Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to highlight the opposition’s very deep concern about the operations of the Australian technical colleges. It is quite apparent to anyone who has any knowledge of this question or has had the opportunity to follow the debate on these matters that this was an initiative that the government thought of in haste during the last election and that at the outset of this program the Australian technical colleges were nothing more than a tokenistic stunt which has now turned out to be a very expensive tokenistic stunt. The government were seeking to demonstrate they were concerned about skill shortages rather than actually doing anything about it. There was no real understanding of the need to invest in the long-term future of Australia.

Labor predicted at the time that these colleges would cost a great deal more than the government was claiming, and the result is clear for all to see, in the Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2006. The government has had to provide additional resources and this parliament has been asked to appropriate additional resources to make up for the fact that this program was so badly planned. That is exactly what we are discussing today.

The Minister for the Arts and Sport spoke a moment ago about this bill being a demonstration of the government’s success and the progress that has been made. On the contrary, this bill shows a recognition by the government of its failure to face up to the fact that it has yet to address fundamental skill shortages. It made a politically expedient announcement in the last election and now the Commonwealth has to bear the cost of that announcement as a consequence of the government’s failure.

The minister speaks of the number of colleges that have come into existence in the process since the last election. He says that there are 20 now in existence and one more to come. He says that there will be some 2,000 students. The fact is that across Australia the number of colleges actually operating is very low indeed and the number of colleges which have a large number of students is even lower again. In Gladstone there were 30 students last year and the enrolment is not expected to rise to 135 until 2009. In Darwin the enrolments are not expected to grow beyond 100. If we take the case of the Gold Coast, the cost of providing education through these particular colleges on a per student basis of operational funding for 2008 is over $16,000. That is $16,000 per student! Is this a measure of success or progress? I find it amazing that the minister can come in here so badly briefed on a situation where there is such an appalling waste of public money—$16,000 per student, when the Commonwealth provides for its schools program only $6,500 per non-government student, and that is for a dirt-poor non-government school. But for this particular exercise in the marginal seats it is prepared to provide $16,000 per student. Do we have a $10,000 price gap? How can it possibly be explained as progress? How can it possibly be explained as a success? But that is what the government is trying to do today. The government’s approach has been to choose not to work with the states. It has chosen effectively to turn its back on cooperation, and we now have a situation where the government has sought to impose these conditions on the states.

What particularly concern me, though, are the eligibility criteria for funding under this program. Section 18 says that there have to be certain eligibility criteria in place, but the minister has the authorised authority to change those criteria where:

... the Minister is satisfied that, in the circumstances, the payment should be authorised despite the non-fulfilment of the eligibility criteria.

Those are the terms of this legislation. I find it an amazing situation where the minister’s discretion could be used to override proper public accountability in the circumstances. While the opposition is supporting this legislation, because at least it is making a gesture towards providing additional support, it should not be understood in any circumstances that this is good legislation or a good initiative or that it is going to meet the skills needs of Australian people. I have been advised that there is a desire in some quarters to have this matter dealt with prior to 12.45 pm and that there are some administrative matters to be dealt with. I will have to conclude my remarks in those circumstances but there is a lot more that should be said about this.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.