Mr ANDREN (6:15 PM) —Like the skilling Australia bills which actually dismantle the Australian National Training Authority, this Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’s Skills Needs) Bill 2005 purports to be about addressing Australia’s skills shortages. These bills are supposed to do this not by increasing funding towards the existing TAFE college system, not by investing more support for existing school based VET programs, but by setting up a parallel—an alternative—system through Australian technical colleges. There are estimated shortages of about 130,000 skilled workers in the next five years and a current shortage of about 21,000, especially in essential trades. The government is spending through this process $343.6 million to support consortiums of up to 24 Australian technical colleges across Australia in areas identified as having particular skills shortages and high unemployment rates. They will provide a maximum of 7,200 places for students and will not be online for five years, hardly addressing a skills shortage that by any judgment we are experiencing to a great degree now—as I said, a 21,000 shortage right here and now.

There is no model for how these colleges will operate but they will all be run by a principal appointed by a college governing council which must consist of the local business community and be chaired by a local business or industry representative. Although these colleges may be based on existing schools, registered training organisations like TAFEs and universities, they must be separate institutions with their own identifiable student body. In order to receive funding, the colleges must also comply with the government’s own industrial relations agenda by offering AWAs. This all sounds so familiar. The skilling Australia bill attaches this condition to TAFE funding too. Principals will be appointed by the governing council and will receive attractive working conditions, and performance pay will be offered to all staff. These ATCs will be specialist schools run by local industry where years 11 and 12 students study for the HSC and will start school based certificate III new apprenticeships. As with existing school based new apprenticeships, this requires an enormous commitment from the students, given that they are also expected to be working part time in the industry as well. The colleges will also need to fulfil state requirements to be registered as schools and must be registered training organisations so that the students’ academic and training qualifications are recognised for university entrance and count towards trade qualifications.

Again, the catchcry that this will offer flexibility in skills training runs through the whole reasoning behind these colleges. But school based new apprenticeships already are delivered through partnerships with local industry, schools and training providers in some 95 per cent of New South Wales schools. Indeed, TAFE and the senior schools in the Orange area, and the CSU, formerly the Orange campus of Sydney university, have for several years now been examining a model for a school, TAFE and university process that will, in the existing system, deliver something along the very lines that has been suggested here. But, more importantly, you are not duplicating the system; you are working with the system that is already in place.

The way that the new apprenticeships are to be delivered also varies under this new model according to different local settings, with some that are enterprise driven with larger businesses taking care of organisational matters, or school driven where schools pool and share resources, or where group training organisations take the lead in recruiting and coordinating the program. Dubbo is one of the areas identified as needing an ATC to deliver training in heavy vehicles. What the minister does not seem to realise is that a partnership between local industry, local schools and the Western Institute of TAFE is already running a well-established and successful model where the number of apprenticeships in heavy motor vehicles has grown from a total of nine five years ago to the current 120 apprenticeships. I understand that that same partnership has applied for this new college funding to somehow supplement the existing program. I am told that TAFE can provide the required outcomes under its existing structure for a fraction of the cost of a new federal college. It just needs more core funding to do the job, which has been the cry of TAFE for some years now. From my investigations I believe that the Western Institute of TAFE can easily provide the required outcomes for something like one-seventh of the cost of setting up a whole new college. So it begs the question: why go down this route? It seems to be wasteful of scarce educational resources in the tertiary sector. It is worth noting that other partnerships between the Western Institute of TAFE and other local players currently see some 400 school students accessing VET subjects that count towards VET certificates in more than 30 courses, from child studies to the beautician trade and from agriculture to automotive, as I have pointed out.

You also have to remember that schools themselves already deliver some VET subjects that also count towards the HSC university admission index score. Speaking of which, how will public schools fare when existing numbers of years 11 and 12 students are spread even more thinly to the ATCs in regional Australia, where many of these colleges are to be situated? How much public funding for TAFEs and for public schools will be forced away from an already stretched system into what essentially becomes an equivalent private system? How will this affect existing students in the public system and their access to quality resources and a broader range of subjects?

The colleges to be established by the legislation will receive capital and other additional funding of some $289 million ‘in recognition’, according to the Bills Digest, ‘of the high cost of specialised vocational training’. Why is this not being recognised in funding to the existing TAFE structure? Why is this not being recognised within the existing framework? Or does this only apply to private facilities that deliver to 7,200 students? How on earth do these ATCs address future skill shortages if industry continues to support casualisation of the work force and minimises its own investment in certificate III and IV apprenticeships? This bill promises little to fill the gaping hole in apprenticeships left by the privatisation and outsourcing of public utilities and agencies, a hole I alluded to during the earlier debate on the skilling legislation—for instance, the former huge Wallerawang power station apprenticeships school is but a distant memory.

What this bill and the skilling Australia bill do achieve is a duplication—a very expensive duplication—and a further impoverishing of an existing framework that is available to all. That duplication forces scarce public funds and resources away from public schools and public TAFEs. From what I can see, it still does not provide any guaranteed jobs or apprenticeships for the students at the end of their studies. And it undermines the very thing that is so necessary to meeting the future needs of the country: a whole-of-community approach, with strong partnerships between all stakeholders, not only industry groups and state and federal governments, whatever their political complexion down the track, but also schools—public and private—training organisations and those groups who represent the rights of the students and the staff, who are, after all, among the main players in the equation: the unions and staff associations. Yes, they are vital, and why should anyone be apologetic about that with a government seemingly hell bent on dealing organised labour out of the industrial relations equation for the tertiary education sector?

It seems incredibly simplistic that funnelling even more public money into private facilities at the expense of public education and training will somehow strengthen our training system and our meeting of future skill needs. The idea of increasing competition for scarce resources and funds is not about partnerships and working together. As with the skilling Australia bill, I believe the setting up of Australian technical colleges will do little for Australia’s skill shortages, but it will further divide the system. It seems to be based on some political objectives rather than on any broad vision of the real need for trade training.

I have looked at the opposition’s second reading amendment. While I would look for more substantive amendments and while I certainly do not normally support second reading amendments—because they are a view of the world as it might be under a different set of circumstances and do not go any way towards constructive adjustment of legislation—I do agree with the majority of the sentiments expressed therein. I only wish that the energy, planning and resources being directed into this duplicated college process could be directed into the existing TAFE system, where it rightly belongs.