Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Hansard source

Perhaps I could take this opportunity to indicate the opposition's position on this bill. At this point, I should explain that we think this bill is grossly inadequate. Mr Chairman, when you were speaking in the debate you were somewhat surprised at the approach that I took in highlighting the deep and very basic flaws that the government had taken with regard to this approach. I do not think the argument is a particularly difficult one to mount, simply because the government has made over $2 billion in cuts across the portfolio and, I am advised, $1 billion with regard to apprenticeship programs. There have been cuts to the Tools for Your Trade program, the government has capped the Australian Apprenticeships Access Program, it has cut the Australian Apprenticeships Mentoring Program, it has cut the Apprentice to Business Owner Program, and so it goes. The government has, in fact, misled the Australian public. It went to the election and told a pack of lies about what it was going to do with regard to apprenticeship training. Of course, when they got into government, they cut all these programs, having said they would do something entirely different.

What we see before us is the last remnant of support that the government is offering apprentices. It might be inadequate; it might not be able to meet the requirements. Alternative programs were there, which the government has removed. So the opposition is left with a simple proposition: what is left for us to support in terms of apprentices? That is why we are voting in favour of the bill. Others will take a different view. They will say that this is inadequate, and they are obviously entitled to that view.

Regarding the amendments moved by the Greens—and I understand that they are being dealt with in a cognate manner, so I might try to deal with them in that fashion—the opposition cannot support them because they do not improve what is a pretty ordinary bill. In some respects they make it worse. What has been presented to us are propositions which would be far more complex to put into practice. As senators would appreciate, there are much greater financial implications than have been intended in terms of the effect of these measures. They would open up possibilities for abuse of the system in circumstances which I think would lead to apprenticeship training in this country being discredited. It may well open up the possibility of rorting by employers, whereby apprentices would be sacked but loans would still be in place. We may find circumstances that, in truth, would be a bureaucratic nightmare. Because of that, there are unfair comparisons to the way in which the HECS system works for the higher education system. I do not think it is appropriate for these measures to be transferred in that matter.

I am not a particular fan of this whole arrangement. I do not think it is superior in any way to the carefully thought out measures which had real effect in terms of assisting young men and women secure a trade in this country. I certainly do not agree with the government's shocking abuse of apprentices that we have seen in terms of the slurs about the misuse of the Tools for Your Trade program to date. In that context, there is one particular matter that I would like to draw the Senate's attention to. I foreshadow that there is an amendment standing in my name concerning the issue of parental engagement. Remember, this is a scheme that the government is proposing which will apply to 15-year-olds—15-year-old kids, signing up for $20,000 loans. We could make a comment about the appropriateness of that, but what we have got before us on the amendments that the Greens are proposing in this area are not adequate to deal with the job. So I propose an alternative amendment—that I am foreshadowing now—which goes to the issue of parental engagement. It makes the point that parents or guardians of kids under the age of 18 at the time of making an application must acknowledge that the applicant is fully aware of the commitment in which they are entering.

As a parent, I might say to you, I would be somewhat horrified to see my children at the age of 15 come home and find out that they have got a $20,000 loan signed up, which we knew nothing about in the household. But that is what the current arrangement allows for. I think, as a parent, I want to know whether or not the government was offering cash handouts to any of my children when they were 15 years of age. Actually, it is not a cash handout—I see the officers are looking a bit perplexed that I have used this term; but a $20,000 loan to a 15-year-old, with no restrictions with what they do with it, other than to say, 'Of course, it is for an apprenticeship.' I can suggest to you that there might be a few other things that they could do with $20,000.

The suggestion that $650 per month be paid directly into accounts of loan recipients in the first year is one that I think most parents would want to know about and that the money can be spent on anything because it is not a receipts based system. I think parents want to know about it. That is a very substantive amount of money about which parents and guardians should know that their children are lining up for. Given the size of the debts, it is appropriate that parents do know about it. The onus is on the government to make sure that parents and guardians are aware that their children are entering into a debt arrangement with the government. As I understand it, the government is not going to oppose this amendment.