Beyond the here and now

It would be useful if the taskforce could identify ways in which the apprenticeship provision could be more inclusive of Australians beyond male school leavers, says Stephen Billett. Despite the consequences of the economic downturn, there are signs that a strong focus on maintaining and further developing the national skill base remain in place. Indeed, the formation of Australian Apprentice Taskforce and the release of a discussion paper indicate that maintaining the level and quality of skilled workers remains a national priority. The discussion paper posits two key goals: sustaining the level of apprenticeships in a time of reduced economic activity and ensuring an adequate provision of skills to support the nation’s economic and social activities into the future. Sustaining the level of apprenticeships Many of the policy initiatives for retaining apprenticeship numbers centre on financial incentives for Australian enterprises to employ, retain and sustain apprentices. There are also provisions for informing and supporting apprentices and suggestions about extending the reach of group training companies. Yet, there is a concern that approaches such as additional incentives for employers will add to a culture in which responsibility for the development of skills is exercised largely by governments, and much less by the enterprises that employ skilled workers. Increased incentives to business are often at a cost not only to taxpayer but also, arguably, the apprenticeship system itself through calls for shorter duration of indenture and for transferring the responsibility of skill development to others, such as a group training scheme. This has created an unhealthy dependence by business on others for skill development of their workforce, rather than taking greater responsibility and strategic approaches to their own needs and making contributions to the national skill development effort. It’s arguable that even more programs and incentives focused this way may well result in even lower levels of enterprise engagement and responsibility for the provision of apprenticeships and skill development. Ultimately, this makes more difficult the task of developing a mature and collaborative approach to national skill development, which should be a consideration when public funds are allocated. Programs that nurture greater commitment by enterprises towards apprentices and skill development should be encouraged. Such programs might seek to elevate the standing of skills and skilled workers and encourage, advise and support enterprises in enhancing the quality of apprenticeship learning in their workplaces. This might be achieved through the championing of the skills that underpin enterprise profitability and national wellbeing, and include considerations of their development. Although the discussion paper refers directly to the value to individuals of their apprenticeship, actions to ensure that individuals’ choice of apprenticeship are aligned to their interests and capacities, the provision of support, and appraisals of how adequately previous experiences have prepared them for success are not emphasised in the programs or suggestions under consideration. That is, the focus on the apprentices themselves - those who engage, learn and may opt out - are not highlighted. Also, absent in the discussion paper is reference to or measures about addressing the gender bias in Australian apprenticeships. Without the greater engagement of women in apprenticeships, entry-level training will remain restricted to the largely male school leaver cohort. Not only will women continue to be denied opportunities to pursue careers in trades, and Australian business will be denied access to their skills and capacities. Ensuring an adequate provision of skills Much of emphasis of the discussion paper is directed towards young people, such as school leavers as being likely apprentices. Indeed, apprenticeships are often cited as providing an effective transition from school into working life for those students not bound for tertiary or higher education. Yet, positioning apprenticeships as primarily for school leavers beggars the potential provision for the level and kinds of skill development required in the future. It is unlikely that the rates of young people’s non-completion within apprenticeship programs will be reversed by the current suite of programs, as they do not appear to address the issues reported in the discussion paper as underpinning them. While it is important and necessary to encourage and sustain young people’s engagement in and completion of apprenticeships, it is also necessary to extend the apprenticeship provision beyond new workforce entrants. As the length of working life increases, and mature workers come to represent the majority of the workforce, greater consideration for mature-age apprentices and provisions aligned to their needs need to be considered. In the listings of indicative actions, the discussion paper only makes reference to older workers as retirees who can support young apprentices. Securing the engagement of mature apprentices of both genders, changing perceptions of employers about the worth of these apprentices and supporting their engagement should be key action areas for government. Many such apprentices may require wage subsidies in order to be sustained through their apprenticeship. Noteworthy, amongst the various programs listed in the appendices, only one explicitly refers to enhancing the level of engagement with mature workers as apprentices. Conversely, arrangements that provide for rapid progression through apprenticeships need to be ordered, and helpfully there is some reference to these matters in the discussion paper. It would be useful if the taskforce could identify ways in which the apprenticeship provision could be more inclusive of Australians beyond male school leavers. It may well be that only through securing apprentices outside of this cohort that an adequate provision of skilled workers can be realised for the future social and economic needs of the Australian community. Stephen Billett is professor of adult vocational education at Griffith University.