By Alana Kerr
The proposals in the National Commission of Audit that Commonwealth funding of higher education be replaced by a system of "scholarships", student fees and loans sounds very familiar to those who campaigned against the Coalition's Fightback! package during the 1993 federal election campaign.
Dave Taylor, NUS's national education officer, said, "The implications of these recommendations for the disadvantaged would be disastrous. Students and the community rejected this system of higher education in 1993. If it is introduced by the government, it will constitute an act of deception and betrayal which young Australians will never forget."
The attacks on students proposed in the audit follow hot on the heels of the federal government announcement on May 22 of plans to allow employers to pay apprentices and trainees only for the time they spend in "productive" work.
The plan, outlined by minister for schools, vocational education and training David Kemp, would allow employers to discount the wages of apprentices and trainees for time spent at TAFE colleges and time spent training on the job.
"Howard's plan represents another handout to employers at the expense of the people who can least afford it", explained Victorian TAFE Students and Apprentices Network (VTSAN) coordinator Maurice Sibelle. "It will further discharge employers of their responsibility to train employees. Australian employers already spend less than those in most OECD countries on training."
Apprentices and trainees' wages are already discounted due to the time spent on training. First-year apprentices on federal awards in the metal industry receive 47% of the full adult award wage, which amounts to $174.50 a week. Under the new scheme, first-year apprentices can expect to receive $139.60.
The existing apprenticeship and traineeship system calculates wages on a much broader basis. It takes into account: the time spent in productive work; the age of the apprentice or trainee; experience level; and what is required for apprentices and trainees to receive a living wage.
Despite minister for industrial relations Peter Reith's claims to the contrary, it is obvious that the new scheme will affect existing apprentices and trainees. Apprentices are often forced to change employers in the course of their apprenticeship. Businesses close down, employers often mistreat employees, and people may change their minds in the middle of their training. Moreover, apprentices and trainees may be working alongside others on different wages. There is an incentive for employers to favour apprentices and trainees on the new scheme.
MAATS (the government's planned "Modern Australian Apprenticeship and Traineeship System") could result in apprentice and trainee wages falling below youth dole payments. "The government's proposed 'concession', that young people would not be forced to take an apprenticeship or traineeship if it meant a fall in income, admits that youth wages will fall below the dole", Sibelle told 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Weekly. "What happens when every apprenticeship or traineeship falls below the youth dole? I suppose they will then want to reduce the dole.
"When youth unemployment is running at 30% in some areas, it is hard to see how employers will not take advantage of young people."
Kemp claims that employers would have the incentive to create more training positions, while young people would find the new opportunities more attractive because they could get a "foothold in a real job". However, lowering youth wages does not tackle youth unemployment. Only the creation of real jobs will do that. In the meantime, employers will pocket the savings.
"It is conceivable that employers will employ more apprentices and trainees if they cost less. However, that will lead to the displacement of other workers and put pressure on working conditions. More apprentices and trainees will not create more jobs", Sibelle explained.
Kemp's proposal to allow the employers flexibility in determining the mix of time worked and time spent in training is dangerous, Sibelle added. "Young people are the least unionised and most vulnerable people in the labour market. They have the least knowledge of their rights. And employers are not renowned for their benevolent desire to ensure apprentices and trainees get the training they require."
Reith claims that MAATS arrangements would not be allowed to go below the awards. This is cold comfort in light of the fact that the Coalition's industrial relations legislation is aimed at replacing awards with "Australian Workplace Agreements".