❓ A parliamentary question regarding a proposed school-based apprenticeship system and the hiring of a consultant, Mr. Robert Stowell, to investigate institute-based apprenticeships. The Minister clarifies the government is not considering a school-based system and provides details of the consultancy.
AnsweredQoN 1039Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
SCHOOL-BASED APPRENTICESHIP SYSTEM — MR ROBERT STOWELL
I refer to the announcement that the minister is considering a proposal for a new school-based apprenticeship system in which students pay to learn a trade in the classroom, rather than being paid to learn on the job; and to the department’s hiring of a consultant, Mr Robert Stowell, a director of Training Australia, to investigate institute-based apprenticeships amongst other proposals. (1) How much is Mr Stowell being paid and for what period of time will he be employed? (2) What are the terms of reference for his consultancy and will the minister table them? (3) If no to (2), why not? (4) Does Training Australia, of which Mr Stowell is a director, represent private training providers? (5) If yes to (4), can the minister list which ones? (6) What other proposals other than institute-based apprenticeships is Mr Stowell investigating? Hon PETER COLLIER
I refer to the announcement that the minister is considering a proposal for a new school-based apprenticeship system in which students pay to learn a trade in the classroom, rather than being paid to learn on the job; and to the department’s hiring of a consultant, Mr Robert Stowell, a director of Training Australia, to investigate institute-based apprenticeships amongst other proposals. (1) How much is Mr Stowell being paid and for what period of time will he be employed? (2) What are the terms of reference for his consultancy and will the minister table them? (3) If no to (2), why not? (4) Does Training Australia, of which Mr Stowell is a director, represent private training providers? (5) If yes to (4), can the minister list which ones? (6) What other proposals other than institute-based apprenticeships is Mr Stowell investigating? Hon PETER COLLIER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. I preface my response by saying at the outset that I certainly have not announced that we will be introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system, and the government is not considering it. However, having said that, I can understand why Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich would assume that that was the case, because I did as well. I woke up yesterday morning—I am sure that I am looking at the same newspaper article that Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich is looking at—to see the headline “Push to teach trades in school”. The first paragraph states — The State Government is considering a proposal for a new school-based apprenticeship system in which students pay to learn a trade in the classroom, rather than getting paid to learn on the job. I was totally confused by that, because it is not something that I had considered or that anyone had ever broached with me at all. So the thought that we, as a government, were considering it came as news to me. I am sure that if anyone in this chamber or anyone out on the street had read that article and was asked what it means, they would say that they assume it means the state government is considering introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system. That is not the case. I rang the journalist and asked her, firstly, why I was not consulted or asked for a comment, and, secondly, why she said it. She said, “It is not for schools. It is for TAFE colleges, private registered training organisations and trade schools.” I said, “Well, that’s not how the article reads. The article reads as though it is a new school-based apprenticeship program.” After a fairly colourful conversation for a few moments, she said, “Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree, because that’s not the case.” I explained to her that we are looking at having a more flexible apprenticeship system and that I am looking at the concept of more institutional-based apprenticeships. However, that is outside the school system and is meant to complement the current traditional apprenticeship system—not replace the current apprenticeship system but — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Will apprentices be paid under that system? Hon PETER COLLIER : I will respond to the member’s question in a moment. I want to clarify once again that we are not considering a new school-based apprenticeship system; we simply are not. While the journalist involved is satisfied that this article does not imply or suggest that we are introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system, I beg to differ. I said to her once again, “I suggest that if you asked most people out there whether that is the inference they would draw from that article, they would say yes.” I want to clarify that. I will now respond to Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich’s questions. I have made no announcement regarding a new school-based apprenticeship system, nor is such a system being considered. (1) The project is in two stages, with consideration of the stage 1 report determining whether the project will proceed to stage 2. Mr Stowell’s company, Learning Australia Pty Ltd, is being paid $19 360, including goods and services tax, for stage 1. Stage 1 is over a period of three weeks. If the project progresses to stage 2, Learning Australia will be paid $14 960, including GST. Stage 2 is for a period of approximately two weeks. (2) Yes, I table the document. [See paper 1446.] (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable. (6) See stage 1 of the terms of reference. This project was primarily instigated to address a number of concerns raised by industry stakeholders regarding existing institutional delivery of trade qualifications to international students.
(1) How much is Mr Stowell being paid and for what period of time will he be employed? (2) What are the terms of reference for his consultancy and will the minister table them? (3) If no to (2), why not? (4) Does Training Australia, of which Mr Stowell is a director, represent private training providers? (5) If yes to (4), can the minister list which ones? (6) What other proposals other than institute-based apprenticeships is Mr Stowell investigating? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. I preface my response by saying at the outset that I certainly have not announced that we will be introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system, and the government is not considering it. However, having said that, I can understand why Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich would assume that that was the case, because I did as well. I woke up yesterday morning—I am sure that I am looking at the same newspaper article that Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich is looking at—to see the headline “Push to teach trades in school”. The first paragraph states — The State Government is considering a proposal for a new school-based apprenticeship system in which students pay to learn a trade in the classroom, rather than getting paid to learn on the job. I was totally confused by that, because it is not something that I had considered or that anyone had ever broached with me at all. So the thought that we, as a government, were considering it came as news to me. I am sure that if anyone in this chamber or anyone out on the street had read that article and was asked what it means, they would say that they assume it means the state government is considering introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system. That is not the case. I rang the journalist and asked her, firstly, why I was not consulted or asked for a comment, and, secondly, why she said it. She said, “It is not for schools. It is for TAFE colleges, private registered training organisations and trade schools.” I said, “Well, that’s not how the article reads. The article reads as though it is a new school-based apprenticeship program.” After a fairly colourful conversation for a few moments, she said, “Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree, because that’s not the case.” I explained to her that we are looking at having a more flexible apprenticeship system and that I am looking at the concept of more institutional-based apprenticeships. However, that is outside the school system and is meant to complement the current traditional apprenticeship system—not replace the current apprenticeship system but — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Will apprentices be paid under that system? Hon PETER COLLIER : I will respond to the member’s question in a moment. I want to clarify once again that we are not considering a new school-based apprenticeship system; we simply are not. While the journalist involved is satisfied that this article does not imply or suggest that we are introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system, I beg to differ. I said to her once again, “I suggest that if you asked most people out there whether that is the inference they would draw from that article, they would say yes.” I want to clarify that. I will now respond to Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich’s questions. I have made no announcement regarding a new school-based apprenticeship system, nor is such a system being considered. (1) The project is in two stages, with consideration of the stage 1 report determining whether the project will proceed to stage 2. Mr Stowell’s company, Learning Australia Pty Ltd, is being paid $19 360, including goods and services tax, for stage 1. Stage 1 is over a period of three weeks. If the project progresses to stage 2, Learning Australia will be paid $14 960, including GST. Stage 2 is for a period of approximately two weeks. (2) Yes, I table the document. [See paper 1446.] (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable. (6) See stage 1 of the terms of reference. This project was primarily instigated to address a number of concerns raised by industry stakeholders regarding existing institutional delivery of trade qualifications to international students.
(2) What are the terms of reference for his consultancy and will the minister table them? (3) If no to (2), why not? (4) Does Training Australia, of which Mr Stowell is a director, represent private training providers? (5) If yes to (4), can the minister list which ones? (6) What other proposals other than institute-based apprenticeships is Mr Stowell investigating? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. I preface my response by saying at the outset that I certainly have not announced that we will be introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system, and the government is not considering it. However, having said that, I can understand why Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich would assume that that was the case, because I did as well. I woke up yesterday morning—I am sure that I am looking at the same newspaper article that Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich is looking at—to see the headline “Push to teach trades in school”. The first paragraph states — The State Government is considering a proposal for a new school-based apprenticeship system in which students pay to learn a trade in the classroom, rather than getting paid to learn on the job. I was totally confused by that, because it is not something that I had considered or that anyone had ever broached with me at all. So the thought that we, as a government, were considering it came as news to me. I am sure that if anyone in this chamber or anyone out on the street had read that article and was asked what it means, they would say that they assume it means the state government is considering introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system. That is not the case. I rang the journalist and asked her, firstly, why I was not consulted or asked for a comment, and, secondly, why she said it. She said, “It is not for schools. It is for TAFE colleges, private registered training organisations and trade schools.” I said, “Well, that’s not how the article reads. The article reads as though it is a new school-based apprenticeship program.” After a fairly colourful conversation for a few moments, she said, “Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree, because that’s not the case.” I explained to her that we are looking at having a more flexible apprenticeship system and that I am looking at the concept of more institutional-based apprenticeships. However, that is outside the school system and is meant to complement the current traditional apprenticeship system—not replace the current apprenticeship system but — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Will apprentices be paid under that system? Hon PETER COLLIER : I will respond to the member’s question in a moment. I want to clarify once again that we are not considering a new school-based apprenticeship system; we simply are not. While the journalist involved is satisfied that this article does not imply or suggest that we are introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system, I beg to differ. I said to her once again, “I suggest that if you asked most people out there whether that is the inference they would draw from that article, they would say yes.” I want to clarify that. I will now respond to Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich’s questions. I have made no announcement regarding a new school-based apprenticeship system, nor is such a system being considered. (1) The project is in two stages, with consideration of the stage 1 report determining whether the project will proceed to stage 2. Mr Stowell’s company, Learning Australia Pty Ltd, is being paid $19 360, including goods and services tax, for stage 1. Stage 1 is over a period of three weeks. If the project progresses to stage 2, Learning Australia will be paid $14 960, including GST. Stage 2 is for a period of approximately two weeks. (2) Yes, I table the document. [See paper 1446.] (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable. (6) See stage 1 of the terms of reference. This project was primarily instigated to address a number of concerns raised by industry stakeholders regarding existing institutional delivery of trade qualifications to international students.
