15-August-2007
Speeches, Education and Training
Australian Technical Colleges
(Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2007
Speech
15 August 2007
Mr ROBB (Goldstein—Minister for Vocational and Further Education) (5.51 pm)—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 they will also be up to one-third of their way through an apprenticeship in a trade that is vital for 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 in this House last week called these colleges a national disgrace. This simply continued Labor’s 20 years 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 anything, 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.
Mr Stephen Smith—How many graduates are you going to have?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BK Bishop)—The member for Perth!
Mr Stephen Smith—How many graduates are you going to have?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BK Bishop)—The member for Perth will desist!
Mr ROBB—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.
Mr Stephen Smith—How many?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BK Bishop)—The member for Perth will listen!
Mr Stephen Smith—How many graduates?
Mr ROBB—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—
Mr Stephen Smith—How many graduates?
Mr ROBB—I will get to your point in a minute. Be patient.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BK Bishop)—The member for Perth will desist!
Mr ROBB—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 year 11 and 12. And they 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 this 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, 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 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 took three or four years for new schools to be established by state governments, 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 about it again in the House here this evening—parroting on that this is a shallow, superficial, misleading proposition.
Mr Stephen Smith—How many graduates?
Mr ROBB—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 to make that there has been no graduates when they have only been open for six months. They are there for years 11 and 12.
Mr Stephen Smith—How many graduates
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BK Bishop)—The member for Perth has had a good go. He will desist!
Mr ROBB—You have had your turn. You have made all your disingenuous statements. Listen to some answers for a change.
Mr Stephen Smith—Tell us how many you have?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BK Bishop)—If the member for Perth does not desist, he might find himself out of the chamber!
Mr ROBB - 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 naiveté is breathtaking on this count. 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 having completed 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—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER—I call the member for Perth, on a point of order.
Mr Stephen Smith—He can rant on about misleading all he likes. He can’t say—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER—You are addressing a standing order?
Mr Stephen Smith—On the point of order: he cannot say ‘deliberate’ misleading of the House. I ask that he withdraw that. He used the word ‘deliberate’.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER—If the member did make an allegation of deliberately misleading the House then I would ask him to withdraw that.
Mr ROBB—I withdraw the word ‘deliberate’, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER—Thank you.
Mr ROBB—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.
Mr Stephen Smith interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Perth will desist interjecting.
Mr ROBB—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 is 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 go for these schools? On average it 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 $500000. 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 to 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 in regard to 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. We need an environment which celebrates what these young people are good at a secondary school level. We need to build self-esteem, self-belief and motivation. They need to feel good about themselves. At 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.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER—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.