Mr BALDWIN (6:02 PM) —I rise today to speak on the Skilling Australia’s Workforce Bill 2005 and the Skilling Australia’s Workforce (Repeal and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2005. The Australian National Training Authority was established in 1992 to coordinate levels of government in establishing a national vocational education and training system. By all measures, it did a good job. On 22 October 2004, the Prime Minister announced the abolition of ANTA and the transfer of ANTA’s functions to the Department of Education, Science and Training from July 2005. That is the reason we are debating these bills today.

We might ask ourselves: why the need for change? Since 1992, there has been a lot of change. There has been a lot of change in industry and in the technology used in industry, there have been changes in skill requirements and there have been changes in the demographics. We need a more flexible training regime that is able to respond quickly to industry’s needs. As much as it hurts me to say this, it is not government that creates jobs; the actual employers create jobs—something that Labor has never been able to understand. We can create the framework and a secure financial environment so that people feel confident to invest in, expand and grow their work force, but we need employers to create jobs and to take people on.

In this country we have seen the economy and the demand for Australian product grow, but our skills training has not kept up with the demand. In my area, the electorate of Paterson, Forgac shipbuilding secured some very good contracts. Because of the time frame of those contracts, after experiencing an inability to attract locally skilled boilermakers, it was necessary to resort to importing people from overseas to fill that gap. I am the parent of young boys, one of whom is looking to go into an apprenticeship—and he is doing so gladly. He will be one of the 70 per cent of young people who, upon leaving school, do not go on to university. Mr Deputy Speaker, having a trade background is something to be very proud of. I am a skilled fitter/toolmaker; that is my base trade. I left school when I was 15, after year 10, and I have enjoyed my trade immensely. Not everyone can go to university, nor can they access a trade.

In my electorate of Paterson in 1996, there were around 750 people involved in trade training; I am glad to say that today we have 2,480. That is an increase of 231 per cent. By any measure, that is spectacular growth. But that is not enough to address the needs of industry. If industry cannot satisfy its skill requirements, then it is obvious that either those opportunities will go to migrants coming to Australia and bringing those skill sets or—I hate to admit it— industries will go offshore and do the work there, where they can get people with the skills to do it.

We need to maintain the focus. Who is the focus here? Is it the likes of the trade union movement? Is it the likes of the politicians who make the decisions? No. The focus here is the young people that we want to provide the skills training to, to get them into jobs where they can utilise those skills they have been trained in and earn good money for doing so. Our focus also has to be the industry that has the demand for those skills and creates the jobs in the community. When I listen to the Labor Party, I keep hearing the same old mantra-chant: ‘But this is the way we have always done it.’ As I have said, times have changed since 1992. Today, in 2005, the training dynamics are totally different.

One of the other issues that affects our people who go into trade or skills development is the issue of borders. To give you a classic example, someone as simple as a hairdresser, with those skill sets, cannot work in Victoria without sitting local exams if they hold training qualifications from New South Wales. Quite a number of trades are affected in this way. People may say: ‘You’re located in the middle of New South Wales. How does that affect you?’ Mr Deputy Speaker Lindsay, like you I have a military base in my electorate. We have a high level of transitional people coming and going on postings. At times their partners are vocationally trained with skills in areas such as hairdressing. If they have been trained in Victoria, in order for them to be able to work in my area around Williamtown or Newcastle they need to submit to more exams. The idea of borders should be between one nation and another. At a time when we are looking at free trade agreements, it is crazy that the borders between our states mean that people cannot move their job skills from one state to another. We need portability. This affects trades more than it affects the professionals—the doctors, the lawyers and the like. We need to see that addressed.

The other thing that we will see through this legislation is an investment in the youth of this nation. We will see an investment of approximately $4.4 billion as our government’s contribution to the states and territories for vocational and technical education from July 2005 to December 2008. This is on top of the $577 million already paid to the states and territories for the first six months of 2005. That will take the total funding for the quadrennium to $4.9 billion. Also included in that is an additional $175 million in funding compared to 2004, which represents a real annual increase of 3.2 per cent in that year.

I have said that there is a skills crisis in this country. It is good to see that that has occurred, because it has meant that businesses and opportunities have grown in this nation along with opportunities for young people. The main areas where there are shortages in my electorate, which are addressed by the introduction of the new technical skills colleges program this government is embarking on, are the areas of hairdressing; metal trades, particularly fitting; boilermaking, as I have stated before; engineering; electrical engineering; and hospitality. We have a huge amount of employment in tourism in our area—in fact, 7.1 per cent of the work force in Paterson is engaged in the tourism and hospitality industry. We have a shortage of chefs, which needs to be addressed. You cannot train those people in five minutes—there is a long time frame—but you have to provide them with the opportunity to get training. That training needs to be flexible. It needs to work in with the employer, the employee and the training provider. Having a flexible arrangement means that we can achieve a little more and get more people into the work force.

I also note that one of the big issues in discussions with one of the leading electrical contract development groups in my area, Ampcontrol, is the fact that training providers these days find it very hard to afford the latest technology that our young people, and not so young people, need to be trained on. What is the point of having a machine that may be worth half-a-million or $1 million in a TAFE environment when it could actually be in the workplace? Training providers can access that sort of machinery or technology—the latest state-of-the-art technology—to develop and enhance the skills of the people they are training so that they can carry those skills sets forward.

I also have a couple of outstanding training companies in my area: the Hunter Valley Training Company and the Hunter Valley group apprenticeship scheme. These are highly recommended people. The apprentices and the trainees that they turn out of these facilities are world-class trade skills holders, and in fact win many of the awards with their skills sets.

As I said earlier, we have had a lot of discussion with industry. We need to work hand in hand with industry to develop the opportunities. We must address the needs that are being raised by industry and the needs of our young people to be able to access the training. If the Labor opposition were serious about this, as we are, they would be committed to developing a skilled nation. We need to move with the times, we need to move with technology, we need to move with what industry wants and, in particular, we need to move with the requirements of our young people, who are searching out the opportunities to develop their skills and to apply them to industry so that they can set themselves up for the future.

As I said when I started this speech, this is not about politics and this is not about governments; this is about young people pursuing opportunities through the development of their skills and it is about industry, the very people who employ apprentices and trainees in their industries to develop those skills. I say to the opposition: ‘Let’s work together, let’s develop a skilled nation and let’s embrace the change that is required in today’s times.’