(3) If no to (2), why not? (4) Does Training Australia, of which Mr Stowell is a director, represent private training providers? (5) If yes to (4), can the minister list which ones? (6) What other proposals other than institute-based apprenticeships is Mr Stowell investigating? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. I preface my response by saying at the outset that I certainly have not announced that we will be introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system, and the government is not considering it. However, having said that, I can understand why Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich would assume that that was the case, because I did as well. I woke up yesterday morning—I am sure that I am looking at the same newspaper article that Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich is looking at—to see the headline “Push to teach trades in school”. The first paragraph states — The State Government is considering a proposal for a new school-based apprenticeship system in which students pay to learn a trade in the classroom, rather than getting paid to learn on the job. I was totally confused by that, because it is not something that I had considered or that anyone had ever broached with me at all. So the thought that we, as a government, were considering it came as news to me. I am sure that if anyone in this chamber or anyone out on the street had read that article and was asked what it means, they would say that they assume it means the state government is considering introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system. That is not the case. I rang the journalist and asked her, firstly, why I was not consulted or asked for a comment, and, secondly, why she said it. She said, “It is not for schools. It is for TAFE colleges, private registered training organisations and trade schools.” I said, “Well, that’s not how the article reads. The article reads as though it is a new school-based apprenticeship program.” After a fairly colourful conversation for a few moments, she said, “Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree, because that’s not the case.” I explained to her that we are looking at having a more flexible apprenticeship system and that I am looking at the concept of more institutional-based apprenticeships. However, that is outside the school system and is meant to complement the current traditional apprenticeship system—not replace the current apprenticeship system but — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Will apprentices be paid under that system? Hon PETER COLLIER : I will respond to the member’s question in a moment. I want to clarify once again that we are not considering a new school-based apprenticeship system; we simply are not. While the journalist involved is satisfied that this article does not imply or suggest that we are introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system, I beg to differ. I said to her once again, “I suggest that if you asked most people out there whether that is the inference they would draw from that article, they would say yes.” I want to clarify that. I will now respond to Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich’s questions. I have made no announcement regarding a new school-based apprenticeship system, nor is such a system being considered. (1) The project is in two stages, with consideration of the stage 1 report determining whether the project will proceed to stage 2. Mr Stowell’s company, Learning Australia Pty Ltd, is being paid $19 360, including goods and services tax, for stage 1. Stage 1 is over a period of three weeks. If the project progresses to stage 2, Learning Australia will be paid $14 960, including GST. Stage 2 is for a period of approximately two weeks. (2) Yes, I table the document. [See paper 1446.] (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable. (6) See stage 1 of the terms of reference. This project was primarily instigated to address a number of concerns raised by industry stakeholders regarding existing institutional delivery of trade qualifications to international students.
(4) Does Training Australia, of which Mr Stowell is a director, represent private training providers? (5) If yes to (4), can the minister list which ones? (6) What other proposals other than institute-based apprenticeships is Mr Stowell investigating? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. I preface my response by saying at the outset that I certainly have not announced that we will be introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system, and the government is not considering it. However, having said that, I can understand why Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich would assume that that was the case, because I did as well. I woke up yesterday morning—I am sure that I am looking at the same newspaper article that Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich is looking at—to see the headline “Push to teach trades in school”. The first paragraph states — The State Government is considering a proposal for a new school-based apprenticeship system in which students pay to learn a trade in the classroom, rather than getting paid to learn on the job. I was totally confused by that, because it is not something that I had considered or that anyone had ever broached with me at all. So the thought that we, as a government, were considering it came as news to me. I am sure that if anyone in this chamber or anyone out on the street had read that article and was asked what it means, they would say that they assume it means the state government is considering introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system. That is not the case. I rang the journalist and asked her, firstly, why I was not consulted or asked for a comment, and, secondly, why she said it. She said, “It is not for schools. It is for TAFE colleges, private registered training organisations and trade schools.” I said, “Well, that’s not how the article reads. The article reads as though it is a new school-based apprenticeship program.” After a fairly colourful conversation for a few moments, she said, “Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree, because that’s not the case.” I explained to her that we are looking at having a more flexible apprenticeship system and that I am looking at the concept of more institutional-based apprenticeships. However, that is outside the school system and is meant to complement the current traditional apprenticeship system—not replace the current apprenticeship system but — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Will apprentices be paid under that system? Hon PETER COLLIER : I will respond to the member’s question in a moment. I want to clarify once again that we are not considering a new school-based apprenticeship system; we simply are not. While the journalist involved is satisfied that this article does not imply or suggest that we are introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system, I beg to differ. I said to her once again, “I suggest that if you asked most people out there whether that is the inference they would draw from that article, they would say yes.” I want to clarify that. I will now respond to Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich’s questions. I have made no announcement regarding a new school-based apprenticeship system, nor is such a system being considered. (1) The project is in two stages, with consideration of the stage 1 report determining whether the project will proceed to stage 2. Mr Stowell’s company, Learning Australia Pty Ltd, is being paid $19 360, including goods and services tax, for stage 1. Stage 1 is over a period of three weeks. If the project progresses to stage 2, Learning Australia will be paid $14 960, including GST. Stage 2 is for a period of approximately two weeks. (2) Yes, I table the document. [See paper 1446.] (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable. (6) See stage 1 of the terms of reference. This project was primarily instigated to address a number of concerns raised by industry stakeholders regarding existing institutional delivery of trade qualifications to international students.
