Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to make a couple of points in relation to the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill 2006. I have indicated to the parliamentary secretary that we would like to get this bill through before 12.45 pm, so I will be try to be brief.

There was a suggestion made, by Senator Ronaldson, I believe, that any tardiness—and clearly there has been delay in the delivery of the Australian technical colleges—was somehow due to the Labor Party. It is amazing how much power we appear to have without being in government. I want to make it very clear that the relevant shadow minister, Ms Macklin, put quite clearly our position on the bill on 15 June 2005 in the debate in the lower house. She said that Labor, despite our concerns about the lack of strategy and investment the government has undertaken with vocational education and training, would be supporting this bill. So, to come in here and somehow say, despite the fact that Labor indicated on 15 June 2005 that we would support it, that Labor are responsible for the government’s failure to deliver the policy in meaningful terms in the time frame is, frankly, laughable.

It is the case that the Senate did refer the bill to a committee for clarification of some of the detail, but that is a part of the legislative review process that we still undertake in this chamber, despite the fact that the government obviously is seeking to truncate that since it has got the numbers in the Senate. The reality is that the government knew this legislation would be passed. The opposition have indicated that, as I said, from the time that the motion for the second reading of the bill was moved. Government senators, including Senator Ronaldson, have no excuse for blaming Labor for any delays in planning and implementing this program. Frankly, it does nothing more than reveal the government’s desperation to blame anyone or anything but themselves for the skills crisis. We have heard that already in Senator Colbeck’s contribution. We again heard about the Hawke and Keating governments. Clearly, this government have been in office for 10 years. They have failed to train Australians. They are responsible for the skills crisis, despite their protestations and their attempt to shift the blame onto someone else.

I also emphasise again the government’s lack of long-term investment in vocational education. I emphasise again, with respect to the funding quadrennium we are in, that this government, at this time, is projecting a long-term reduction in percentage terms in vocational education over the quadrennium—reducing to 0.67 per cent of total budget expenditure in the final out year of 2009-10, from 0.75 per cent of total budget expenditure in 2005-06. So to come and lecture us about this is extraordinary.

The government claims that the ATCs are going to resolve a significant proportion of Australia’s skills crisis. The government’s own election promise was that there would be 25 colleges enrolling 7½ thousand students. This is in the context of the Australian Industry Group indicating a shortage of 100,000 skilled workers. So you can see the disparity—even in ambition, this government has failed to deliver. With respect to implementation, the situation is that, of the 25 promised, on the most recent figures the opposition has been given, there are just five colleges in operation, enrolling about 350 students in total. Industry says we need 100,000; the government promises 7½ thousand through this program and 25 colleges; to date, what have they delivered? Five colleges with 350 students, two-thirds of which are in one Australian technical college.

For government senators to come in here and say, ‘This is fantastic and it’s all your fault, Labor, because you didn’t pass it,’ is completely baseless. It is clearly not based in fact. It seeks to completely ignore the fact that it is the government’s failure to implement this program which is the significant problem. As I said, there is a shortage of 100,000 skilled workers. The government has promised 7½ thousand, and it is actually delivering 350, two-thirds of which are located at one college.

On the program and how much has been expended to date, which is a pretty good indication, generally, of how a program is progressing, the most recent figures provided to the opposition on the public record through the estimates process show that $18 million has been spent out of $185 million committed to ATCs, and out of a total budget of $343 million over four years. So you spend $18 million of your flagship program, the thing that is going to revolutionise technical training, and you come in here and tell the world that Labor is to blame for the fact that you cannot spend the money in a program that is already inadequate. Frankly, it is ridiculous.

Finally, because people keep wanting to talk about the past regarding who did better on training, I want to make this point. The current Leader of the Opposition, when he was the responsible minister in 1992, provided an additional $720 million over three years to grow the vocational education and training system, which is about $925 million in today’s dollars. This growth in funding increased the Commonwealth’s share of total recurrent funding from approximately eight per cent in 1992 to more than 25 per cent in 1996. So, in government, Labor increased the Commonwealth’s share of total recurrent funding in this area massively.

When the Howard government came to power, in the 1996-97 budget there was a reduction in VET grants, there was an abolition of real-growth funding and a reduction in training expenditure of $420 million. In 1997-98, the Howard government abolished the stand-alone National Skills Shortages Strategy. In 1998, the growth through efficiencies policy effectively froze Commonwealth VET funds, resulting in a loss of growth funding estimated at around $377 million over the 1998-2000 period. The reality is that, if you look at the record on training and funding of training under this government, it is marked, particularly early on in its term, by a very unfortunate tendency to attack aspects of funding in this area, to reduce VET grants, the abolition of growth funding and the abolition of the National Skills Shortages Strategy. We are now reaping what you sowed then. Our economy is now reaping what you sowed then. To come in here and suggest that somehow you are not responsible for it is, frankly, an abrogation of responsibility as the national government.

One of the arguments that is used by those on the other side is that there is a shortage of skilled workers because the economy is doing too well. I say this, and I think most Australians know this: we have a shortage because this government has failed to sufficiently and strategically invest in vocational training. We do have sufficient people potentially in the labour force in this country. We have over two million people who are either officially unemployed, underemployed or not in the labour force for various reasons. We need to ensure that those people get access to training in order to deal with our skills crisis.

I also make the point that the most recent figures from the National Centre for Vocational Education Research showed that at the end of last year there were 389,000 new apprentices in training. This compared to 390,700 in 2004 and 393,500 in 2003. In other words, the most recent figures show the lowest number of Australians in the New Apprenticeships scheme since 2003.

The number of apprentices in recent times is actually lower than it has been in the last three years, at a time when our skills crisis is intensifying and the skills shortage is increasing. The government do not let the facts get in the way of a good political rant. The reality is that they are pretty sensitive about this because they know that they have not had their eye on the ball when it comes to this issue. We are enjoying the best terms of trade in almost my lifetime, certainly in the last 30 years. World commodity prices and world economic growth are at historically high levels. We should be leveraging this time of prosperity to build for the future—to build for those times which may not be so good if there is a slowing in the world economy. We should be leveraging it; we should be investing in education and training, research, R&D and innovation. These are the things we should be doing.

Instead, this government has been more interested in short-term political solutions; it has not been interested in dealing with the skills crisis in any meaningful way. What it has been interested in is making political points. Perhaps that is most exemplified by its willingness to put at risk a range of projects, certainly in this area—and I mentioned one of them—because of its own obsessive ideological agenda when it relates to industrial relations. We have projects which are supported by schools and TAFEs with a strong record in training, we have projects such as the one I mentioned in my speech in the second reading debate which cannot get funding through this program not because there is any problem with training, not because there is not demand and not because industry does not want them. Why? Because this government wants to impose an extremist industrial relations agenda even in those areas where clearly the national economy is crying out for more investment and training.

People in Australia have come to understand what is important to this government. It is not about investment in the future and it is not about investment in the productive capacity of our economy. What they are interested in is short-term political fixes and what they are obsessed with is an ideologically driven agenda that has been around for 20 years and which they have managed to ram through because they have the numbers in the Senate.

As I said at the outset, we will not stand in the way of funding because we believe that even some investment is better than none when it comes to vocational training. We have made that clear since June last year, and the government’s attempt to blame everybody else—Mr Keating, Mr Hawke, opposition senators and the strength of the economy—for the skills crisis, which is a direct result of their failure to change, simply shows the government’s desperation.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will make a couple of quick points to finalise. In relation to the Labor Party’s comments with respect to funding, the Australian government’s funding for VTE in 2006 will be $2.5 billion, which is an 85.2 per cent real increase on funding since 1996. The allegations obviously flow thick and fast in an attempt to put the Labor Party’s slanted view of the world, but the facts stand in stark contrast to that. Senator Wong does not appear to understand the difference between total commitments for funding agreements signed so far, which are in excess of $250 million, and cash flow. The commitments relate to funding until the end of 2009. The senator is suggesting we should be providing funding in advance instead of providing it in accordance with the agreed payment schedules. The funding is being provided to the institutions as the need arises, in accordance with good financial management practices. Up to $65 million will have been spent within the next few weeks.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.