Harry Jenkins (Scullin, 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 Perth 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.

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

As I was saying before question time, the example of Western Sydney is a very good one when it comes to this government’s failure in the matter of technical education. On 23 June 2006, the government announced to great fanfare a new Australian technical college for Western Sydney. The then Minister for Vocational and Technical Education announced that the Catholic Education Office, with industry partners, had won the tender to construct and operate a Western Sydney ATC. He said: ‘I look forward to the college opening in early 2007.’ But the facts have not matched the press release and the reality has not matched the then minister’s expectation. That bid process fell apart and the Catholic Education Office was, in my view, treated in a less than ideal manner. The people of Western Sydney have been dealt a blow in that they now have a technical college with a student body of 20 out of a possible 25 students. For the entire Western Sydney region we have 20 students in the ATC, which is in Rouse Hill. I have nothing against Rouse Hill, but anybody who would suggest that people from greater Western Sydney—from south-west Sydney or other parts of Western Sydney—would be able to easily get to Rouse Hill is clearly having themselves on and has no knowledge of how Western Sydney works or of the importance of more technical education places in Western Sydney.

This has become an annual debate, with the government bringing in more legislation, more appropriation bills and more amendment bills to fix up problems with ATCs as we go along. This debate happens around this time of year every year. It is always useful to go back and say what you said last time it was debated. On 22 June 2006, I said:

This policy does not reduce duplication; it creates it.

A year before that, I said that this policy would take a long time to get up and running and that there would be a start-up lag. Clearly, the government rejected those arguments at the time, but the reality has been borne out. Those predictions have been borne out by the reality.

The experience of Western Sydney has been replicated across the board. Senate estimates heard recently that the average cost per student in an ATC is $175,000. That compares to an average cost per TAFE student of around $15,000. What an inefficient and incompetent way to get involved in technical education in this country! Can you imagine what could have been achieved if the half a billion dollars which has now been allocated by this government to their ATCs had been allocated to the existing TAFE system? If we avoided duplication, if we avoided fights with the states, if we sat down with the states and worked cooperatively and said: ‘We want to spend half a billion dollars on technical education in this country and you have the infrastructure. You have the expertise. Let’s work together and work out ways for you to implement, in cooperation with us, a major expansion of the number of students in technical education in this country,’ can you imagine what could have been achieved? In Victoria alone, where the average cost per student is only $25,000 according to some figures, the Victorian schools minister estimates that an extra 8,000 students could have been trained.

The government’s own figures say that we have a skills shortage of some 200,000 people in this country. We need 200,000 more trained, highly skilled tradespeople. And what is the government’s contribution? In Western Sydney, it is 20. In the Illawarra, it is 35 out of a possible 50. In northern Tasmania, it is 120 out of a target of 175. In Port Macquarie they are doing a little better—302 out of a possible 325. In eastern Melbourne, it is 86 out of a target of 180. Across the country, it is 1,800. We need 200,000; this government has spent half a billion dollars and we have 1,800, and it will be some years yet before any of those graduate.

There could have been many multiples of 1,800 if the government did not have an ideological and political obsession with fighting with the states, if it did not say in this place: ‘Oh, you can’t give it to TAFE. They’re dominated by those evil people—the states and the unions.’ If the government had said, ‘It doesn’t make much sense to completely duplicate an existing system,’ we might have more people going into technical education in this country. Over 300,000 people have been turned away from TAFE in this country. The government says, ‘Blame the states,’ but the Australian people are not interested in the blame game; they are interested in the solution game. This government is not in the game of solutions; it is in the game of cheap political points. That is what the government does and it does it quite well. This failed policy cannot provide any solutions.

It is not just me who believes this. I read with some interest the report of the Australian National Audit Office. You would understand that these reports are always couched in quite moderate and temperate language. It is very unusual for them to use an inflammatory set of words, but you always know what they mean. The Audit Office were particularly critical of the government’s failure to work with the states in this area. They said that insufficient attention had been paid to state and territory governments. They said that in one region the program has had to address significant issues because of the co-existence of a new college with existing state government secondary schools. Additionally, the Audit Office reported that nearly half of the first 24 colleges were awarded on the basis of a very small number of tenders—one or two applications. They said it would have been better to go back to the market, but of course they could not do so because the government was in a hurry. For political reasons, the government wanted to ram the colleges through. Of course, the government would not have needed to ram the process through with only one or two tenders and avoid going back to the market if it had got the policy settings right in the first place and worked with state governments for a cooperative arrangement.

The government’s arrogance really knows no bounds. The current Minister for Vocational and Further Education released a press release calling on me to apologise for criticising his policy. He called on me to apologise to the students of ATCs. I have no beef with the students of ATCs; I have a big beef with him. I have a big beef with the government’s arrogance and incompetence. The government do not have much to run on. One thing that a conservative government do try to run on is competence. They certainly do not try to run on their philosophy. They say, ‘Trust us because we are basically pretty competent.’ But they have been completely incompetent in administering ATCs. As I said before, one person has paid the price: the former minister was sacked. You have to try pretty hard to be sacked in this government—you have to be pretty incompetent—because the Prime Minister does not like sacking ministers very often. But the minister for vocational education and training was bad enough, and we called for his sacking long enough, that the Prime Minister eventually saw no alternative but to sack him, as he should have been sacked.

But the arrogance continues under this minister. I admit that he is fixing up many of the problems left him by his predecessor, but his arrogance continues. He issues press releases saying how dare the Labor Party criticise ATCs and that we should apologise to the government and to the students of the ATCs. He is the one who should apologise for the absolute disaster, the public policy disaster, that has been wrought on Western Sydney. A campus was promised in mid 2006 for many more students than 20 and now we have 20 students being educated in conjunction with a school in Rouse Hill. That is this government’s contribution to technical training and education in south-western Sydney, and Western Sydney more generally. My electorate in south-western Sydney has the biggest industrial estate in the Southern Hemisphere. It is has huge needs for skills training, and yet this government’s contribution is 20 students.

The rebadging of student apprentices in one school does not amount to a plan for the future. It does not amount to a significant contribution to technical skills and education in Western Sydney. Everybody knows that we have a skills crisis in this country. There have been occupations on the skills shortage list in some cases for 11 years and more. The government have only become involved in technical education in a serious way over the last two years. What have they done? They have announced a duplication of an existing state system. They have announced that they will not work or cooperate with the states. As such, they are being criticised by no less authority than the Australian National Audit Office.

It is this government which should apologise. It is this government which should say: ‘We got it wrong. We should be working with the states. We should be adopting something like Labor’s policy, which is trades in schools, giving schools extra funding to teach more trades, and capital funding for important technical classrooms.’ The minister pooh-poohs it; the minister belittles it. In an arrogant way he says, ‘All you are doing is buying lathes and hairdressing machines.’ It is much more than that. With a bit of vision and commitment to back up the policy we can turn every school in this country into a technical college. That is what the Leader of the Opposition did in his address-in-reply to the budget. He put out an alternative vision in this important field. Yet all the government can do is carp and issue silly press releases calling on Labor members of parliament to apologise for criticising the program.