(5) If yes to (4), can the minister list which ones? (6) What other proposals other than institute-based apprenticeships is Mr Stowell investigating? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. I preface my response by saying at the outset that I certainly have not announced that we will be introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system, and the government is not considering it. However, having said that, I can understand why Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich would assume that that was the case, because I did as well. I woke up yesterday morning—I am sure that I am looking at the same newspaper article that Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich is looking at—to see the headline “Push to teach trades in school”. The first paragraph states — The State Government is considering a proposal for a new school-based apprenticeship system in which students pay to learn a trade in the classroom, rather than getting paid to learn on the job. I was totally confused by that, because it is not something that I had considered or that anyone had ever broached with me at all. So the thought that we, as a government, were considering it came as news to me. I am sure that if anyone in this chamber or anyone out on the street had read that article and was asked what it means, they would say that they assume it means the state government is considering introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system. That is not the case. I rang the journalist and asked her, firstly, why I was not consulted or asked for a comment, and, secondly, why she said it. She said, “It is not for schools. It is for TAFE colleges, private registered training organisations and trade schools.” I said, “Well, that’s not how the article reads. The article reads as though it is a new school-based apprenticeship program.” After a fairly colourful conversation for a few moments, she said, “Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree, because that’s not the case.” I explained to her that we are looking at having a more flexible apprenticeship system and that I am looking at the concept of more institutional-based apprenticeships. However, that is outside the school system and is meant to complement the current traditional apprenticeship system—not replace the current apprenticeship system but — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Will apprentices be paid under that system? Hon PETER COLLIER : I will respond to the member’s question in a moment. I want to clarify once again that we are not considering a new school-based apprenticeship system; we simply are not. While the journalist involved is satisfied that this article does not imply or suggest that we are introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system, I beg to differ. I said to her once again, “I suggest that if you asked most people out there whether that is the inference they would draw from that article, they would say yes.” I want to clarify that. I will now respond to Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich’s questions. I have made no announcement regarding a new school-based apprenticeship system, nor is such a system being considered. (1) The project is in two stages, with consideration of the stage 1 report determining whether the project will proceed to stage 2. Mr Stowell’s company, Learning Australia Pty Ltd, is being paid $19 360, including goods and services tax, for stage 1. Stage 1 is over a period of three weeks. If the project progresses to stage 2, Learning Australia will be paid $14 960, including GST. Stage 2 is for a period of approximately two weeks. (2) Yes, I table the document. [See paper 1446.] (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable. (6) See stage 1 of the terms of reference. This project was primarily instigated to address a number of concerns raised by industry stakeholders regarding existing institutional delivery of trade qualifications to international students.
(6) What other proposals other than institute-based apprenticeships is Mr Stowell investigating? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. I preface my response by saying at the outset that I certainly have not announced that we will be introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system, and the government is not considering it. However, having said that, I can understand why Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich would assume that that was the case, because I did as well. I woke up yesterday morning—I am sure that I am looking at the same newspaper article that Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich is looking at—to see the headline “Push to teach trades in school”. The first paragraph states — The State Government is considering a proposal for a new school-based apprenticeship system in which students pay to learn a trade in the classroom, rather than getting paid to learn on the job. I was totally confused by that, because it is not something that I had considered or that anyone had ever broached with me at all. So the thought that we, as a government, were considering it came as news to me. I am sure that if anyone in this chamber or anyone out on the street had read that article and was asked what it means, they would say that they assume it means the state government is considering introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system. That is not the case. I rang the journalist and asked her, firstly, why I was not consulted or asked for a comment, and, secondly, why she said it. She said, “It is not for schools. It is for TAFE colleges, private registered training organisations and trade schools.” I said, “Well, that’s not how the article reads. The article reads as though it is a new school-based apprenticeship program.” After a fairly colourful conversation for a few moments, she said, “Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree, because that’s not the case.” I explained to her that we are looking at having a more flexible apprenticeship system and that I am looking at the concept of more institutional-based apprenticeships. However, that is outside the school system and is meant to complement the current traditional apprenticeship system—not replace the current apprenticeship system but — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Will apprentices be paid under that system? Hon PETER COLLIER : I will respond to the member’s question in a moment. I want to clarify once again that we are not considering a new school-based apprenticeship system; we simply are not. While the journalist involved is satisfied that this article does not imply or suggest that we are introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system, I beg to differ. I said to her once again, “I suggest that if you asked most people out there whether that is the inference they would draw from that article, they would say yes.” I want to clarify that. I will now respond to Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich’s questions. I have made no announcement regarding a new school-based apprenticeship system, nor is such a system being considered. (1) The project is in two stages, with consideration of the stage 1 report determining whether the project will proceed to stage 2. Mr Stowell’s company, Learning Australia Pty Ltd, is being paid $19 360, including goods and services tax, for stage 1. Stage 1 is over a period of three weeks. If the project progresses to stage 2, Learning Australia will be paid $14 960, including GST. Stage 2 is for a period of approximately two weeks. (2) Yes, I table the document. [See paper 1446.] (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable. (6) See stage 1 of the terms of reference. This project was primarily instigated to address a number of concerns raised by industry stakeholders regarding existing institutional delivery of trade qualifications to international students.
Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. I preface my response by saying at the outset that I certainly have not announced that we will be introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system, and the government is not considering it. However, having said that, I can understand why Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich would assume that that was the case, because I did as well. I woke up yesterday morning—I am sure that I am looking at the same newspaper article that Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich is looking at—to see the headline “Push to teach trades in school”. The first paragraph states — The State Government is considering a proposal for a new school-based apprenticeship system in which students pay to learn a trade in the classroom, rather than getting paid to learn on the job. I was totally confused by that, because it is not something that I had considered or that anyone had ever broached with me at all. So the thought that we, as a government, were considering it came as news to me. I am sure that if anyone in this chamber or anyone out on the street had read that article and was asked what it means, they would say that they assume it means the state government is considering introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system. That is not the case. I rang the journalist and asked her, firstly, why I was not consulted or asked for a comment, and, secondly, why she said it. She said, “It is not for schools. It is for TAFE colleges, private registered training organisations and trade schools.” I said, “Well, that’s not how the article reads. The article reads as though it is a new school-based apprenticeship program.” After a fairly colourful conversation for a few moments, she said, “Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree, because that’s not the case.” I explained to her that we are looking at having a more flexible apprenticeship system and that I am looking at the concept of more institutional-based apprenticeships. However, that is outside the school system and is meant to complement the current traditional apprenticeship system—not replace the current apprenticeship system but — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Will apprentices be paid under that system? Hon PETER COLLIER : I will respond to the member’s question in a moment. I want to clarify once again that we are not considering a new school-based apprenticeship system; we simply are not. While the journalist involved is satisfied that this article does not imply or suggest that we are introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system, I beg to differ. I said to her once again, “I suggest that if you asked most people out there whether that is the inference they would draw from that article, they would say yes.” I want to clarify that. I will now respond to Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich’s questions. I have made no announcement regarding a new school-based apprenticeship system, nor is such a system being considered. (1) The project is in two stages, with consideration of the stage 1 report determining whether the project will proceed to stage 2. Mr Stowell’s company, Learning Australia Pty Ltd, is being paid $19 360, including goods and services tax, for stage 1. Stage 1 is over a period of three weeks. If the project progresses to stage 2, Learning Australia will be paid $14 960, including GST. Stage 2 is for a period of approximately two weeks. (2) Yes, I table the document. [See paper 1446.] (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable. (6) See stage 1 of the terms of reference. This project was primarily instigated to address a number of concerns raised by industry stakeholders regarding existing institutional delivery of trade qualifications to international students.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. I preface my response by saying at the outset that I certainly have not announced that we will be introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system, and the government is not considering it. However, having said that, I can understand why Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich would assume that that was the case, because I did as well. I woke up yesterday morning—I am sure that I am looking at the same newspaper article that Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich is looking at—to see the headline “Push to teach trades in school”. The first paragraph states — The State Government is considering a proposal for a new school-based apprenticeship system in which students pay to learn a trade in the classroom, rather than getting paid to learn on the job. I was totally confused by that, because it is not something that I had considered or that anyone had ever broached with me at all. So the thought that we, as a government, were considering it came as news to me. I am sure that if anyone in this chamber or anyone out on the street had read that article and was asked what it means, they would say that they assume it means the state government is considering introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system. That is not the case. I rang the journalist and asked her, firstly, why I was not consulted or asked for a comment, and, secondly, why she said it. She said, “It is not for schools. It is for TAFE colleges, private registered training organisations and trade schools.” I said, “Well, that’s not how the article reads. The article reads as though it is a new school-based apprenticeship program.” After a fairly colourful conversation for a few moments, she said, “Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree, because that’s not the case.” I explained to her that we are looking at having a more flexible apprenticeship system and that I am looking at the concept of more institutional-based apprenticeships. However, that is outside the school system and is meant to complement the current traditional apprenticeship system—not replace the current apprenticeship system but — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Will apprentices be paid under that system? Hon PETER COLLIER : I will respond to the member’s question in a moment. I want to clarify once again that we are not considering a new school-based apprenticeship system; we simply are not. While the journalist involved is satisfied that this article does not imply or suggest that we are introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system, I beg to differ. I said to her once again, “I suggest that if you asked most people out there whether that is the inference they would draw from that article, they would say yes.” I want to clarify that. I will now respond to Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich’s questions. I have made no announcement regarding a new school-based apprenticeship system, nor is such a system being considered. (1) The project is in two stages, with consideration of the stage 1 report determining whether the project will proceed to stage 2. Mr Stowell’s company, Learning Australia Pty Ltd, is being paid $19 360, including goods and services tax, for stage 1. Stage 1 is over a period of three weeks. If the project progresses to stage 2, Learning Australia will be paid $14 960, including GST. Stage 2 is for a period of approximately two weeks. (2) Yes, I table the document. [See paper 1446.] (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable. (6) See stage 1 of the terms of reference. This project was primarily instigated to address a number of concerns raised by industry stakeholders regarding existing institutional delivery of trade qualifications to international students.
Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Will apprentices be paid under that system? Hon PETER COLLIER : I will respond to the member’s question in a moment. I want to clarify once again that we are not considering a new school-based apprenticeship system; we simply are not. While the journalist involved is satisfied that this article does not imply or suggest that we are introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system, I beg to differ. I said to her once again, “I suggest that if you asked most people out there whether that is the inference they would draw from that article, they would say yes.” I want to clarify that. I will now respond to Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich’s questions. I have made no announcement regarding a new school-based apprenticeship system, nor is such a system being considered. (1) The project is in two stages, with consideration of the stage 1 report determining whether the project will proceed to stage 2. Mr Stowell’s company, Learning Australia Pty Ltd, is being paid $19 360, including goods and services tax, for stage 1. Stage 1 is over a period of three weeks. If the project progresses to stage 2, Learning Australia will be paid $14 960, including GST. Stage 2 is for a period of approximately two weeks. (2) Yes, I table the document. [See paper 1446.] (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable. (6) See stage 1 of the terms of reference. This project was primarily instigated to address a number of concerns raised by industry stakeholders regarding existing institutional delivery of trade qualifications to international students.
