window manufacturers, the concrete batchers, the bricklayers, the carpenters and the electricians, all of whose skills ensure an end product.

We sometimes do not give a lot of weight to this—or we have not in the past. I have been very pleased to see our ministers, particularly Brendan Nelson, raise the national debate on this to a very high level. We have some amazing young people who have such a lot to contribute but who feel so defeated by our country, which seems to place a disproportionate value on economic, legal, science and other academic qualifications. I do not for one moment want to suggest that we should not value and reward these disciplines, but it did get to a stage when there was too much emphasis on academic achievements and insufficient on creative and technical skills, and I am very pleased to see this being redressed.

I am a great supporter of university education. We have to encourage the full development of our people and their skills and abilities. In fact, for 10 years I worked with the Midland community, which is not technically in my electorate. It is now in the electorate of my very good colleague the member for Hasluck, but it services much of the hinterland, which is in my electorate. With the local community, we fought very hard to achieve university places in the eastern corridor. If you look at a map of Western Australia which shows where the institutes of higher learning are, you will see they are mostly located in the northern coastal or southern coastal strips and in the western suburbs. We have very little to offer in terms of a university-level education in the eastern region. I compliment the incredible work of people like Eric Lumsden, who headed a community committee to drive the establishment of that university. Brendan Nelson, again, was responsive and provided 25 places for Midland.

I went along to the opening day. Many of the students who actually came from the electorate of Pearce, the hinterland, expressed to me that they would never have had an opportunity, because of travel restrictions and family situations, to attend a university had it not been for these places, which were administered by Curtin University, being made available in the region. They were people doing early childhood development courses and suchlike—important work at that higher level. So I do not for one minute want to suggest that I am not supportive of university; I am.

It is an extraordinary achievement that this government has managed to highlight and have debated the value of technical education and been prepared to fund Australian technical colleges, giving those in our community an opportunity to reach their potential in other areas, thus making an important contribution to the skills base of our nation. As I said, I am grateful for the early work of Minister Nelson, who raised this issue nationally and worked so hard to draw attention to the inequities of funding between university and technical education. Minister Nelson visited the Swan View High School in my electorate and saw first-hand the value of recognising and developing the individual abilities of students, whether they be academic, creative or technical. The federal government, along with the state government, provided funding for a manual arts centre there. It was a joint effort. There was a jewellery design and manufacturing course and workshop available at that school. It also had a strong emphasis on engineering and strong collaboration between the academics from the universities and technical development so that young people could either stream into the serious academic side or stream into the design or manufacturing side of engineering skills.

I met two young people who had been students at the school and became jewellery designers. They worked in New York, I think, with one of the top jewellers and then later came back to Perth and took up positions with one of Perth’s leading jewellers. It was a great inspiration to see how thrilled these young people were to have found a niche where they excelled and where they knew their abilities were valued. I think it is enormously important that we do speak up more about how valuable these skills are, whether they are in engineering or other areas of design or technical skills. We need to acknowledge that.

I recently attended a graduation of some young people who were part of a pilot program to attract more young people into the trades and the automotive industry. Over the years in which we have seen the decline of technical education, there has been a view from parents that they do not want their kids to go into what used to be known as the ‘dirty trades’. The automotive industry has changed so much these days. It is a very highly sophisticated area and, again, there is a path for many different skills—from the design side to the actual mechanical side. The Motor Trade Association of Western Australia did a very good job in going around to schools, engaging with parents and students and helping them to see what opportunities were available in the modern automotive industry. I attended the graduation of these young people and, again, it was terrific to see the enthusiasm they had for the areas they had worked in. As a result of that pilot program, nearly all of them had been placed in apprenticeships in the domestic automotive industry, the heavy equipment industry or in shipping and boating, which is big in Western Australia. The opportunities are boundless in Western Australia, whether they are in domestic automotives, heavy equipment or the shipping and haulage industries, because it is going through a huge resource boom and it is having to import skilled people to take up jobs in the mining sector. What a great shame it is for our young people that they did not have an opportunity in the past to seriously develop these skills. The government’s 2004 election commitment to create 25 Australian technical colleges to train 7,500 years 11 and 12 students in the areas of need across the country was an important step in reducing that skills gap.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the original Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Bill 2005. The new bill will amend the 2005 bill so that funding originally outlined for 2008-09 can be brought forward to 2006-07 and will insert a new provision in the bill to enable the minister to redistribute program funds between years by regulation instead of legislation. This allows much greater flexibility in responding to training needs as they arise and it will also allow the establishment of more facilities at an earlier date than first anticipated. I think this demonstrates the incredible enthusiasm around the country for this initiative by the federal government. The funding set aside for the colleges is $343 million over a five-year period. That is a very big injection of funds into technical training. I am informed, as I said, that this will benefit about 7,500 students around the country.

