House debates

Wednesday, 15 August 2007

Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia’S Skills Needs) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2007

Second Reading

5:51 pm

Photo of Andrew RobbAndrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Minister for Vocational and Further Education) Share this | Hansard source

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 naivety on this count is breathtaking. 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 complete 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—

Comments

No comments