Hon PETER COLLIER : I will respond to the member’s question in a moment. I want to clarify once again that we are not considering a new school-based apprenticeship system; we simply are not. While the journalist involved is satisfied that this article does not imply or suggest that we are introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system, I beg to differ. I said to her once again, “I suggest that if you asked most people out there whether that is the inference they would draw from that article, they would say yes.” I want to clarify that. I will now respond to Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich’s questions. I have made no announcement regarding a new school-based apprenticeship system, nor is such a system being considered. (1) The project is in two stages, with consideration of the stage 1 report determining whether the project will proceed to stage 2. Mr Stowell’s company, Learning Australia Pty Ltd, is being paid $19 360, including goods and services tax, for stage 1. Stage 1 is over a period of three weeks. If the project progresses to stage 2, Learning Australia will be paid $14 960, including GST. Stage 2 is for a period of approximately two weeks. (2) Yes, I table the document. [See paper 1446.] (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable. (6) See stage 1 of the terms of reference. This project was primarily instigated to address a number of concerns raised by industry stakeholders regarding existing institutional delivery of trade qualifications to international students.
I have made no announcement regarding a new school-based apprenticeship system, nor is such a system being considered. (1) The project is in two stages, with consideration of the stage 1 report determining whether the project will proceed to stage 2. Mr Stowell’s company, Learning Australia Pty Ltd, is being paid $19 360, including goods and services tax, for stage 1. Stage 1 is over a period of three weeks. If the project progresses to stage 2, Learning Australia will be paid $14 960, including GST. Stage 2 is for a period of approximately two weeks. (2) Yes, I table the document. [See paper 1446.] (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable. (6) See stage 1 of the terms of reference. This project was primarily instigated to address a number of concerns raised by industry stakeholders regarding existing institutional delivery of trade qualifications to international students.
(1) The project is in two stages, with consideration of the stage 1 report determining whether the project will proceed to stage 2. Mr Stowell’s company, Learning Australia Pty Ltd, is being paid $19 360, including goods and services tax, for stage 1. Stage 1 is over a period of three weeks. If the project progresses to stage 2, Learning Australia will be paid $14 960, including GST. Stage 2 is for a period of approximately two weeks. (2) Yes, I table the document. [See paper 1446.] (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable. (6) See stage 1 of the terms of reference. This project was primarily instigated to address a number of concerns raised by industry stakeholders regarding existing institutional delivery of trade qualifications to international students.
(2) Yes, I table the document. [See paper 1446.] (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable. (6) See stage 1 of the terms of reference. This project was primarily instigated to address a number of concerns raised by industry stakeholders regarding existing institutional delivery of trade qualifications to international students.
(3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable. (6) See stage 1 of the terms of reference. This project was primarily instigated to address a number of concerns raised by industry stakeholders regarding existing institutional delivery of trade qualifications to international students.
(4) No. (5) Not applicable. (6) See stage 1 of the terms of reference. This project was primarily instigated to address a number of concerns raised by industry stakeholders regarding existing institutional delivery of trade qualifications to international students.
(5) Not applicable. (6) See stage 1 of the terms of reference. This project was primarily instigated to address a number of concerns raised by industry stakeholders regarding existing institutional delivery of trade qualifications to international students.
(6) See stage 1 of the terms of reference. This project was primarily instigated to address a number of concerns raised by industry stakeholders regarding existing institutional delivery of trade qualifications to international students.
(1) How much is Mr Stowell being paid and for what period of time will he be employed? (2) What are the terms of reference for his consultancy and will the minister table them? (3) If no to (2), why not? (4) Does Training Australia, of which Mr Stowell is a director, represent private training providers? (5) If yes to (4), can the minister list which ones? (6) What other proposals other than institute-based apprenticeships is Mr Stowell investigating? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. I preface my response by saying at the outset that I certainly have not announced that we will be introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system, and the government is not considering it. However, having said that, I can understand why Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich would assume that that was the case, because I did as well. I woke up yesterday morning—I am sure that I am looking at the same newspaper article that Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich is looking at—to see the headline “Push to teach trades in school”. The first paragraph states — The State Government is considering a proposal for a new school-based apprenticeship system in which students pay to learn a trade in the classroom, rather than getting paid to learn on the job. I was totally confused by that, because it is not something that I had considered or that anyone had ever broached with me at all. So the thought that we, as a government, were considering it came as news to me. I am sure that if anyone in this chamber or anyone out on the street had read that article and was asked what it means, they would say that they assume it means the state government is considering introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system. That is not the case. I rang the journalist and asked her, firstly, why I was not consulted or asked for a comment, and, secondly, why she said it. She said, “It is not for schools. It is for TAFE colleges, private registered training organisations and trade schools.” I said, “Well, that’s not how the article reads. The article reads as though it is a new school-based apprenticeship program.” After a fairly colourful conversation for a few moments, she said, “Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree, because that’s not the case.” I explained to her that we are looking at having a more flexible apprenticeship system and that I am looking at the concept of more institutional-based apprenticeships. However, that is outside the school system and is meant to complement the current traditional apprenticeship system—not replace the current apprenticeship system but — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Will apprentices be paid under that system? Hon PETER COLLIER : I will respond to the member’s question in a moment. I want to clarify once again that we are not considering a new school-based apprenticeship system; we simply are not. While the journalist involved is satisfied that this article does not imply or suggest that we are introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system, I beg to differ. I said to her once again, “I suggest that if you asked most people out there whether that is the inference they would draw from that article, they would say yes.” I want to clarify that. I will now respond to Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich’s questions. I have made no announcement regarding a new school-based apprenticeship system, nor is such a system being considered. (1) The project is in two stages, with consideration of the stage 1 report determining whether the project will proceed to stage 2. Mr Stowell’s company, Learning Australia Pty Ltd, is being paid $19 360, including goods and services tax, for stage 1. Stage 1 is over a period of three weeks. If the project progresses to stage 2, Learning Australia will be paid $14 960, including GST. Stage 2 is for a period of approximately two weeks. (2) Yes, I table the document. [See paper 1446.] (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable. (6) See stage 1 of the terms of reference. This project was primarily instigated to address a number of concerns raised by industry stakeholders regarding existing institutional delivery of trade qualifications to international students.