One of the reasons I really wanted to rise to talk on this is that there were a number of organisations in the Midland area—which crosses over between the Hasluck and Pearce electorates—that had made a bid for the first round of funding. I know it was very competitive and it is always difficult to choose who gets the opportunity and who does not in the first round, but they put together such an excellent proposal that I wanted to run through a couple of the issues raised in a letter to our minister from the group, which was headed by the Swan Chamber of Commerce, outlining some of the reasons an Australian technical college should be located in the Midland region, in the eastern region of the Perth metropolitan area. To quote from the letter:

Current education and training delivery models are simply not proving effective for the region and a new approach is required if the Eastern Metropolitan area is to be revitalised and re-energised using education and skills development as a catalyst. For a decade the Midland community, the regional centre, led by the local Government authority, the City of Swan and local business, has worked towards the establishment of an integrated learning environment (the Midland Community Learning Precinct).

This is the same group that I helped get the university places for. They have done incredible work. They go on to say:

Interest groups which had been working to enhance education and vocational training issues have come together to form both the Midland Local Area Planning group ... and the Swan Alliance both of which have representation from industry, business, educators, the community and local government.

…            …            …

The Perth Eastern Region has a long and honourable tradition of vocational training—

that is true—

and a culture of taking pride in trades achievement and has been in the past one of the major apprenticeship and trainee locations for the State.

It has this long tradition. In fact, both my father and my grandfather were apprenticed to the Midland railway workshops, where my father learned to be a fitter and turner and as a young man studied mass production. America was just beginning to mass-produce motor vehicles. When war broke out, my father was manpowered to Adelaide because they needed people like him to solve the problems of how to mass-produce munitions. It was his job to resolve those problems and set up the kinds of mass production techniques they were using in the motor industry, in which he studied, for the building of railway engines and to transfer that skill to the war effort. So for me it is a very personal issue as well because I know this area has a marvellous history, particularly in the engineering trades.

The writer of the letter, the President of the Swan Chamber of Commerce, who was Peter McDowell at the time, said that the Midland ATC ‘would focus primarily on engineering’. There is good reason for that. Midland is at the crossroads of the major highways that service the traffic going to and coming from the eastern seaboard of the country. It is also the major highway, the Great Northern Highway, which takes all the trucking and tourism to the north-west mining and pastoral regions of Western Australia and, of course, the Perth airport is very close by. The letter went on to say:

Employment of apprentices and trainees has decreased markedly in the region and recently industry has begun a concerted effort to rectify the decline. Some of Western Australia’s industry leaders are located in the region and have committed to a project to increase their involvement in enhancing educational outcomes. During the development of the ATC program industry partners will participate directly so pathways can be identified that optimise the relationship between the vocational environment and the workplace.

As I said, the electorate of Pearce lies within the outer metropolitan regions of Perth and it extends to country towns and communities. There are wheat and sheep farms, viticulture, horticulture and brickworks in the electorate as well as mining interests, aviation and heavy haulage—it covers such a broad area; there is a need for all sorts of skills in all of these different industries—building and construction, manufacturing and so it goes. With all of the transport coming through this hub, it is a very important part of the outer metropolitan area. It used to be called Midland Junction because it is indeed, as I said, the junction between the eastern seaboard and access to the northern reaches of the mining and pastoral areas of Western Australia.

The push for an Australian technical college really does not in any way suggest that we have not got strong educational precincts there now. The Swan Technical College and the northern technical colleges have done an amazingly wonderful job supporting the region. If you look at the figures from the 2001 census in the Swan catchment alone, which is only part of the proposed catchment for a technical college, almost 20 per cent of 15- to 19-year-olds in the area were unemployed. That is terrible in a state where we are just screaming out for unskilled and skilled labour. In 2000, just over 18,000 students were attending school in Swan, at 31 primary schools, 12 high schools and the Midland College of TAFE. The Midland catchment area relies more heavily on a certificate level qualification—13.8 per cent—than the Perth metropolitan area, which reflects a reliance on TAFE and access to trades and vocational studies. The Swan TAFE offers excellent initiatives. As I said before, that is where the eight young people who graduated in the automotive industry pilot course did their work. I commend the work that they have done.