The minister’s press release is quite amusing. He says, ‘Chris Bowen, in typical style, wants to take these away by calling them a national disgrace.’ I do call their policy a national disgrace. It has been a complete and utter duplication of a system which could have been enhanced. It could have been grown. Putting half a billion dollars into the TAFE and schools education system in this country could have achieved a great deal, but instead we see a mechanism in place in which new colleges are built. They have to be started, there are understandable start-up lags and time has to go into building them and getting the capital structure in place, hiring employees et cetera. This all takes time. It would all be unnecessary if a more holistic, visionary approach had been taken.

We have now seen the announcement of a second Western Sydney ATC, which I understand is to be in Penrith, in the electorate of Lindsay. We have one in the Liberal electorate of Greenway; now there will be one in the Liberal electorate of Lindsay. That is good; I welcome that. I hope it is more successful than the first one. I hope that in three years time I will not be saying, ‘We’ve got 20 students now in the Penrith ATC,’ because it will need to be administered a whole lot better than the first one was. The tender negotiations with the winning tenderer will need to be handled a whole lot better than the first ones were. I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that there are a lot of very angry people who were involved in the failed project to establish the first ATC, and the government knows it. They are not people who are traditionally critical of the government, but these people are very angry about the way in which they have been treated.

I simply hope that the implementation of the second ATC, in Penrith, which we do not oppose because we will support anything which does a little bit of good, goes smoothly. We are not going to stand in the way of funding something which may do a little bit of good, but we reserve the right to point out that we think the money could be spent a whole lot better. We reserve the right to say that 8,000 extra students in Victoria alone would have been a more efficient and better result. It is not just about the use of taxpayers’ money, as important as it is; it is about the opportunity cost. People are missing out because they are being turned away from the TAFE system.

This has been a public policy disaster. As I say, I hope that in 12 months time, when we return to this debate, as we are likely to do, we will not be saying that the ATC at Penrith has been as disappointing as the ATC at Rouse Hill in terms of take-up rates and student numbers. I do not mean any disrespect to the people at Rouse Hill, who I am sure are working very hard and doing the best they can with the resources given to them by this government. I am saying that there is a much better way, and it is very disappointing for the future of this nation in this very important area that it has not been done much more efficiently.

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

I rise today, in this debate on the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2007, to focus on the strength, innovation, creativity and the successful initiative of the Howard government in relation to the Australian technical colleges. At the 2004 election, the Prime Minister promised to establish 25 new Australian technical colleges to boost not only the number of young people who were engaging in apprenticeships but also the status and quality of technical and vocational education in this nation. The cost of these colleges through to 2009 is estimated to be $456.2 million. The Australian technical colleges are already an outstanding success due to the quality of the facilities and teaching staff, and also due to the strength of mentorship, guidance, support and leadership of industry and teaching staff.

The 2004 election commitment has gone from idea to reality in only three short years. This is a remarkably short space of time, with 20 Australian technical colleges currently operating at 33 campuses across Australia. In 2008, that number will increase to 25 colleges at 30 campuses and in 2009 there will be 42 campuses. A further three Australian technical colleges were announced in the recent 2007-08 budget to be located in northern Perth, southern Brisbane and in greater Western Sydney, New South Wales

Two thousand students across Australia are already benefiting from being able to do their year 11, obtain their year 12 school certificate and start an apprenticeship at the same time. Seven thousand five hundred students are expected to be attending colleges each year once they are all fully operational in 2009. These students will finish their two years at the Australian technical college, having completed their high school education, and will already be two years into their chosen trade or vocational training, giving them an important head start for their career. To be skilled up and educated until a third of the way through their trade is an outstanding opportunity. Indeed, they are earning while they are learning.

The Australian technical college concept is unique. In fact, the various models operating across the nation all have unique characteristics. The uniqueness of the Western Sydney model is that it is a partnership with industry as well as involving mentorship. There is mentorship in the classroom and in the workplace. These young people have an indentured apprenticeship.

The technical colleges are by no means in competition with TAFE. TAFE will focus on providing education for post-secondary students. One of the examples that I think is critical in Western Sydney is that already, at the grass roots, the principal of the Australian technical college is working very closely with TAFE. Many of those students are already engaging in studies at TAFE. So they are working together.

For example, a young person leaving year 12, about to embark on a trade, has to find a job and also has to enrol in TAFE. Often, although some support may be offered, they do not have that strength of mentorship and guidance. The Australian technical college model is very different. The employer that they are indentured to is visited regularly. If there is a challenge or an issue, the indentureship continues. If the student needs to find a different employer, for whatever reason—sometimes these things have challenges—these challenges can be addressed and the student can continue their indentured apprenticeship.

If there is a challenge at the school, if there is an issue for that young person that needs to be addressed, then it can be picked up early and dealt with. This ensures that the young person is supported fully. It encourages and enhances the opportunity for success—that is, for these young people to complete their trade. This particular model, led by industry partners, is a model where the students have a high chance of completing their education. This is about encouraging the young person to take up opportunities in not just their trade skills but also their capacity to develop business skills. These are the future business leaders of Western Sydney. These young students will reach a standard of excellence and will be sought after by business leaders across Western Sydney.

Some members opposite have talked about the number of students at the Western Sydney college. I am sure members opposite would agree that, considering apprenticeships have increased by 183 per cent in Greenway since 1996, the people of Western Sydney will embrace, and have embraced, the Australian technical college. This is demonstrated not just by the 20 young people that are currently enrolled but by the fact that already there are 130 young people on the waiting list for 2008. This is without any advertising or promotion. That is families, parents and young people saying that this is a choice in education that they want. The college is averaging 10 inquiries a day—again, without any promotion or advertising. The people of Western Sydney, young people and their parents, are voting with their feet.

Those students and families understand what this means for these young people. I am very proud of these 20 young men and of what they have achieved. I congratulate them on their hard work. They have had to knuckle down. They have just completed their first stint with an employer—100 per cent indentured employment. Every single one of them is linked to an employer and they have come back even stronger.

The members opposite talked about the reduction in students. I have had many conversations with the principal, Sandra Langford. I acknowledge that two of the students have moved on. It is important to acknowledge that it was them choosing to move forward. One student has chosen to move into the IT industry and pursue an education in IT; the second student had such a fantastic experience with their employer that they have chosen to pursue their apprenticeship full time. I think that is a wonderful outcome.

Some members opposite talked about the consortium partners. What is important here is that it takes time to plan, coordinate and structure the college to reach a standard of excellence. I do not think we should despise the days of small beginnings. These 20 students, the staff and the consortium partners have worked very hard to establish the foundation. And the foundation on which they are building is going to be so strong that it will provide a wonderful example for the 100 or so students that are going to be coming in next year. I also acknowledge that these students, the staff and the consortium partners are pioneers. They are committed, passionate and extremely hardworking.

The opposition has failed to acknowledge some of the challenges that the consortium has faced in being able to open the college this year. The New South Wales government was one of the last state governments in the nation to change legislation so that young people were able to engage in an apprenticeship and be employed while they were studying at school. In a press release in October last year I called on the state government to get a move on and take some action. But, again, it was not until the eleventh hour, which meant that at the end of last year the consortium and the education facility—particularly the Sydney Anglican Schools Corporation—had to come together very quickly to put everything in place so that these 20 students had an opportunity. I want to congratulate them for working so quickly to pull this together.

I also want to focus on the strength of the partnership. The industry leadership and the partnership worked extremely hard. As has been acknowledged by the Minister for Education, Science and Training, it would be helpful if the members for Chifley, Parramatta and Prospect could consider a formal apology to not just the students but also the staff. In fact, I have spoken to the principal today; they are working so hard and this is not what they need. They need encouragement; they do not need to be told what they have not achieved. They need to be encouraged. Indeed, I think what they have achieved so far is outstanding.

The consortium consists of Paul Naylor, who is the current chair; Sandra Langford, the principal; the Master Plumbers Association; the National Electrical and Communications Association; the Master Builders Association; the New South Wales Motor Traders Association; the Sydney Anglican Schools Corporation, which I have already acknowledged; Restaurant and Catering NSW; and Master Painters. There are five apprenticeship options for these young people. These individuals, industry groups and a number of others have worked tirelessly to achieve what has been achieved to date. There is a lot more work ahead of them.

We need to focus on not necessarily the political imperative but what is significant for the young people of Western Sydney. This is about a future for them. This is about a structured pathway. It is about providing them with an opportunity where there are facilities second to none, where there is the right kind of support and mentorship, where there is a link to an employer that is secure and where there are opportunities for young people to not just be seen as great tradespeople but also be trained and skilled up to lead the business world in Western Sydney. When I look at some of these young men, I think: ‘These are the future business leaders of Western Sydney.’

I look forward to not just supporting Australian technical colleges in my region, particularly in Western Sydney, but also seeing the fruit of the labour that has already been and will continue to be invested in this, and seeing these young men and women engaged in employment, engaged in industry and engaged as business leaders. I acknowledge the young students and their hard work. I commend this bill to the House.

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

It is interesting to speak on this education bill, the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2007, in what has been agreed will be a valedictory speech. In starting, I want to talk a little bit about this bill because it really exemplifies the government’s approach to a range of things. This is about adding a few extra technical colleges to the original 24 that the government proposed as an election promise. They tacked on another three or so. This bill gives us, I think, another four technical colleges, spread around Australia, as an attempt to say, ‘This is the way you fix the skills crisis in Australia.’ I do not think that is so. I think it is demonstrable that the government does not really understand the dimensions of the skills crisis Australia faces. It does not understand what needs to be done in order to fix that crisis, except for pulling in hundreds of thousands of people on 457 visas and displacing Australians and all of those young people—up to 300,000 of them—who could have had better, more regularised trade training and full apprenticeship training if the government had had the will. The reality is that this is posturing and filling gaps. It is not getting to the core of the problems.

This incremental approach, this ad hoc approach, should be entirely condemned because it does not address the fundamental problems. You can understand. This tells you a great deal about a government that have spent more than a decade—11 full years—posturing. In 1995-96, when they were running for election, they did not attack the federal government’s policies, the then Labor government’s policies; they only attacked local councils and state governments. Guess what? Nothing much has happened in the last 11 years to change their approach. In government they have been like an opposition. They have continued to campaign against councils or state governments when it suits them and have not addressed their fundamental responsibilities. Regarding the real key issues that should have been faced by this government, they have either walked away or offloaded them to the states and have kept politicking rather than trying to do something significant and real.

I support the opposition’s amendments with regard to this bill, which go to the government’s continued failure to ensure that Australians get the training they need for a skilled job and meet the skills needs of the economy; their failure to make the necessary investments in existing vocational education and training infrastructure to create opportunities for young Australians to access high-quality vocational education and training in all our secondary schools and in the TAFE system; and their creation of an expensive, inefficient and duplicate network of stand-alone Australian technical colleges, without cooperation or consultation with the states within the existing vocational education and training framework. All of these points are true and valid. All of them go to the core of a government intent on politicking rather than addressing real problems.

We have seen this as well in the area of literacy and numeracy. For 11 full years we have had a federal government that has campaigned against the states in relation to literacy and numeracy, has taken some small steps to address the fundamental problems, but has never really grappled with them. From Dr Kemp to now, the key, fundamental problem in Australian education—literacy and numeracy at the very start of schooling—has been so apparent over three decades. It is because of an ideological approach taken to teaching methods, against teaching reading and phonics. This government has not fronted up to that, except to undertake to get a report done in 2005, entitled Teaching reading. What has been done with that report 18 months on? Not much at all. It has been flick-passed to COAG. Out of all of the recommendations that have been given to the government, two tiny recommendations have been implemented, but the rest have been flick-passed. The attitude is: ‘We’ll leave that up to the state governments, and we can continue the blame game.’

I estimated when I came into this parliament 11 years ago that it would have cost in the order of $600 million to properly address the fundamental problems of literacy and numeracy in Australia. To really address the problem, you have to change teacher education across Australia. You have to go to the core of the problem, which is the manner in which people are taught to teach and the way in which phonics has been thrown out the window—and it has gone on for three decades. That has meant that we have gone from being a country which used to have one of the proudest education records possible and one of the strongest education systems in the world to being one with a system that is progressively weakening. Our capacity to compete with the world has been slowly whittled away, step by step, because that tremendous capacity that we had has been allowed to wither.

All you need at base when you start your education in Australia is an efficient and effective tool kit, a way to unlock learning and a way to unlock how to read, how to write and how to count. But for decades now that tool kit has not been properly given to Australian students. The fundamental method of learning now is to bump up against things, a bit like a pinball game. You shoot the pinball out and, as it bumps up against things, if you are lucky it might make a few strikes, some lights will go off and the student may be able—because they have been able to solve the problem for themselves—to learn something. I think that approach has been fundamentally wrong. We need to address it. We need to face up to it. We need to say that the mode of instruction in Australia for a long period of time now has been wrong.

We want to ensure that all Australian children have the best possible chance of learning, whatever the subject is, whatever the mode, whether it is in a technical college or a comprehensive high school. But unless you can read, write and count, you are really up against it. It is out of fashion to get young kids in primary school to do what they are tremendously good at: rote learning. That went out decades ago. It is not fashionable to do it. But you have a look at any small child and the way in which they take a DVD and watch it 4,000 times. They learn by repetition. They learn by playing. They learn by gaining experience of the world. Yet our education system has put that aside, and it is to the detriment of children right throughout their education.

I taught for just on 10 years. I was an English and history teacher. I am probably one of the most pedantic people in this parliament. I cannot get out of it; I have to confess to it. The fundamental reality is that, whatever level of government is dealing with this, not only do we have a skills crisis in Australia but we have an education crisis. That has run for a very long period of time. You need to break the ideological approach to the mode of instruction. Just recently there have been two major pieces in the paper on the issue of teaching mathematics and English. These have come from people who were involved in the government study. The person who ran the government study in 2005, Dr Ken Rowe, from the Australian Council for Educational Research, is one of them. They are disappointed that, 18 months on, so little has been done to implement the clear outline of what the government was told needed to happen to address this problem.

On this issue, this government has chosen not to follow President Bush. The only decent thing this bloke has done in eight years as the President of the United States of America is to follow his librarian wife’s advice. Laura said, ‘You need to mandate phonics.’ His decision to do that was based not just on her advice but on 500,000 evidence based studies throughout the world about how you effectively teach. They found that the key thing in teaching reading is associating sounds and letters. It is very simple but it has not been done properly in this country for 30 years. It has to be done.

