Master Builders Australia
Responding to the Government's inquiry into the Free TAFE Bill 2024, the nation's peak building and construction industry association has cautioned against legislating the policy in the absence of data and its unintended consequences.
Australia's building and construction industry faces the enormous task of building enough homes, commercial premises and infrastructure to meet increasing demand and a growing population.
Labour shortages are the biggest source of pressure to deliver these goals.
While Master Builders Australia is supportive in principle of fee-free vocational education courses and the Albanese Government's skills and training agenda in general, the legislation of free TAFE is unnecessary and will have unintended impacts on highly successful not-for-profit, private registered training organisations (RTOs).
As yet, there is no adequate data to show that the Free TAFE initiative has worked, as it is still too early in the piece.
Master Builders released its blueprint for increasing the attraction and retention of apprentices in the industry, which can be read here.
Quotes attributable to Master Builders Australia CEO Denita Wawn:
"Free TAFE initiatives unfairly distort the market towards TAFE-delivered courses over industry-led providers.
"We have not seen the free TAFE policy bring more people into building and construction apprenticeships; rather, it has simply reshuffled the deck.
"The proposed Bill is anti-competitive and creates a market distortion and should not be committed to legislation.
"If the Government does seek to pass the Bill, it must be amended to include not-for-profit industry-run RTOs.
"This Federal Election, we are looking at all parties for practical and evidence-based solutions to labour shortages in the industry which is crucial to addressing the housing crisis," Ms Wawn said.
/Public Release. This material from the originating organization/author(s) might be of the point-in-time nature, and edited for clarity, style and length. Mirage.News does not take institutional positions or sides, and all views, positions, and conclusions expressed herein are solely those of the author(s).