In finishing, I want to quote again from Mr McDowell’s letter on behalf of the group seeking funding for an Australian technical college, because they set out very clearly the reasons that an establishment of an Australian technical college is justified. I wholeheartedly and enthusiastically support this group in their work to bring an Australian technical college to the eastern region. These are the reasons they set out:

a.

A decade of hard work has already been done to establish an innovative integrated education environment in Midland, the centre of our region utilising existing community assets.

b.

Plans for the Midland Community Learning Precinct could easily accommodate an ATC and add considerable value to the integrated learning model.

c.

Interim Board led by industry, and an Independent Governance model is being developed.

d.

Industry and community need and demand has been amply demonstrated.

e.

Federal Government has recognised the region as a key area of need.

f.

The proposed site of the ATC is in a major transport hub for metropolitan and inland areas and there is a diversity of modes of transport available.

g.

There is a catchment of more than 10,000 year 9 and 10 students.

h.

The region is home to some of WA’s biggest industry players in the engineering, transport and building and construction and mining services firms and many are directly committed to the ATC concept.

i.

The area can service skills shortages in the metropolitan, regional and mining areas.

I am pleased with and support this bill. (Time expired)

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian technical colleges have been a story of duplication and a saga of incompetence. In a federation it is important that the Commonwealth and state governments work together to fix matters of national importance. Governments, especially for the last 20 years or so, have been working to reduce duplication, to streamline the operations of government, to reach efficiencies and to reduce the overlap between what federal and state governments do. The creation of Australian technical colleges goes against this trend. This policy does not reduce duplication; it creates it. I cannot think of any precedents for this sort of duplication being created by a Commonwealth government. We have public schools and TAFEs doing a good job with very limited resources, yet the government has seen fit to attempt to completely duplicate that system.

We just heard from the honourable member for Pearce, a member for whom I have a considerable degree of respect. Although I do not agree with her conclusions, she said that she acknowledged the work being done by her local technical colleges and schools in the Swan district. I am sure that is right, and I am sure that that is an issue that you have an interest in, Mr Deputy Speaker Wilkie. We recognise that TAFEs and public schools are doing the best they can with limited resources, yet this government has chosen to completely duplicate the system. Let us imagine what could have been done if the federal government, instead of attempting to create a new system from scratch, had put the money into the existing TAFE and public school systems. We have the situation where over 40,000 young Australians are being turned away from TAFE every year and this government, instead of working with the state governments to fix that, instead of putting money into the TAFE system, is trying to create its own system. Not only has this seen a ridiculous level of duplication but we have seen it incompetently implemented.

In preparing for this speech on the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006 this morning I got out my notes from the original Australian technical colleges bill and the contribution I made in that debate. I was surprised to see that it was almost exactly one year ago that I spoke in that debate. It has been almost a year to the day that this House was considering the original Australian technical colleges bill. In that speech I warned that creating a new system would have start-up costs and a start-up lag and that the amount of time it would take to create these Australian technical colleges would be very substantial. I am sorry to say that I was right. But I am also sorry to say that it has taken even longer than I thought it would. I was amazed to hear the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education boasting in his second reading speech that this bill was a measure of:

... the great successes which have been achieved to date in implementing the Australian technical colleges initiative.

I do not believe a minister could come into this House and say that with a straight face. Not even the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, at the table, is keeping a straight face when he hears the Minister for Vocational Education and Training saying, ‘This is a mark of how successful we have been.’ By now there were meant to be 25 colleges operating. How many do we have? Four. And how many students are in these colleges? There are 300—not 300 each but 300 across the nation. There were meant to be 7,500. Again I quote the minister boasting in his second reading speech:

I am happy to report to the House that, already, four colleges are in operation, with another to commence later this year—the one in northern Tasmania—and at least 20 are expected to be in operation in 2007.