The teachers in our system are victims of what has happened in that period of time. They are not as competent as they should be in not only reading and writing themselves but communicating that and teaching it. We need a big program to address that. The productivity of Australia as a whole is dramatically lessened not just in our classrooms but through every part of the Australian workforce. We are in a situation where we have hampered ourselves. If you look at any other country in the world, you will find that they are determined to ensure that their education system mirrors the best that is possible. In productivity terms, we have fallen back and back. If Australia is going to serve its people well and compete properly in the world, we need to advance that dramatically.

That is a hobbyhorse I have not run for the past 11 years because I have had a much broader scope in terms of what I have been able to do in this parliament. When I was elected 11 years ago, having taught for just on 10 years and then having run Paul Keating’s electorate office for 11¼ years, I was able to come into this parliament and speak with my own voice. I also had the immense privilege of being put in a position where I could travel from one end of the joint to the other, to see every Australian state and territory and see what the problems were in situ. It is only when you travel to see the problems in practice, as I did on the public works committee, where I started off; on the industry and resources committee, which I am deputy chair of now; on the defence committee; and on the regional and rural committee, as I did for six years as chair, that you get a real appreciation of what it is all about. There is a difference between that and being a staffer. When I was working for the Treasurer and Prime Minister that was a much tougher job than the one I have had for the last 11 years, let me tell you, because in government you are responsible. Working in the Treasurer’s and Prime Minister’s office, you are responsible for what a government that is active and real does. You have to front up.

But having the great opportunity to see problems directly dramatically expands your capacity as a member of parliament. I am immensely grateful to the people of Blaxland, who gave me not only the opportunity to follow Paul Keating in the seat of Blaxland but the opportunity and the support for the last 11¼ years or so to do this job to the best of my ability and to do it in an enlarged manner. For all of us, my colleagues here today and my wife and family, the reality is that parliamentary life is not only a great and high calling but a very tough one as well, as we know. It is one that is crucial and essential to the good and wellbeing of the country and to the future of the whole Commonwealth of Australia.

We have to play our part in working as hard as we can across a whole range of fields. I tried very deliberately to move away from my areas of expertise, gained either as a teacher or in working for Mr Keating, to go into areas that I did not have any experience in at all. They had been of interest, certainly, but I did not have practical working experience of them. That is the great advantage one has in this place: one is able to speak broadly on a whole range of issues and hopefully affect and advance not only the party’s cause but the cause of the people you represent and the cause of the country as a whole.

If you look at the first speech I gave—born out of a by-election campaign—and this speech, they are pretty much book ended. It is all about campaigning and it is about a contrast between us and them—between the Labor Party and the government. It is a contest of ideas; it is a contest of attitude and philosophy. In the Labor Party, we have always believed that our core mission and fundamental goal was to make life better, richer and fuller for ordinary working Australians. That sums it up; that is what it is all about. That is why 40 years ago I joined the Australian Labor Party, because that is as complete an idea of what we have been about as you need.

It is quite true that the conservatives have a much narrower vision. It is about getting into power, staying there and not doing all that much while you are there. It is about weighing off the problems to someone else, whether it is local governments or state governments. The Labor Party did grapple with the big issues and the major problems when we were last in government. Over the last 11 years I have had the privilege to serve with my colleagues, particularly the brave group of 49 in the 1996 parliament, those who hung in hard and tight. To have spent our time in opposition for more than a decade now is a very difficult thing.

Not having had the opportunity to be in government except as a staffer—and now I will not have the opportunity—I can understand how brutal and difficult it was for people in the 23 years before the Whitlam government came to power. They had such an extended period of time in opposition but still had to work at the job and continue to believe in constructing themselves in such a way that they could do their proper job of running the country and delivering for all of those people in Australia left out by coalition governments.

So it is very important for anyone who is leaving, I think, to understand that the job that we have done in the past 11 years has been enormously important, because in opposition it is not easy. It never will be. I trust and hope—being the pessimist that I always am; it saves time—that we have some chance of getting up at this election and that we will be able to bring to an end more than a decade’s worth of a closed Australia. The last decade has been without much vision at all except how you stay in power and how you use every device possible in order to do so. That kind of closed Australia is not the one that I want to live in; it is not the one the members of the Labor Party want to live in. We want a broader, stronger, more open society; we want a government that actually confronts problems and fixes them to the benefit of everyone in Australia.

I took so much time on the educational aspects that I no longer have much time left, but I did give a speech on 27 May in which I covered a whole range of areas. In the short period of time I have to give thanks for an 11-year period in which I have been immensely proud to have served the Labor Party, the first vote of thanks goes to Shirley Hatton. She has done it hard, as all spouses do, and has done it in adverse circumstances. She has had to put up with me as part of the Labor team in opposition, carting ourselves from one end of the country to the other, working on delegations and doing all of the things that are available to a federal member of parliament. It is critical that you have support, and I simply could not have done it as well without Shirley, without her love, her affection and the enormous amount of work she did to keep me there. She gets the bonus that we will be out of the joint.

My family will get some bonus as well—maybe it will be a negative; I am not sure. I want to thank my mother, my brothers, the rest of my family and everyone who has worked in my office—in particular, Veronica, my electorate secretary, who is the best electorate secretary in Australia. She spent 13 years running Neville Wran’s office and has been with Paul and me since 1987. She has been a tremendous backup for me, as have been all of the loyal members of the Australian Labor Party in Blaxland, who elected me in the first place with an overwhelming majority. They put their trust in me to be their voice, the tongue in this federal parliament, and to do the best I could to advance their cause and the cause of ordinary Australian people.

I have cherished the fact that I was put in a position to do it. I would like to do it for a longer period of time, but that is not the case. Be warned: I am not really going away. I have worked out a way to keep campaigning and to keep on with what I am really interested in, very much so, apart from the other panoply of things that there are to do. But I am interested in the political process itself and, as I have pointed out in my previous speech, the tremendous work that the committees do in this parliament and the way in which we are able to do it on a cross-party basis. You can do things as a parliamentarian that you can immensely proud of.

Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins, having been on the speakers panel as well, I want to thank you, particularly for your indulgence in letting me go 20 seconds over. I want to thank all of my colleagues for their great friendship and support. I have enjoyed this immensely; it was something that I always wanted to do. Thank you to all of those people, both Labor and in the coalition, who have extended friendship, help and assistance over those years. I thank the House for its indulgence.

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! This occupant of the chair, without passing judgement on any comments the member made about the question before the chair, congratulates the member for Blaxland and wishes him well in his future endeavours.

Rod Sawford (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the beginning of February 1988, I was the school principal of one of the most disadvantaged schools in South Australia. The school was located in the federal electorate of Port Adelaide, not far from where I lived as a youngster and where I still live today. To the surprise of many, in 1984 I had left a previous school which I had built up to be one of the best in Australia. But Taperoo meant something. It was where I lived and began my teaching career. When I left it in 1968, I said that I would come back as a principal. I did, and I kept my word. Other than education and sport, federal politics was also a passion. I remember, at the age of 43, my father saying to me, ‘If you don’t change your career by the age of 45, you never will.’

Further promotion in the education department had no appeal for me. The administrators who had led South Australia to international leadership in education were retiring, and they were being replaced by a very unimpressive lot of bureaucrats. At that time I was president of the metropolitan principals’ association in South Australia. It was an active group. I had upset more than a few people with public stances on openness and transparency, early intervention, literacy and numeracy, boys’ education, technical education, teacher education, the dumbing down of mathematics and science, overcrowded curriculum, the lack of competition and physical activity, political correctness and, in particular, the different resourcing of all sectors of education based on tradition and privilege rather than educational rationale.

When I arrived in this place, those areas had been ignored. The House of Representatives education committee changed all that by at least putting them front and centre. But, as the member of Blaxland said, we have not gone too far in 11 years. The repeated threats by sections of the education bureaucracy, when I was a principal, that they would not renew my tenure as a class A principal sooled me on to the possibility of another career. With my wife, Aldona, who is in the chamber tonight, my cousin Ralph and his wife, Oli, the possibility of going into the hotel business was explored. At the time, I was president of the local branch of the ALP and was a candidate in the 1985 state election. Labor had lost the seat of Semaphore in a fit of madness in 1979 to an Independent, and he was entrenched. Although I achieved a swing of 15 per cent, the likelihood of winning the seat in 1989 was still pretty minimal.

The younger generation of leaders in my area was quite impressive. One was Kevin Foley, the current Deputy Premier of South Australia. Another was Joe Cappella, the President of my FEC. I informed them, after standing at the 1989 state election, that I was going to go into a new career, and I prepared them to take over my party and community responsibilities. I never thought there would be an opportunity for me at a federal level. I was a close friend and confidante of Mick Young, the then Leader of the House, Special Minister of State and federal member for Port Adelaide. Among other positions, I was his campaign director. I initiated, developed and administered his scholarship fund, now known as the Mick Young Scholarship Trust. On a personal level, I enjoyed his company professionally, politically and socially.

How unprepared I was when Michael Wright, now a minister in the Rann government, phoned me in early February 1988 to tell me that Mick was going to resign. I was, like most people, shocked. I had suspected that Mick’s health was below par, but that possible knowledge did not prepare me for his phone call inviting my family and me to his house for dinner on the Thursday of that week. To cut a long and personal story short: he said, quite bluntly, ‘It’s you, mate.’ On the morning of 19 February 1988 I won the preselection by 16 votes to nine. Shortly after, I resigned as principal of Taperoo Primary School and began a very public and national campaign as the Labor candidate for Port Adelaide. At the time, the federal Labor government was going pretty rough. In South Australia we had already lost the seat of Adelaide, and predictions were being made that we were going to lose Port Adelaide. I never believed that, but, mind you, the government and Mick himself found ways to unintentionally undermine the campaign.

The national exposure at the time was particularly daunting, but our campaign team, led by Michael Wright and Don Mackay, overcame all the obstacles, and Labor prevailed. In 1990 we returned to a more normal margin and have kept that ever since. I actually predicted the swing against the government. My grandfather, Wattie, had taught me a bit about federal elections when, in 1961, he took £20—a week’s wages—from my dad by saying that Menzies would win by one seat. However, his win was not a prediction; it was based on comparative economic data and has proved to be correct in every Australian federal election since 1964. Since I have been in the federal parliament, I have refined that raw formula to add up what the margin in seats will be by applying a mathematical matrix. Of course, many of my colleagues here in Canberra are disbelieving of, contemptuous of and horrified at my ability to call anything, but I can tell you that I called George Bush by 100,000 votes in 2000, and I called President Chen in Taiwan by 27,000 votes in 2004, and I got them both right.

In 1993, I got a spectacular result and had immense fun. Labor won against the predictions of the polls. Of the Canberra press gallery—that mob who sit up above us—49 out of 51 got it wrong, and the coalition party room contributed greatly to the Sawford family’s financial assets. Alexander Downer took maybe up to six months to pay his $200, but he paid. Hell, it was good! At the beginning of that 1993 campaign I had a call from Paul Keating. I am sure he was surprised at my seemingly over-the-top confidence that we would win and that we would pick up a couple of seats as well. I told him that that afternoon I was going to the Seaton Baptist Church craft workshop. About 500 people used to go there.

Paul gave me a phone number—I think he was in Queensland—and told me to ring him the next day. I have subsequently called this story the Roslyn Pumpa principle. Roslyn Rennie had grown up in the same street as me, but the family moved and I lost contact. I met her, now Roslyn Pumpa, at the craft workshop. She told me in no uncertain terms that she opposed the GST. In fact, the finger was in the chest, the old Port Adelaide way, and she was saying: ‘Wake up in the morning, Rod, wash the teeth, pay the GST. Have breakfast, pay the GST. Get dressed, pay your GST. Go to work, pay your GST.’ That anecdote became, in my opinion, the basis of the communicative genius of Paul Keating when he told that campaign-breaker of a story in a much more dramatic form at the Toyota factory in Melbourne later that week.

I came into this parliament as a member of the Centre Left faction from South Australia. Although a close friend of Mick Young, I was not an original member of that group or any other. However, there is no doubt that, without their support, I would not be standing here today. Senator Michael Beahan was the federal convenor of the group, and I admired his intrinsic decency. I became a fledgling negotiator for the group and had an early opportunity to meet with both the factional leaders and Prime Minister Bob Hawke. However, I did not cover myself in glory. In fact, quite the opposite. After dinner in his dining room—it was that awful Atkins diet—we withdrew to his office. With his feet up on the desk and a big cigar in his mouth, he snarled in his imitable way, ‘Ah, boys, what’s going on?’ For me, at least, there seemed to be a bit of a lengthy and uncomfortable silence, so I fronted up with this doozy of a comment: ‘Bob, when you conceptualised planning for the 1983 federal election, how did you come up with that trinity of recovery, reconciliation and reconstruction?’ He gave me a very severe look, as he can. I thought that he had not heard me, so I stupidly repeated the statement. On either side of me were Senator Barney Cooney and Senator Bruce Childs. Cooney kicked me in the ankle and Childs saved me further embarrassment by changing the subject. After the meeting, Cooney took me aside and said quite emphatically, ‘You bloody dope! That was Hayden, not Hawke.’ It was a most unimpressive beginning indeed!

The 1993 federal election had a big impact on me in more ways than one. My prediction was correct; I won some money and had some fun. A few days after that election I found myself in the intensive care cardiac unit at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, hooked up to more machines than you see at the Adelaide Grand Prix. I had the numbers to be a minister in the Keating government but was told by specialists that I could be an active backbencher or a dead minister. Despite numerous inquiries by the media and others, the staff at the QEH and the patients and families of those in the intensive care unit did not give me away. Mind you, I was a bloody slow learner. I was again in that intensive care cardiac unit a few days after the 1996 election, hooked up to those machines. However, it scared me that time. I gave up smoking and I tried to change my then hopeless lifestyle. I did tell one person, though—Leo McLeay. He never betrayed that confidence and, although an unlikely one, that friendship continues today.

When you have been in this place a long time you soon realise that the average stay is seven years and that any time over that is a bonus. I miss many people who have been and gone: Ross Free, David Beddall, Ted Grace, Kay Denman and Michael Duffy. I could go on for a long time. However, I miss two people in particular who are no longer alive. I refer of course to Senator Peter Cook and the former member for Canning, Jane Gerick. This is not generally a chamber of thinking people. This is not a chamber where you hear many insightful observations. In the press gallery, to the right and above, even fewer are usually found—more is the pity.

Cookie and I looked alike and our identities were often confused. A couple of times overseas I was mistakenly identified as Gareth Evans. One funny incident occurred in Singapore in 1994 when our delegation missed the connecting flight to Australia and went to a late night bar, as you do. Next to us were two Kiwi businessmen who were a bit under the weather. One loudly exclaimed, pointing at me, ‘There’s that bastard Gareth Evans.’ I smiled and waved and raised my glass. The other businessman gave me the one-finger salute. I told Gareth upon my return. He did not see the funny side. Cookie thought it was hilarious.

The late Western Australians Peter Cook and Jane Gerick were different. Cook was a thinker and Gerick was an astute observer. I shared lodgings with Cookie for 10 years. We were both sons of Port Adelaide wharfies and shared a love of Port characters and Port humour—bad jokes. Jane Gerick, at great risk to herself, came walking daily with Leo McLeay, Bob Sercombe, Harry Quick and me. Her astute and acerbic comments were always entertaining. She survived that but not her illness, unfortunately.

Human activity and endeavour ought to reconcile the trinity of ideas, process and task or beliefs, relationships and outcomes. That is why the 1983 Labor election campaign was so successful. With double-digit inflation, interest rates and unemployment, the coalition was doomed. The themed campaign of ‘recovery’, the idea or purpose; ‘reconciliation’, the means or process; and ‘reconstruction’, the task or outcomes, captured the mood of the Australian people and was duly rewarded with the most successful Labor government ever.

Of course, 1996 proved to be the exact opposite. It should not have been. The advice given and taken was flawed and the inevitable tragic loss of seats occurred. I will never forget the ignored warnings and the responses of people who should have known better. There is a reason why the Canberra press gallery got their election predictions so wrong in 1993. As I said earlier, 49 out of 51 went for Hewson and the coalition. Only Laura Tingle and Amanda Buckley got it right, and I am sure that they just wanted to be different. On the Friday before the election, I had lunch with Neal Blewett and Chris Schacht. I was up-beat and on top of the world; they were downcast and gloomy. God, they were poor company! The polls had the coalition 10 points in front. The journalists exhibited their weaknesses: their lack of thinking and analytical skills. They will hate me telling you this, but the media play little or no role in determining winners at the federal level. It all neutralises itself. It is very different at the state level—they are very powerful and they do change things.

I was privileged to be a whip for 10 years in both government and opposition. I am proud that during that time very little was leaked to the media. However, I saw and heard things that horrified me and diminished my belief in a number of people here: lying, opportunism, misrepresentation, jumping to conclusions, egos and rumour-mongering. Some of the worst on both sides were people who used religious belief as a political weapon. These people, though they refuse to admit it, would support a theocracy in Australia. Fortunately, they are outnumbered by people here on both sides who have a greater amount of intrinsic goodness.

It is a great pity that over the last 30 years few Australians have been exposed to an effective education which includes philosophy, ethics, ideas, analysis, pure mathematics and science. Education without those things is a recipe for mediocrity, for victim mentality, for celebrity and image over substance and ideas, for spin and untruths rather than integrity, for diversion and division rather than action, for problems rather than solutions, for description rather than exposition and for synthesis rather than analysis. We have all upgraded our technology; we should upgrade our thinking and observation skills. We have not done so.

In conclusion, I thank my family, friends and staff. Aldona, my wife of 39 years, deserves a medal. She will have to be satisfied with a new kitchen and a holiday, I think. My wonderful children are Luke and Daina. Their partners are Linda and Jason, and my beautiful grandchildren are Alex, Olivia and Joshua. They have been a constant joy to me. Families take a few hits when you are a member of parliament. Mine has been no exception. However, their resilience, dogged positive attitude, patience, loyalty and love are greatly appreciated.

I have lost a few acquaintances over my years in politics—as you do. However, I am grateful that the close friends that I began this journey with—Adam, Ira, Robert, Pam, Pat, Joe, Claude, Jean, Bill, Melva, Margaret, Arthur and Robert—are still with me. Thank you. I have also been blessed with outstanding staff. Pauline Mannix, up there in the gallery, served 39 years with three federal MPs: Fred Birrell, Mick Young and me. Luisa Halacas, Gary Orr, Patrick Hansen and Shaisee Johnston have served me well also.

I have not formally studied philosophy but I have a little background in pure mathematics. They are disciplines I would recommend to any prospective parliamentarian or journalist or political author or failed politician. The paradox of Zeno always fascinated me as a youngster. This, of course, is the classical Greek story of Achilles and the Tortoise. It fooled the ancient Greeks and it still fools people today. Achilles can run 10 times as fast as the tortoise. He gives the shelled creature 100 metres start. After Achilles has run the 100 metres, the tortoise is still 10 metres ahead. Achilles runs the next 10 metres and the tortoise is one metre ahead, and so on ad infinitum. Achilles never catches the tortoise. As with many things, it could never be explained by the ancient Greeks. Instead they called it a paradox, Zeno’s paradox, and waited for later generations of mathematicians to explain the theory of infinite series converging on a limiting value. It is a bit like some people’s explanation of faith.

As I said earlier, this House would be more dynamic, interesting and valuable if it included more thinkers and observers. However, too much in politics is fixated with the cult of image and celebrity, anti-intellectualism, the spread of false beliefs and the avoidance of truths and absolutes. Democracy as we know it allows itself to be threatened far too easily. And it is being challenged. At another level, the current inability of governments to deal with meeting the demand for the supply of basic things—water, power, communication—whilst ignoring any reconciliation with population growth beggars belief.

The politicisation of the federal Public Service, the increasing level of corruption in the state public service and the imbalance between the public and private good diminish this nation. So, too, does the production of two-tiered education and health services. Getting into bed with the rich, the powerful, the famous and the influential whilst abandoning the vulnerable and the dependent will not produce a civilised, relaxed and calm society in which children and the aged are protected and the potential of all individuals is realised. Kevin Rudd has said we need an education revolution. We do. But the revolution needs to cover all aspects of political life, not just education.

Being the federal member of an area in which my family has lived for almost 170 years and representing people I generally love and respect has been an undoubted privilege. On the day of my preselection win I was interviewed by a journalist for the now defunct Adelaide News, Craig Bildstien, in Mick Young’s office. Craig now works for the Advertiser. He asked me what I hoped to achieve. I replied—and I do not know where I got this from—‘I have no high-flying ideas but my aim will be to look after the people of Port Adelaide.’ I trust that I have kept my word.

To the Clerks, in particular Ian Harris and Bernard Wright, and all the parliamentary staff who work in this place—in Hansard, the Parliamentary Library, Transport, Catering and so on—I salute all of you for the courtesy and professional services I have always, without exception, received from all of you.

The forthcoming election will be fascinating, and the closest since 1961. I of course hope to see a Rudd-Gillard government, but, whatever the result, all the very best to the select but imperfect few who occupy the seats in this most important House. The challenges of the future are very difficult. I wish you all the skills—in thinking, observation and technology—in your beings to do the very best by the Australian people. They deserve no less.

To what remains of the tiny band of Independents in the Labor Party, which has incidentally decided every leadership ballot whilst I have been here, I have a simple message: when Labor is again successful at the federal level, the Independents or centre or third force—whatever name you want to give them—will be there again. Hopefully, it will be sooner rather than later. Thank you all for your loyalty and trust in my convenorship for the past 11 years.

Only five people have been here longer than me on this side of the House. One is Kim Beazley. I have not agreed with Kim on a lot of things; however, we did share a valued friendship with Mick Young and a love of Labor. I wish you and Susie all the best for the future. To Warren Snowdon: thank you for allowing me to have the first maiden speech in the new House. Your manoeuvring on that night was wonderful. I appreciated it and I appreciate the friendship since. To Duncan Kerr: I have enjoyed your enigmatic company both here and overseas, and the exchange of tips at particular races at a particular time will always be well remembered. To Harry Jenkins: I hope you become the Speaker, Harry. Those in the Left should do constructive things. I am only joking. To Roger Price, the other Mr Grumpy on our side: remember the tortoise and Achilles story, Roger. Remember the kalamata olives. I am now the tortoise; you are now Achilles. My peaches and my tomatoes will be sweeter, bigger and more colourful than yours! There is one more. Arch Bevis is on a plane on his way to Brisbane, but I have to make a confession and an apology in this House. I nearly killed Arch Bevis on our first trip overseas together. We were very immature, had never been overseas, and I nearly killed him. How did I do that? Well, how could I ever know that a Queenslander could not drink overproof rum?

See yous all! Good luck. It has been nice to know you.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The chair has been taking a very lenient attitude during the speech of the honourable member for Port Adelaide as it was in the nature of a valedictory.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Minister for Vocational and Further Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take this opportunity to acknowledge the parliamentary career of the member for Port Adelaide. I rise today to speak on the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2007. It is a very important bill and I acknowledge the contribution of various members on both sides to this debate. The additional funding provided under this bill will ensure that a further three Australian technical colleges can be established in the regions of greater Penrith, north-eastern Perth and southern Brisbane, adding to the existing 25 colleges that have already been announced by the government. The benefit of these colleges to the regions in which they will be established cannot be overstated. They are all areas of skills need, with high youth populations and a strong industry presence. Once fully operational, up to 350 students will graduate from each college every year, and by 2009 we will see some 8,000 to 10,000 students in residence.

These young people will not only achieve their year 12 certificate but will also be up to one-third of their way through an apprenticeship in a trade that is vital to the future of their part of Australia. They will be highly trained, having had the exposure to the latest machinery and equipment—the same state-of-the-art equipment used by industry. They will be highly motivated, having had a high level of tailored support and mentoring that would not be available to them at other schools with a strong academic focus. They will be work-ready, having worked in an industry area for up to two years and having received a specialised education that incorporates enterprise education, small business skills and employability skills.

The member for Prospect last week in this House called these colleges a national disgrace. This simply continued Labor’s 20-year practice of talking down the trades—of denigrating those who wish to pursue a technical career. The campaign being waged by the Labor Party, both state and federal, is the national disgrace. They are simply playing politics with the lives of young Australians. The Labor Party knows that we have struck a chord with the community. We have identified a burning need—something that parents all over this country see an urgent need to address. Labor will do and say anything to denigrate this initiative. In the process, they are denigrating and putting down the young people and their parents who strive to see those wonderful technical talents developed at a secondary level through these colleges.

We also had a disingenuous contribution from the member for Perth, the shadow spokesman for education. Among many other things, the member for Perth claimed that there had been cutbacks to the TAFE sector since 1997. The Howard government has provided record funding of well over $12 billion to the states and territories for TAFE and vocational education since 1996—$12 billion.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How many graduates are you going to have?

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Perth!

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How many graduates are you going to have?

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

The member for Perth will desist!

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Minister for Vocational and Further Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In 1995-96 our Labor predecessors allocated $770 million to TAFE. A continuation of that level of funding would have meant an allocation of some $8 billion over the last 11 years, yet the Australian government has contributed over $12 billion to the funding of TAFE. The member for Perth claimed that only two colleges had met their enrolment target.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How many?

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

The member for Perth will listen!

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How many graduates?

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Minister for Vocational and Further Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course, this is not true. In fact, two of the colleges had to increase their intake to meet the local demand. A further two had more enrolments than originally projected, and there are many others that have a difference of five or less between their enrolment and their target. The fact is that, as at 31 March, the timing of the numbers that are being quoted by the member for Perth and others, a mere five weeks after these colleges had opened—a revolution in secondary education brought about in record time; a mere five weeks—we had over 90 per cent of our target for the full year in those colleges. We did not take into account—

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How many graduates?

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Minister for Vocational and Further Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will get to your point in a minute. Be patient.

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

The member for Perth will desist!

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Minister for Vocational and Further Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Perth did not take into account midyear enrolments or the opening of the Pilbara college, which took place in July. The member for Greenway today recounted how, on a daily basis, there are 10 new inquiries for the technical college in Western Sydney. Despite having started in the face of abuse and demonisation by those opposite, they are getting 10 inquiries a day for next year about enrolments in this college. Parents of primary school students are approaching Australian technical colleges around the country seeking to enrol their primary age students in years 11 and 12. And the opposition sit there and say that there is no demand for these colleges! Students are travelling three and four hours. We had one student from Launceston who went to Perth South, in the city of the member for Perth, to attend that Australian technical college. We are seeing this level of demand around the country. Those opposite are playing at semantics and creating a totally false impression for crass political purposes. We are very much on track with the creation of these colleges.

The member for Perth claimed that only 21 of the colleges are open. Again, that is disingenuous—seeking to create a false impression, a false implication. The Howard government is proud of the fact that we have met our policy promise to open 24 colleges between 2006 and 2008. Twenty-one colleges are already operating and at this stage a further four will be opened next year, making a total of 25. The Audit Office noted that it usually takes three or four years for a new school to be established by a state government, yet 20 of the new colleges were open for business within six to 18 months. I congratulate the local communities and my department for the inspired and extraordinary work and effort that has gone into the creation of these colleges.

The member for Perth then went on to claim that there has not been one graduate. He is parroting on again in the House this evening that this is a shallow, superficial, misleading proposition.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How many graduates?

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Minister for Vocational and Further Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He knows only too well that these colleges have only been open for six months and that they have been created in record time. What a stupid statement it is to make that there have been no graduates when they have only been open for six months—students are there for years 11 and 12.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How many graduates?

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

The member for Perth has had a good go. He will desist!

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Minister for Vocational and Further Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have had your turn. You have made all your disingenuous statements. Listen to some answers for a change.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tell us how many you have.

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

If the member for Perth does not desist, he might find himself out of the chamber!

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Minister for Vocational and Further Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Perth also claimed that there is an average cost per student of $175,000. That is a nonsense and a total misrepresentation of the facts. When it comes to costs per student, Labor’s inability to understand money and the economy are on full display for all to see. Your naivety on this count is breathtaking. Costs per student cannot be worked out by dividing all costs over the forward estimates, including the capital cost, into the number of students for one solitary year. Capital, as most people know, is allocated over many years and also subject to depreciation. The capital that the Howard government has invested in will be used for many decades to come, and the money that has been set aside for operating costs is in many cases for three calendar years. The capital cost for these colleges is at or below that of comparably sized schools being built by state governments, at around $10 million on average. When it comes to recurrent costs, I have been advised by the colleges that annual recurrent costs will be in the order of $12,000 to $13,000, consistent with the declared costs by the states for other secondary schools in this country.

The member for Perth claimed that this is the only initiative of the government to address the skills shortage. Again, that is patently absurd—and, again, he knows it. The Howard government has provided record funding of well over $12 billion to the states and territories for TAFE and vocational education. In addition to that $12 billion, we have provided a further $12 billion on other initiatives to employers and to young people to undertake vocational and technical training—a total of over $24 billion. The year that we took office, the government, our predecessor, spent around $1 billion. In the subsequent 10 years, we have spent $24 billion, a massive increase—a 99 per cent increase in real terms—on spending in vocational and technical education. As a consequence we have seen, over the last four years, 544,000 people complete apprenticeships. This compares with 30,900 in 1996—30,900 to 544,000.

There is much happening, much being achieved, and the technical colleges are on top of this. They are designed not only to invest in the future and encourage further young people to develop their technical and creative talents at an early age, as well as getting their literacy and numeracy skills developed, but also to raise the status of the trades, something that has been in great peril since the Labor Party embarked on this crusade to elevate academic education by denigrating those young people with wonderful technical and creative talents.

The member for Perth is also confused when he says that the colleges are duplicative. He also criticises them for working with TAFEs. The fact is that from the outset the model has been one of local consortia. It is the great strength of the model. No two technical colleges around the country are the same. Back in November 2004, we issued the expression of interest document. The expression of interest document provided to the public said:

Each Australian technical college will be based on regional industry needs, local infrastructure and current and future economic circumstances. Tenders will be sought from consortia of existing educational institutions, including schools, TAFEs and universities, together with local and national industry. Colleges may be based on new or shared campuses of existing organisations or totally new institutions. Organisations can be expected to include local businesses; industry representatives; schools, government or non-government; TAFEs and other registered training organisations; and universities. The organisation of these consortia will largely be the responsibility of interested individuals and organisations with a commitment to addressing regional skills shortages and local knowledge and links to achieve this in the most effective possible way.

As I have said from the outset, the model was intended to include TAFEs, state and non-government schools, and local organisations to give the most effective outcome, yet we have been criticised for including TAFEs. We have been accused of duplicating when in fact we have gone out of our way to ensure that the resources and infrastructure that exist locally are used to maximum effect for these colleges.

Let me say again, for the member for Perth, that these colleges are not a duplicate of TAFE. TAFE is for postsecondary students. These colleges are akin to the dedicated technical schools that were closed all around this country 20 or 30 years ago. They allow students to complete year 12, which is not a feature of TAFE; to start an apprenticeship, sometimes with the involvement—encouraged by the federal government—of TAFE; and to gain some real-world experience.

The member for Perth also said that the technical colleges have no relationship with state and territory based secondary school systems. What a nonsense—again, a disingenuous statement. Each and every one of these schools is registered by the state and territory, just like the 900 other independent secondary schools in Australia—another example of deliberate misrepresentation. The member for Perth also wants to criticise the government for TAFE—

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

I call the member for Perth, on a point of order.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He can rant on about misleading all he likes. He can’t say—

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

You are addressing a standing order?

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order: he cannot say ‘deliberate’ misleading of the House. I ask that he withdraw that. He used the word ‘deliberate’.

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

If the member did make an allegation of deliberately misleading the House then I would ask him to withdraw that.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Minister for Vocational and Further Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw the word ‘deliberate’, Madam Deputy Speaker.

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

Thank you.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Minister for Vocational and Further Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Perth also wants to criticise the Howard government for TAFE infrastructure. Primary responsibility for TAFE, of course, lies with the states and territories, yet, even taking that into account, the Howard government has invested over $4 billion into VET infrastructure, compared to the $2.5 billion from the states, since 1996.

Then the member for Perth talked about Labor’s plans for technical training in Australia, to create so-called trade-training centres in every secondary school across Australia. He talked about the $2.5 billion to be spent in lots of $500,000, $1 million or $1.5 million in every one of Australia’s 2,650 high schools. Five hundred thousand dollars per school will barely touch the sides.

I opened the renovation of a toilet block at a local primary school two weeks ago which cost over $200,000. How can Labor suggest that $500,000 spent at a secondary school is going to, in some way, create a trade centre when the cost of a lathe or an oven is around $500,000? How will the purchase of a lathe or an oven stuck in a classroom down the back of a secondary school lead to a resolution of the skills shortage? We have heard nothing of that. We have just heard this tricky politics designed to give the impression of something significant—trade centres in every school around the country—when it will barely touch the sides.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Stephen Smith interjecting

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

The member for Perth will desist interjecting.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Minister for Vocational and Further Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we have not heard is the detail. Which schools are going to get the $500,000, $1 million or $1.5 million? Which schools will have to wait until 2018 for their piece of the pie? Who decides which schools get what? What are the criteria? Are we going to see Latham’s hit list again by stealth? Will schools miss out because they are private schools or because they raise money through fundraising? Where will all the trained teachers for these schools go? On average there would be about 70 teachers per school. Surely, seven or eight teachers would be required for a trade centre of any consequence. That is about 20,000 new teachers with technical and university teaching qualifications. Where are the 20,000 teachers going to come from? Where is the detail? What school funding will cover more than one trade? Are the schools going to cover different trades so that students have to pick and choose? None of this has been thought through. What we have is typical Labor: they tell us what they are going to do but not how they are going to do it. This has not been thought through. This is policy on the run. This is tricky policy designed to give the impression of doing something significant. It allows them to run around the country and make little announcements implying that they are going to create a trade centre in each school for $500,000. What a total joke that is.

These colleges are going gang busters. They are something we are very proud of. We have nearly 2,000 students enrolled around the country in the first six months of the operation of these colleges. We have enormous demand—for example, in Bendigo we cannot keep up with the demand from local businesses. In the last few weeks hundreds of parents and prospective students have turned up to information nights at colleges all around the country. These are a wonderful investment in the future. This is a visionary initiative of the Howard government. We must reach a situation where a high-quality technical education is as valued as a university degree. One of the biggest mistakes we made as a community 20 or 30 years ago was to close the dedicated technical schools around Australia.

The states have failed to meet this critical need because the Australian Education Union will not allow it. They are philosophically and fundamentally opposed to specialisation in schools, and they are tweaking your tail. The unions are spending $30 million on trying to get you back into office and you are doing their bidding. You are stopping any specialisation that might take place in schools—in this instance, technical education. In the meantime tens of thousands of young people born with strong technical and creative talents are condemned to be treated as second-class students in largely academic schools. You know it, and you are doing nothing other than talking down this great initiative. They need an environment where what these young people are good at at secondary school level is celebrated. We need to build self-esteem, self-belief and motivation. They need to feel good about themselves. At the year 11 and 12 level, we need not only the literacy and numeracy skills but also for these young people to feel the self-esteem and the self-belief that comes from these technical colleges. These three additional technical colleges in greater Penrith, north-eastern Perth and southern Brisbane will make an important contribution to the lives of young Australians and to our ongoing skills needs. Hopefully the state governments will follow suit, and hopefully in time those opposite will see the benefit and the great value of providing specialised technical training at a secondary school level. I suspect that the politics behind this initiative will disappear after the next election. I commend the bill to the House.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) 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 Perth has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Question put.