John Forrest (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Yes, that is true, but we are talking about agriculture and not mining. Recommendation 8 makes a very strong call:

The committee recommends that the Australian Government, in conjunction with State and Territory Governments, develop a national framework for the reinvigoration of Australia’s agricultural colleges, including:

• Stable and sustained funding for agricultural colleges in each state …

This will probably need some coordination as they cannot all be the trainers of grain producers or the trainers of dairy producers or the trainers of fat lamb or even beef producers. They will need some coordination as to which colleges are best placed to deliver specific centres of education. The recommendation says we need better mechanisms to ensure the connection with industry occurs—and it is not just agricultural industries; it is also those industries that have a direct connection to agriculture: the machinery manufacturers and providers.

The next recommendation which I want to speak to is recommendation 11. It was good to collect evidence, although some of it is different and disparate in terms of support. Take the FarmBis program, which commenced in 1998. I think the general consensus was that FarmBis is regarded as a highly successful program which is actually at the farming end to lift the standards of knowledge of the farming sector itself, whose members are often mature and have long ago lost some of their important study skills. To give some idea of the success of that program, when it first started there were around 82,000 primary producers participating and then a second stage of the program in 2004 had 72,000 participants. Because it was an initial program with a terminal life to be completed in 2008, in the current budget cycle, I think it is important that the government notes that we are recommending that FarmBis be continued because the evidence is that it is delivering.

Recommendation 15 is the recommendation I want to next comment on. The committee recommends that the government, in conjunction with universities and again in conjunction with the state and territory governments—we have to recognise that the states have a very strong role in the provision of education—‘develop consistent and comprehensive pathways for the articulation’ of vocational education and training. This is where youngsters might start such training as early as in year 8 or year 10. They would be exposed to a farming operation or some ancillary service, be it in agronomy or something else. There would be pathways for a youngster to go from their VET training on to some additional training, perhaps post-secondary, that could lead them to become the plant breeders or the soil scientists and PhDs of the future. What a rounded program it is for someone to ultimately end up with a PhD degree if they have started at the ground with their hands dirty and have that knowledge process. So we are recommending very strongly that there be a greater articulation of the whole process, because it is the one thing that Melbourne university missed in Victoria—they did not understand how to make those connections and they failed. Their focus was at the post-tertiary level. They wanted graduates and PhD students. What they fail to understand is that a PhD student in 10 or 12 years time can start from a year 8 or year 9 secondary student. That is why I feel very strongly that is an important recommendation.

I too would like to thank my colleagues, particularly those in the committee secretariat. As the chairman has said, it was a tough job but Janet Holmes has done a sterling job. She came on board on 12 December and finalised the preparation of the report. To all my colleagues, thank you, and to the government I say: ‘Listen to this report. There is accumulated evidence here. We will be looking for a very positive and early response in the interests of Australian agriculture and rural Australia in general.’

See this speech in context