The minister did not share with the House the fact that there were meant to be 25 operating by a now. He only shared with the House that there were four. Those four are in Gladstone, Port Macquarie, Eastern Melbourne and the Gold Coast. Port Macquarie is a very interesting case in point. I was interested to read the comments of the principal of the Port Macquarie college, who indicated that they had been doing this since the 1970s and that there had only been a few extra students introduced to the school as a result of the Australian technical colleges initiative. So a large proportion of those 300 students the government claim are now in technical education because of their initiative were already in technical education at the school at Port Macquarie. Of course, who can forget Gladstone—a technical college with one student? I am all in favour of good teacher to student ratios, but one student is a bit ridiculous. This shows the incompetence of this government and the incompetence of this minister. The minister blames everybody else for his incompetence. Again I quote the minister in his second reading speech:

It is another example of how the Howard government’s election commitment has been so enthusiastically embraced by the community, by industry and by employers.

That is a very interesting quote. By itself, in isolation, you cannot take issue with it. But these are the very people he blames for his incompetence. These are the very people he blames for the fact that there are only four colleges in existence. As reported in the Australian on 25 April this year:

Mr Hardgrave said three colleges announced in NSW at Dubbo, Queanbeyan and Lismore/Ballina on the far north coast could be scrapped within weeks unless he received a “clear indication” from the community of local support.

He went on to say:

“In the case of those communities—if they don’t take up the offer we will have to look at other regions,”

When asked if he was worried about the lack of progress, he said:

“Absolutely, I am worried about it. I am going to Darwin next week to give them a hurry up.

“You’ve got to actually extract a digit and do something ... ”

That is a direct quote from the minister, blaming everybody but himself, blaming the community for their lack of enthusiasm, when he and his department have not been able to get more than 300 students—at a very generous interpretation—so far in the Australian technical colleges, one year after the bill passed the House and two years since the government made its commitment.

The Minister for Vocational and Technical Education would have to qualify for this government’s least competent minister, and that is a big call. He specialises in bluster, bluff and question time buffoonery and not in delivering the outcomes that this nation needs. We cannot afford an incompetent minister in this particular area. The government has a very long tail when it comes to its ministry. The junior level of the ministry is particularly incompetent, but this is one area where the nation cannot afford to have an incompetent minister in the chair. The Prime Minister said:

... the technical colleges are the centrepiece of our drive to tackle skills shortages and to revolutionise vocational education in Australia ...

So here we have the government’s self-admitted centrepiece of its policy failing through the minister’s incompetence. But, to be fair, that is due not only to the minister’s incompetence but, in addition, to the government’s ideological obsession with Australian workplace agreements.

I was interested to hear one of the rare contributions in the policy debate in this House from the honourable member for Greenway earlier. She blamed the unions for the lack of an Australian technical college being established in Western Sydney. She said that the unions’ and the state government’s obsession with awards was stopping a college being opened in Western Sydney.

The federal government’s ideological obsession in not giving people choice, in insisting that employees of the Australian technical colleges be given Australian workplace agreements, means that communities, workers and potential teachers are saying, ‘What about our working conditions?’ The government arrogantly say: ‘You’ll cop it. If you don’t like it, we’ll go somewhere else.’ The Minister for Vocational and Technical Education says, ‘I’m going to Darwin to give them a hurry-up and to tell them that they have to take AWAs.’ So we have the intersection of the government’s ideological obsession with individual contracts and AWAs and their ham-fisted attempts to fix the skills crisis in this nation.

If the government wants to introduce flexibility into the employment arrangements in Australian technical colleges, it can. It can have any range of industrial instruments. Some colleges might choose to offer Australian workplace agreements. Others might choose to offer common-law contracts to achieve their flexibility. Others would be happy with an award and enterprise agreement. But this government insists.

The reason we cannot afford to have this sort of incompetence and this sort of ideological obsession is that the skills crisis is in the first order of economic problems facing this nation. We have heard warnings from the Reserve Bank of Australia, the OECD, the Australian Industry Group, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The Australian Industry Group recently conducted a survey of over 500 businesses, and they found that the inability to find skilled staff was the biggest barrier to growth. The AiG passed comment on the recent budget. They said:

We’re disappointed there wasn’t more progress ... made in some of the big nation-building areas, particularly skills, which ... was fairly underdone in the Budget.

I think the AiG might have been a bit generous in saying that it was ‘fairly underdone’—it was more than ‘fairly underdone’; it was totally neglected—but I agree with the thrust of their sentiments.

The Australian Industry Group issued a discussion paper back in 2004, warning that we would need 100,000 new tradespeople by 2010. Back in 2004, they were warning that we would need 100,000, and this government’s contribution is 300. The St George-Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Small Business Survey, which comes out regularly, consistently shows that the skills crisis is one of the biggest problems facing small business in this country.

The Governor of the Reserve Bank has been warning about this issue. He warned about it in his statement to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration in early 2005. Both the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, at the table, and I were then on that committee, and we heard the Governor of the Reserve Bank warn that the skills crisis was one of the biggest economic challenges facing this nation. He has repeated that in every monetary policy statement since, in every appearance before the House of Representatives economics committee and in every public statement that he has made.

Personally, I am singularly unsurprised that this is the biggest challenge facing our economy, because I represent in this House the biggest industrial estate in the Southern Hemisphere, at Smithfield-Wetherill Park. I go around to the factories. I talk to the recruitment managers. They tell me that it is impossible for them to get an appropriately qualified, skilled workforce—that they have trouble attracting people to come and work in the biggest industrial estate in this country.

As I said, the Australian Industry Group have indicated that we need 100,000 extra skilled workers by 2010. The government’s centrepiece is producing 300. Even if we believe their projections, they say that we might get to 7,500 a year. Even if the minister manages to get his act together—if he, in his words, ‘pulls his digit out’ and actually gets something done—then, even if it is as successful as the government say it will be, they will get to 7,500 a year. The breathtaking incompetence that we have seen this far indicates that not even 7,500 a year is achievable.

And, of course, the government deals with the shortfall by importing the difference. We see, day after day, in question time and in examples brought forward predominantly by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the government plugging the issues of skills shortages and apprenticeships by issuing foreign worker visas. And this is the problem, the result, of 10 years of neglect by this government. Public investment in universities and TAFEs has fallen by eight per cent since 1996. The average across the OECD is a 38 per cent increase. Yet Australia is the only OECD nation to actually reduce the amount of government money going into universities and technical colleges. That has been this government’s contribution.

I support the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition because fixing the skills crisis in this nation is not only important economically—it is also important socially. We are seeing 40,000 young people every year being turned away from TAFEs. That is bad for our economy, but it goes without saying that it is also bad for those young individuals. Their hopes and, as the Prime Minister would say, their aspirations are being dashed. Their aspirations to be tradespeople, perhaps to start small businesses, to grow their small businesses and provide for their families are being dashed. Why? Because this government is wasting $350 million, duplicating a training and education system which already exists—not only creating start-up costs but start-up lags, which means that the numbers of apprenticeships and skilled tradespeople that we need are not being created. Instead of working with the states, instead of putting aside its ideological obsession, it is creating just 300 apprentices a year. It is doing nothing about improving our apprenticeship completion rates. Forty per cent of people who start an apprenticeship in this nation do not finish it. Can you imagine what it would do for the skills crisis in this nation if we could get that figure down—if we could halve it or better? But this government completely ignores the problem and does nothing about it.

Why doesn’t the government take up Labor’s policy of introducing a trade completion bonus of $2,000, to be given to every apprentice on the completion of their apprenticeship? I am not saying that would convince every apprentice to finish their training; some apprentices clearly just feel that they have made the wrong choice. But any economist would tell you that a $2,000 incentive to finish their training would play an important role in getting people to finish their apprenticeships.

Why doesn’t the government take up Labor’s plan, announced by the Leader of the Opposition, of abolishing TAFE fees for traditional apprenticeships? Why doesn’t the federal government take it up? It is not a matter—

Phillip Barresi (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Barresi interjecting

Kim Wilkie (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Deakin will have an opportunity to speak shortly.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Opposition has given a commitment to do it; why doesn’t the Prime Minister? The honourable member for Deakin conveniently blames the states. He could be the Minister for Vocational and Technical Education he is so good at blaming everybody else! That is what the current minister excels at, apart from his buffoonery in question time and his expertise at bluff.