(2) What are the terms of reference for his consultancy and will the minister table them? (3) If no to (2), why not? (4) Does Training Australia, of which Mr Stowell is a director, represent private training providers? (5) If yes to (4), can the minister list which ones? (6) What other proposals other than institute-based apprenticeships is Mr Stowell investigating? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. I preface my response by saying at the outset that I certainly have not announced that we will be introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system, and the government is not considering it. However, having said that, I can understand why Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich would assume that that was the case, because I did as well. I woke up yesterday morning—I am sure that I am looking at the same newspaper article that Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich is looking at—to see the headline “Push to teach trades in school”. The first paragraph states — The State Government is considering a proposal for a new school-based apprenticeship system in which students pay to learn a trade in the classroom, rather than getting paid to learn on the job. I was totally confused by that, because it is not something that I had considered or that anyone had ever broached with me at all. So the thought that we, as a government, were considering it came as news to me. I am sure that if anyone in this chamber or anyone out on the street had read that article and was asked what it means, they would say that they assume it means the state government is considering introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system. That is not the case. I rang the journalist and asked her, firstly, why I was not consulted or asked for a comment, and, secondly, why she said it. She said, “It is not for schools. It is for TAFE colleges, private registered training organisations and trade schools.” I said, “Well, that’s not how the article reads. The article reads as though it is a new school-based apprenticeship program.” After a fairly colourful conversation for a few moments, she said, “Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree, because that’s not the case.” I explained to her that we are looking at having a more flexible apprenticeship system and that I am looking at the concept of more institutional-based apprenticeships. However, that is outside the school system and is meant to complement the current traditional apprenticeship system—not replace the current apprenticeship system but — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Will apprentices be paid under that system? Hon PETER COLLIER : I will respond to the member’s question in a moment. I want to clarify once again that we are not considering a new school-based apprenticeship system; we simply are not. While the journalist involved is satisfied that this article does not imply or suggest that we are introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system, I beg to differ. I said to her once again, “I suggest that if you asked most people out there whether that is the inference they would draw from that article, they would say yes.” I want to clarify that. I will now respond to Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich’s questions. I have made no announcement regarding a new school-based apprenticeship system, nor is such a system being considered. (1) The project is in two stages, with consideration of the stage 1 report determining whether the project will proceed to stage 2. Mr Stowell’s company, Learning Australia Pty Ltd, is being paid $19 360, including goods and services tax, for stage 1. Stage 1 is over a period of three weeks. If the project progresses to stage 2, Learning Australia will be paid $14 960, including GST. Stage 2 is for a period of approximately two weeks. (2) Yes, I table the document. [See paper 1446.] (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable. (6) See stage 1 of the terms of reference. This project was primarily instigated to address a number of concerns raised by industry stakeholders regarding existing institutional delivery of trade qualifications to international students.
(3) If no to (2), why not? (4) Does Training Australia, of which Mr Stowell is a director, represent private training providers? (5) If yes to (4), can the minister list which ones? (6) What other proposals other than institute-based apprenticeships is Mr Stowell investigating? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. I preface my response by saying at the outset that I certainly have not announced that we will be introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system, and the government is not considering it. However, having said that, I can understand why Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich would assume that that was the case, because I did as well. I woke up yesterday morning—I am sure that I am looking at the same newspaper article that Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich is looking at—to see the headline “Push to teach trades in school”. The first paragraph states — The State Government is considering a proposal for a new school-based apprenticeship system in which students pay to learn a trade in the classroom, rather than getting paid to learn on the job. I was totally confused by that, because it is not something that I had considered or that anyone had ever broached with me at all. So the thought that we, as a government, were considering it came as news to me. I am sure that if anyone in this chamber or anyone out on the street had read that article and was asked what it means, they would say that they assume it means the state government is considering introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system. That is not the case. I rang the journalist and asked her, firstly, why I was not consulted or asked for a comment, and, secondly, why she said it. She said, “It is not for schools. It is for TAFE colleges, private registered training organisations and trade schools.” I said, “Well, that’s not how the article reads. The article reads as though it is a new school-based apprenticeship program.” After a fairly colourful conversation for a few moments, she said, “Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree, because that’s not the case.” I explained to her that we are looking at having a more flexible apprenticeship system and that I am looking at the concept of more institutional-based apprenticeships. However, that is outside the school system and is meant to complement the current traditional apprenticeship system—not replace the current apprenticeship system but — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Will apprentices be paid under that system? Hon PETER COLLIER : I will respond to the member’s question in a moment. I want to clarify once again that we are not considering a new school-based apprenticeship system; we simply are not. While the journalist involved is satisfied that this article does not imply or suggest that we are introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system, I beg to differ. I said to her once again, “I suggest that if you asked most people out there whether that is the inference they would draw from that article, they would say yes.” I want to clarify that. I will now respond to Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich’s questions. I have made no announcement regarding a new school-based apprenticeship system, nor is such a system being considered. (1) The project is in two stages, with consideration of the stage 1 report determining whether the project will proceed to stage 2. Mr Stowell’s company, Learning Australia Pty Ltd, is being paid $19 360, including goods and services tax, for stage 1. Stage 1 is over a period of three weeks. If the project progresses to stage 2, Learning Australia will be paid $14 960, including GST. Stage 2 is for a period of approximately two weeks. (2) Yes, I table the document. [See paper 1446.] (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable. (6) See stage 1 of the terms of reference. This project was primarily instigated to address a number of concerns raised by industry stakeholders regarding existing institutional delivery of trade qualifications to international students.
