Page 437 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 8 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The other document that I tabled shows Australian government expenditure on VET from 1995-96 to 2005-06. It is in a graph form and quite visibly demonstrates exactly how much the commonwealth’s funding increased over the life of this federal government. This surely puts a lie to the statements by Mr Gentleman in paragraph 2 (a) about the federal government’s continual starving of training funds. I suggest that Mr Gentleman acquire a copy of the graph which I have just tabled, look at it and see the 160 per cent increase, even after adjustment for inflation, over the life of this government. So 160 per cent is not what I call a continual starving of funds. That is why I propose to move one of the amendments that I have circulated already.
Mr Mulcahy has touched on the incentives that are part of this funding across the whole range—the employer incentives, the sign-up incentives and then the incentives which have been part of the new approach to apprenticeships by the federal government, the toolkits after you have been an apprentice. My son was an apprentice carpenter. After he was an apprentice for three months he got, essentially, an $800 voucher which was redeemable for tools. That is an innovation which makes life very much easier for families of people who are starting off on apprenticeships in places where you have to shell out a large sum of money. Apprentice chefs have to have a considerable toolkit. Carpenters, people in the plumbing trades—all of these people need to spend a lot of money on tools. In addition, as from 1 July last year, apprentices now have access to Austudy benefits.
The point of federal policy, which everyone but Mr Gentleman appears to agree with, is to put in place an industry-led national training system. That is because it is industry which will provide the jobs and industry which is best placed to identify the skills that are needed and will be needed in the future. As the commonwealth-state agreement notes:
Industry will have a highly skilled workforce to support strong performance in the global economy.
And:
Employers and individuals will be at the centre of VET.
In other words, training and skill development will be tailored to meet the specific needs of industry to the specific jobs that will be required and to the particular interests and strengths of individuals. No longer will the system be determined by the convenience of training providers. But this is not the only industry-led system we are in the process of creating. It is also a national system. To quote the five guiding principles for the new training system as given in the commonwealth-state agreement:
1) Industry and business needs, both now and for the future, drive training policies, priorities and delivery.
2) An assurance of better quality training and outcomes for clients, through more flexible and accelerated pathways.
3) Processes should be simplified and streamlined to enhance national consistency.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .