Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Hansard source

In summing up for the Minister for Industry on the Student Identifiers Bill 2014, I would like to thank all members for their contributions to the debate. The bill provides for the introduction of the student identifier scheme. I want to address, to begin with, some of the misinformation in the statements that were made by the member for Cunningham in her speech in the second reading debate. I emphasise that the one thing the sector has broadly and unanimously appreciated since we came into government is that the training and skills portfolio be linked to industry, that it be linked to jobs and that it matter to employers what happens in the training and skills space. Perhaps the member for Cunningham's narrow view of vocational education and training—that it is only about education—is the reason why, for six years under the former government, it was allowed to run off the rails so badly and become so confusing. This government has set the skills portfolio on a far more efficient and streamlined path, by putting industry and employers back in the driving seat. It is typical that the Labor Party sees only the process and not the outcome. For the Labor Party, the process is about the training activity. Important though that is, the training activity is not what matters. What always matters is the job, and that is the focus that the coalition in government now has in this very important area of policy.

The member for Cunningham also raised the issue of the National Workforce Development Fund. Let me inform the member that this program was probably the most overly tied up in red tape that I have ever seen. In fact, it was found to have the most onerous reporting in a recent review of vocational education and training reporting. I remember, as the opposition spokesperson in this area, seeing glossy brochure after glossy brochure come out from the then government explaining what this fund had funded, but when you actually did a calculation related to certificate II, for example, in a particular sector, the numbers who had passed that qualification and the dollars that were involved in getting that outcome were phenomenal. It was right over the top. The government now has made a decision to deliver an industry skills fund that delivers a direct line for industry to access some co-investment from government in training.

The member for Cunningham also raised the issue of apprenticeship access being ceased. Let me remind her that a recent review of the program found that, under her watch, this program delivered just 26 per cent job outcomes for participants—hardly the success she would have us believe. We have set about reforming and improving the apprenticeship system. Many of our speakers on this side of the House have talked about our trade support loans and the important role that they will play in delivering completion rates that are a lot better than the current ones. We look forward to the minister making further announcements about that in the future.

The opposition also raised the national partnership on teen parents and the cessation of that program. What we inherited was a program in which those opposite agreed that the only outcome the states would have to comply with in order to get money from the Commonwealth was to sign people up. Easy: sign people up and get the funding. How irresponsible is that? There was no need for evidence of completing training, no link to a job, nothing—yet another clanger in a Labor Party policy that thought the outcome in vocational education was just throwing more money at it.

The member for Canberra made some interesting remarks. She talked about how much money the previous government pumped into skills and came up with a figure of about $19 billion. I must say in response: let's look at the outcomes. We had the failure of the multibillion-dollar Productivity Places Program under review. We had no idea who studied, what they studied or who was delivering the training. Again, it was all about the process: pumping in the people; putting out the glossy brochures; talking up the skills conversation, which is always a good one, always an interesting one and always well supported by those you talk to. But the hard yards were never undertaken.

If this record of spending was so great, why did Labor leave us with a regulator with no budget and, instead, force us into a full cost recovery approach to the regulation of the system, an approach that has not delivered any improvement in the quality of training? In listening to the speakers from Labor on this bill, the word 'quality' did not come up much. It is interesting that it did not, because quality is what you should talk about when you talk about training as being the most important thing after the link with a job.

When I talk to apprentices and they discuss their training experience, yes, the money matters—the job is usually there are on the table if they are already in an apprenticeship—but then it is the quality of the training that matters. Under Labor, there was no money to regulate the system; it was all about the process, the scrutiny of providers, never about the quality.