Why doesn’t the government take up Labor’s plan to fix the skills crisis in this country? It cannot be fixed overnight; no government could fix it overnight; you cannot fix a problem which has been brewing for 10 years overnight. Some of the traditional trades in this country have had shortages recognised by the Australian Bureau of Statistics every year for the last 10 years, but only in 2004 did the government take any steps to fix it. And when we look at those steps, we see they involve the creation of a new, completely duplicated system—25 colleges across the country which will, at best, create 7,500 apprenticeships a year.

Australians deserve better than this half-hearted, ham-fisted attempt to fix our skills crisis. They deserve a coordinated effort. They deserve COAG, every state premier and the Prime Minister of this nation, getting together to fix the problem. That is not what we see from this government and we will only see it from a Labor government.

Phillip Barresi (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to be able to speak on the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006 because it really does represent a debate on learning—and we should be talking about what we have learnt when it comes to education. One thing that we have learnt is that the one-size-fits-all approach to education does not work and it is one of the reasons why this government has recognised the need to reintroduce an emphasis in our secondary education system on vocational training and education.

One of the things that you hear often from parents and, even more so, from grandparents is their lament about the demise of the technical skills system around this country. Through the Australian technical colleges model we are emphasising once again that one size really does not fit all and that we need to address the skills shortage and the aspirations of those students who do not want to go on to university or higher tertiary education. We have learnt that Australian students and their families do want a choice when it comes to education and the ATCs are all about that ability to choose—the ability of young Australians to choose a course of study that interests them and which they can pursue. This choice and variety has been a success, even though members opposite like to talk down the ATC model that this government has introduced.

The main purpose of this bill, though, is to allow the movement of funds forward for the establishment of the ATCs. Increased funding is needed for 2006 and 2007 and reflects this government’s achievements in establishing ATCs sooner than originally anticipated. The colleges have received widespread community and industry support, even though those opposite keep talking down the program. The enthusiasm received for the program has generated the establishment of the ATCs ahead of time. Currently the government is in a position where 22 of 25 colleges have been announced, five colleges are operating in 2006 with almost 300 students and at least 20 colleges are expected to be operational in 2007. When fully operational, the 25 Australian technical colleges will have at least 7,500 students each year.

The member for Prospect went on and cited figures about the skills shortages and how the ATCs, even in their full capacity, will be covering a mere drop in the ocean in terms of those who are needed to make up the shortfall in skills. This is a very convenient argument by those on the other side, who do not realise that this government approaches issues of this kind in a multifaceted way. The ATCs are just one part of that policy prong to address skills shortages.

I am particularly pleased to be able to speak on this bill. I will declare I have a vested interest: one of those ATCs is in my electorate; it is located in Ringwood. I have become fully aware from talking to parents, industry groups and businesses in the area that there really is a demand for technical colleges. The eastern suburbs based ATC is based at Ringwood Secondary College in my electorate of Deakin. I take particular pride in being able to say that is one of the achievements that this government has been able to introduce for the benefit of the people in the eastern suburbs. It is currently offering courses in automotive, cabinet-making and electrotechnical industry trades. At present, the eastern Melbourne ATC has only 13 students. I recognise that that is a small number. There are nine students in cabinet-making, three in electrical trades and courses and one in the automotive trades. And there has been criticism from those opposite that the take-up rate for enrolments has not been quick enough or great enough. I would like to remind members in this place that it was the ALP that held up the funding agreements in the Senate until October 2005. This led to a delay in the establishment of localised funding agreements until the very end of the 2005 school year, too late to allow substantial enrolment in the courses. Of course, what the ALP conveniently will then say is that the delay—which they created—and the failure of the enrolments to be at a higher level are indications that the ATCs are not supported and are a failure. That certainly is a long way from the truth.

Earlier in the debate the member for Hotham stood up in this place and criticised work being done at the eastern suburbs based ATC. The member went on to tell the House that he was not entirely sure what was being done at the ATC in Ringwood and its subsidiary campus in Ferntree Gully. He formed this opinion—this is strange for someone who used to be the Leader of the Opposition—because the information he was seeking did not appear on the ATC’s website. I have advice for the former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Hotham: look deeper into the work being done by the ATCs, pick up the phone, make a time to go out there and see them—go and visit Ferntree Gully, go and visit Ringwood, and see what great work is being done. Don’t just take the lazy option, sitting at your desk typing in some sort of a website string to see what they are doing. If he had bothered to pick up the phone and speak to those who are involved in the eastern suburbs based ATC, he would know that considerable progress has been made in this area, progress that will certainly be of great benefit to those students who will be taking up places in the very near future.

I can inform the House and the member for Hotham that the eastern Melbourne ATC is planning a midyear intake to double its student numbers and that all these students are in year 11 and intend to continue their studies next year. The Australian technical college in Ringwood has been an unqualified success. Of the 13 students enrolled this year, 10 are in apprenticeships and three are currently completing their final work experience. It is expected that they will enter apprenticeships next semester. In time and with the additional funding supplied by the government, the Ringwood campus will expand its offerings to include engineering and manufacturing programs. The demand for this training option is one that is real and one that has been demanded by industry in the eastern suburbs.

Even with limited advertising, 60 people attended a recent information night at one of the eastern Melbourne campuses. The ATC in Ringwood is projecting enrolments for 2007 into six training streams on offer with 15 students in each stream. Given the obvious demand, I would not be surprised if the demand were greater than that and the enrolments were higher than the 90 that it envisages.

But the great success of the ATCs is a link between the colleges and the needs of the regions they service. ATCs must operate in a manner that best suits the particular region. ATCs must be a school so that students can gain their year 12 certificates. They must have school based apprenticeships and they must be industry led and relevant to industry needs. Beyond that, it is up to local industry and communities to determine the best model for their region and their students. So it is driven by the local region; it is driven by the local industry. It is managed by those groups and, at the end of the day, it fulfils a need that they have rather than one that has been created and dreamed up by bureaucrats in the city centres.

The courses and trades offered at the technical colleges are tailored to the needs of the community. In consultation with local industry the colleges develop skilled workers who are ready to meet the demands of employment and are well on their way to having a sound skill set for their work. The eastern Melbourne college is clearly committed to working with local industry and, far from talking it down, I would say to members opposite: talk it up, because that is what parents want. Parents want an alternative. Parents are seeking this for their children. They recognise that some of their kids do not want to move on to university—they want a trade; they want to move into an apprenticeship, a traineeship. Often they just need to be given that experience while they are at school to really find out whether or not it is the sort of career that best suits them.

The other thing that the eastern suburbs ATC did this year, for the member for Hotham’s education, is that, by the end of May, it held two industry skill councils with local businesses: one on cabinet-making and the other on electrotechnical industries. At these skill councils a selection of local businesses and professional associations met, reviewed the ATC curriculum and gave direction to the college about industry training needs and the way in which a college could help meet these needs.

ATCs do not exist in educational isolation. As I said earlier on, they form a broader commitment that this government has to ensuring that all Australian students are provided with the support they need to make informed choices about their school and work futures. Recently I was pleased to be able to launch another arm of the support offered to school students in choosing their career and training paths. Career Advice Australia and Eastern Industry Education Partnership will provide a link between students, their career advisers and industry. In fact, Eastern Industry Education Partnership itself is a partner in the consortium that is running the eastern based ATC at the Ringwood Secondary College. I commend the dedicated work of those involved in both of these projects. I firmly believe that they will lead to better informed and more focused students in all school learning areas, not just in the vocational and technical sectors.

To make sure that the ATCs will be centres of excellence, the expectation is that they will employ the best possible staff. The colleges must be able to attract and retain the best teachers available, and their capacity to offer attractive working conditions, such as performance pay, is crucial to their success. To assist ATCs becoming centres of excellence, the $343 million funding that this bill represents is new money. There is no shortfall, as some in the opposition suggest. ATCs are not a duplication of TAFEs, as some in the opposition suggest. To claim this clearly indicates a deliberate distortion of the program. The colleges provide an opportunity for students to stay at school and complete their year 12 while undertaking a school based apprenticeship. I thought this would have been welcomed by those opposite. I thought they would have applauded such an initiative.

Technical colleges are an important part of the Howard government’s approach to meeting our nation-building skills needs. They are an investment in the longer term. But they are not the full picture; they are not all we are doing in addressing our skills needs. These colleges, furthermore, will not charge additional fees. The colleges will be schools—government and non-government. In respect of recurrent schools funding, they will be funded on the same basis as existing schools. Unlike the TAFE system—which is inherently a state based creature—where there are fees, these ATCs will not be charging additional fees.

