Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators—and I use that term very loosely, at some stages—get on their high horses and bang on about us being union lackeys and union hacks and kowtowing to our union bosses. Well—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, to those on the other side of the chamber—there’s your mob giving you up. The game is up. They have exposed you for what you are—charlatans. It is not full-time employment.

Full-time employment? Tell that to the 9,400 part-time workers who would probably love a full-time job, not only to enjoy the rewards that come with full-time employment but to have the ability to walk into a bank and get a loan for a home. And no-one can tell me about the difficulty in getting a home loan, especially coming from Western Australia where prices are going through the roof.

I would also like to confirm a report in the West Australian. The previous speaker, Senator Ian Macdonald, is very aware of the West Australian. I think it is probably one of his favourite publications because every time I pick up the West Australian and there is a bad news story, Senator Macdonald gets a free run on the inside cover. But then, when I come to think about it, they are normally bagging him.

Anyway, there was an article here, in the West Australian, on Tuesday, 27 February, on page 14, by a Mr Shane Wright, the economics editor. What Mr Wright says there, very clearly, is that more than half a million people want to work more hours.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics found there were 544,600 people who could be described as under-employed—

mostly part-time workers who want more hours. Now, we know that. But Mr Wright goes on to say:

The under-employment level peaked at 5.7 per cent in September 2002 and despite the strong jobs market it has now only fallen to 5 per cent.

Coupled with those officially out of work, it means close to 10 per cent—

no less than 10 per cent—

of the total workforce are either jobless or under-employed.

We do not hear that coming out of the minister’s statements, do we? No, that is really kept quiet.

Mr Wright goes on:

Of the part-time workers looking for more hours, more than 213,000 wanted between 10 and 19 extra hours a week, while 34,000 said they wanted more than 30 hours.

Another interesting statistic here from Mr Wright is this:

Women account for about 61 per cent of under-employed part-time workers. About 53 per cent of these women actively sought out extra hours within the four weeks they were surveyed by the ABS.

But, no doubt, thanks to the new industrial relations regime imposed by this government, it is a case of: ‘Sorry, folks; too bad. You want full-time work or more hours? Thanks to this government, we as employers don’t have to give that to you.’

So much for Work Choices! So much for greater flexibility! It is a case of employers getting all the choices and the employees not getting the work they want and need. You on the other side have got the numbers in the chamber—why don’t we change the bill from ‘Work Choices’ to ‘Bosses’ Choices’? That would probably be a bit closer—no, I will rephrase that: it would be a hell of a lot closer to the mark.

And is this what Western Australian workers want? For the vast majority, I would say: no, they do not want part-time work. They want training and they want skills to take advantage of the incredible demand for trained and skilled workers.

Will they get that training and those skills from the Australian technical colleges? Once again, I say no. This cobbled-together Australian technical colleges system—as wasteful and as much of a duplication as it is—cannot meet the demand for training and skilling, not from the employers crying out for skilled workers and not from the workers themselves.

Labor will support this bill because any contribution to helping fix the skills crisis is better than none. But surely there must be a better way. The Australian Industry Group, I also note—certainly friends of the government—estimated that it would require 270,000 more trained workers to fill the current skills shortage. I will reiterate that number: 270,000. And skilled vacancies are rising, according to the January skilled vacancies index.

Sadly, the Howard government has not helped. Last year the AiG—once again, good friends of the government; good supporters of the government, unashamedly; they do not hide that fact—reported that real expenditure per hour for vocational education and training had gone down in recent years. Not up—down. Funding today is lower, in real terms, than it was in Labor’s last year in office—some 11 years ago—and it has gone down. That is according to figures from the National Centre for Vocational Education Research.

The anecdotal evidence about enrolments at these ATCs does not show much promise either. From what I am told, enrolments at the ATCs in the Perth area are nowhere near what were promised. This is anecdotal evidence only, but in a boom town like Perth, with industry screaming for skilled workers, you would have thought there would be an equally screaming demand for places at the Australian technical colleges. You would have also thought that there would be a continuing stream of full-time skilled jobs being filled. But no—Mr Nicolou has given it up; he has let the cat out of the bag—there are 9,400 part-time jobs just in January. Some solution from the Howard government to the skills crisis! Such is this government’s track record over 11 long years on this issue of education—in particular, technical and vocational education, because that is the subject at hand—that I fear the worst. I genuinely wish that this government might do something positive in this area, and hence our side’s grudging support for this bill. But, as I say, I do fear the worst.

I know I have been pulled up in this chamber before by some sensitive souls over my chosen language—I think I have turned to the language of Labor, of which I am very proud—and I fear I may upset the sensitive ones once again. Unfortunately, after the performance I have seen from the previous speaker, it has encouraged me—as hard as I am trying not to, but I am going to have to!—to use the ‘f’ word. Unfortunately the ‘f’ word comes to mind! I cannot forgive myself, but it is ‘failure’—that is what it is; it is ‘failure’. Every time I look at that sorry side over there, all I can see is failure—and more so in the lack of training and skills.

This government has presided over a skills crisis and has failed continually to make sure Australians receive the training they need and the economy needs to go forward. It has been a failure that has been a brake on the economy and our prosperity. This government has failed to make the investments necessary in our schools and in the existing TAFE system to ensure younger Australians in particular have access to high-quality vocational education—including at their schools. This government has failed to increase the number of school based traditional apprentices and failed to provide the funding support for schools to take up the places. Instead it has created these expensive—and, as this bill appears to demonstrate, getting ever more expensive—inefficient, stand-alone colleges, without seeking the cooperation of the states along the lines of the already existing vocational education and training framework. In the process the Howard government has ridden roughshod over the states and territories, and ignored the incredibly significant role the states and territories play in vocational education and training. And when will we see the first fruits from this expensive game of ‘blame the states’? Not until 2010.

In summing up, I was flicking through the Prime Minister’s media release about Skills for the Future. It says:

New financial incentives will help more Australians looking to take up a trade apprenticeship in mid-career.

I thought, ‘What does that mean?’, so I quickly flicked over to the back to the memorandum and it reads:

The Prime Minister has announced that from 1 July 2007, there will be financial support for mid-career workers aged 30 or more ...

They are going to flick a bit of money. I just want to entertain you for a second, Mr Acting Deputy President Marshall, especially with your background and wide knowledge of the lack of training and skills and dealing with apprentices. There is $150 per week for a mid-career apprentice on top of a wage in the construction industry for an apprentice of $8.13 an hour. What a wonderful contribution from a government that is out of puff, out of touch and arrogant.