Let us not forget the trades training debacle. In 2007 Labor committed to $2.5 billion for trades training centres in all of Australia's 2,650 secondary schools. I know the member for Canberra explained how they are now interesting clusters that work really well. The interesting clusters came about because of course the promise could never be delivered. We could never have a trades training centre in every single one of Australia's 2,650 secondary schools. If we did, we would have had even more substandard trades training centres than what we eventually ended up with. I know, from having visited a lot of these centres, that some of them do good work. I do not want to underplay the good work that they do and it is certainly true that for students to have training in areas that lead to a job and apprenticeships, particularly school based apprenticeships, is very important. We know that, but just building the space does not actually make it happen. The actual activity inside that space is what delivers the high- quality training that leads to a job. At that point, the Labor Party walked away. Labor only ever managed to deliver 304 of its promised trades training centres and that is a shameful record.

As we announced, the coalition government will deliver the final round of trades training centres, which will now be known as trades skills centres. They will have a renewed focus on delivering excellent vocational training in secondary schools through stronger partnerships between schools, local businesses and industry. Future funding under the program will then cease. Labor's program would never have achieved the goal to have a trades training centre in every secondary school in Australia and we simply cannot overstate that enough.

Members opposite also raised the issue of the tools for trade allowance. The member for Canberra has not said once how on earth she would fund its reinstatement. We are borrowing $1 billion a month, just to pay Labor's interest bill. And guess what? The tool allowance cost just under $1 billion. So every month of Labor's interest bill could notionally have funded the tool scheme over and over. It would be great to do some of these things. Yes, there were benefits, but Labor created this situation and now we must all deal with the results. We have replaced the Tools for your Trade scheme with something far better: our apprenticeship trade support loans, which give four times as much support as the old scheme. Yes, they do have to be paid back but, importantly, part of the incentive to complete is the 20 per cent discount. It gives apprentices an immediate reduction, of up to $4,000, depending on how much they borrow. It would be $4,000, if they borrow the full amount under the program.

As a country our continued prosperity depends, in large part, on the skills and knowledge of our people. This will be especially the case as we move to reposition Australian industry to take advantage of the many opportunities and the competitive challenges that we all face in the 21st century. Our government is committed to ensuring that the vocational education and training sector is ready to meet the skills and training needs of the nation and it is in this context that the Student Identifiers Bill is being presented to the House.

The bill will establish a national lifelong unique student identifier, USI, for students in the vocational education and training sector—always known as VET—who undertake nationally recognised training from 1 January 2015. The introduction of the scheme is expected to generate time and cost savings for individuals and businesses over time and is intended to support a high-quality contestable and responsive national training market by enabling the streamlining of data collection and other processes in the vocational education and training sector. In particular, the student identifiers scheme will address the wasteful and confusing duplication within the labour market that flows from the fragmented and inaccurate information about vocational education enrolments, participation and completions. It will allow for a greater understanding of education pathways and patterns of enrolment and completion, enabling the development of evidence-based and cost-efficient programs that effectively target skills shortages and skills needs of industry.

The student identifier will also assist industry in making better informed decisions about the skills levels and training needs of their workforces and in gaining a greater understanding of the scope and effectiveness of the training being undertaken within their industry. Moreover, employers will be better placed than ever before to evaluate the training records of job applicants and staff from an authoritative source, streamlining recruitment, staff training and task allocation, and also helping to ensure that training already undertaken is not repeated unnecessarily. In addition, individuals will have easy, reliable, lifelong online access to a record of their training history from a single authoritative source. Individuals will be able to produce comprehensive transcripts or an extract for the purpose of applying for a job when seeking credit transfer or when demonstrating prerequisites when undertaking further training. These advantages are complemented by students being able to give public and private training providers access to an online information source to manage transfers between training providers and their assessment of credit transfer and prerequisites.

As an initiative of the Council of Australian Governments, this bill is the culmination of hard work and close collaboration between the Commonwealth and state and territory governments. I am pleased to say that there is support from all state and territory governments for a USI and I would like to thank them for their significant contribution to the development of this legislation. The bill has undergone an extensive consultation process. I would also like to thank everyone from training providers to state and territory agencies, and privacy commissions, across Australia for their contribution and advice. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for the bill.

See this speech in context