The member for Prospect got up in this place and said, ‘Why don’t you adopt Labor’s plan of abolishing TAFE fees?’ Labor’s plan to abolish TAFE fees does not have to wait until those opposite come into government. I have news for the members opposite. They do not have to wait until they come into government to abolish TAFE fees. All they have to do is pick up the phone—those who claim they have some sort of special influence in their states—talk to Morris Iemma in New South Wales or to Steve Bracks in my state and say, ‘Please abolish the fees now.’ They can do that now. They do not have to wait until they come into government.

But, if Labor ever comes into government and decides to abolish TAFE fees, I can tell you that a lot of cost shifting will take place, because all it will be doing is abolishing fees that its own mates, its comrades in each of the state governments, are currently presiding over. In fact, in recent times, in the case of New South Wales, they have increased the fees. So do not come in here and say, ‘Adopt our plan.’ Your plan can be implemented today. All you have to do is pick up the phone and put pressure on your state Labor Premiers. Surely the member for Prospect, if he is a man of any great importance in the Sydney area, should be able to do that with a quick phone call to Morris Iemma.

Another thing I would like to touch on is that the approach to technical education that we are introducing through ATCs is recognised as being a success. Even the Victorian and New South Wales governments in recent times have recognised this and have moved from wanting nothing to do with the federal model to developing their own. But, as usual, their option of a technical college is a pale imitation of what we have developed.

The Bracks Labor government in Victoria announced recently that it would provide $32 million for its own version of technical colleges. Here it is, putting up obstacles to the setting up of ATCs—through its education department and through its union affiliates by insisting on certain awards and conditions—while, at the same time, imitating our model but not going all the way. On the face of it, Victoria’s $32 million may sound commendable. But, when you consider that the $32 million is spread across four years and includes the capital development of at least four colleges, that funding is woefully inadequate.

I would like to be in a position to provide to this House more detail about the Victorian model, but I am unable to do so, because, as usual, the Victorian government has not provided information on this policy area. We will have to wait to see such information until some time between now and 25 November, when the state election will be held. The information that the Bracks government has released does not indicate that their model will provide anything new. Their model will provide programs that are already available to every student in a secondary college in Victoria. It is a knee-jerk, populist and reactive policy that serves no-one. But it does recognise, in a strange way, that the federal government’s initiative on ATCs needs to be applauded.

Mr Bracks’s Labor colleague across the border in New South Wales is providing an even weaker response to training needs in his state. Labor Premier Iemma has provided $18 million to be divided among 10 technical schools—and that funding is for four years. We are providing $343 million to establish 24 colleges, which is more than $14 million for every college. The Labor Premier, Morris Iemma, demonstrates his commitment to vocational training by providing the equivalent of around $1.8 million to his training centres.

There is a clear difference between what this government is putting in place and the half measures, half-baked ideas and reactions that have been offered by the Labor Premiers of Victoria and New South Wales. The difference is that the federal model is industry driven and committed to addressing the skills shortages in this country while the states are offering up a supply driven approach to training needs that will do nothing to build skills capacities in their states.

I ask this House and the people in my electorate to remember the simple difference of $1.8 million over four years to 10 centres as opposed to the real commitment of $343 million for 24 colleges. One of those colleges is at the Ringwood Secondary College, the same college where I had great pride a number of years ago to have an automotive and manufacturing technology skills centre established. I paid credit to the then Minister for Education, Science and Training, Brendan Nelson, for doing that, and I do so again. The reason I say that is that the establishment of that skills centre was thwarted at every attempt by the education department. They did not want it. The local industry put up a proposal to the state government to set it up, and the state government not only refused to take their proposal to ANTA to get funding but also ignored the entire eastern suburbs of Melbourne. Not one skills centre was proposed and funded in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne until Minister Brendan Nelson intervened and said, ‘This is a joke; there are real skills needs there.’ Information provided by industry indicated a skills need and we set up the automotive manufacturing skills centre. The ATC in Ringwood complements that earlier initiative.

This bill represents a real commitment by the federal government to skills training. It provides an alternative to the needs and demands of young people in the electorate. It provides them with an opportunity to learn a trade while they are at school and still do their year 12 certificate and, at the end of the day, it provides them with a career alternative, one which is in high in demand by industry and by the nation. (Time expired)

Debate (on motion by Mr Turnbull) adjourned.