(4) Does Training Australia, of which Mr Stowell is a director, represent private training providers? (5) If yes to (4), can the minister list which ones? (6) What other proposals other than institute-based apprenticeships is Mr Stowell investigating? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. I preface my response by saying at the outset that I certainly have not announced that we will be introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system, and the government is not considering it. However, having said that, I can understand why Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich would assume that that was the case, because I did as well. I woke up yesterday morning—I am sure that I am looking at the same newspaper article that Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich is looking at—to see the headline “Push to teach trades in school”. The first paragraph states — The State Government is considering a proposal for a new school-based apprenticeship system in which students pay to learn a trade in the classroom, rather than getting paid to learn on the job. I was totally confused by that, because it is not something that I had considered or that anyone had ever broached with me at all. So the thought that we, as a government, were considering it came as news to me. I am sure that if anyone in this chamber or anyone out on the street had read that article and was asked what it means, they would say that they assume it means the state government is considering introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system. That is not the case. I rang the journalist and asked her, firstly, why I was not consulted or asked for a comment, and, secondly, why she said it. She said, “It is not for schools. It is for TAFE colleges, private registered training organisations and trade schools.” I said, “Well, that’s not how the article reads. The article reads as though it is a new school-based apprenticeship program.” After a fairly colourful conversation for a few moments, she said, “Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree, because that’s not the case.” I explained to her that we are looking at having a more flexible apprenticeship system and that I am looking at the concept of more institutional-based apprenticeships. However, that is outside the school system and is meant to complement the current traditional apprenticeship system—not replace the current apprenticeship system but — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Will apprentices be paid under that system? Hon PETER COLLIER : I will respond to the member’s question in a moment. I want to clarify once again that we are not considering a new school-based apprenticeship system; we simply are not. While the journalist involved is satisfied that this article does not imply or suggest that we are introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system, I beg to differ. I said to her once again, “I suggest that if you asked most people out there whether that is the inference they would draw from that article, they would say yes.” I want to clarify that. I will now respond to Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich’s questions. I have made no announcement regarding a new school-based apprenticeship system, nor is such a system being considered. (1) The project is in two stages, with consideration of the stage 1 report determining whether the project will proceed to stage 2. Mr Stowell’s company, Learning Australia Pty Ltd, is being paid $19 360, including goods and services tax, for stage 1. Stage 1 is over a period of three weeks. If the project progresses to stage 2, Learning Australia will be paid $14 960, including GST. Stage 2 is for a period of approximately two weeks. (2) Yes, I table the document. [See paper 1446.] (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable. (6) See stage 1 of the terms of reference. This project was primarily instigated to address a number of concerns raised by industry stakeholders regarding existing institutional delivery of trade qualifications to international students.
(5) If yes to (4), can the minister list which ones? (6) What other proposals other than institute-based apprenticeships is Mr Stowell investigating? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. I preface my response by saying at the outset that I certainly have not announced that we will be introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system, and the government is not considering it. However, having said that, I can understand why Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich would assume that that was the case, because I did as well. I woke up yesterday morning—I am sure that I am looking at the same newspaper article that Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich is looking at—to see the headline “Push to teach trades in school”. The first paragraph states — The State Government is considering a proposal for a new school-based apprenticeship system in which students pay to learn a trade in the classroom, rather than getting paid to learn on the job. I was totally confused by that, because it is not something that I had considered or that anyone had ever broached with me at all. So the thought that we, as a government, were considering it came as news to me. I am sure that if anyone in this chamber or anyone out on the street had read that article and was asked what it means, they would say that they assume it means the state government is considering introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system. That is not the case. I rang the journalist and asked her, firstly, why I was not consulted or asked for a comment, and, secondly, why she said it. She said, “It is not for schools. It is for TAFE colleges, private registered training organisations and trade schools.” I said, “Well, that’s not how the article reads. The article reads as though it is a new school-based apprenticeship program.” After a fairly colourful conversation for a few moments, she said, “Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree, because that’s not the case.” I explained to her that we are looking at having a more flexible apprenticeship system and that I am looking at the concept of more institutional-based apprenticeships. However, that is outside the school system and is meant to complement the current traditional apprenticeship system—not replace the current apprenticeship system but — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Will apprentices be paid under that system? Hon PETER COLLIER : I will respond to the member’s question in a moment. I want to clarify once again that we are not considering a new school-based apprenticeship system; we simply are not. While the journalist involved is satisfied that this article does not imply or suggest that we are introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system, I beg to differ. I said to her once again, “I suggest that if you asked most people out there whether that is the inference they would draw from that article, they would say yes.” I want to clarify that. I will now respond to Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich’s questions. I have made no announcement regarding a new school-based apprenticeship system, nor is such a system being considered. (1) The project is in two stages, with consideration of the stage 1 report determining whether the project will proceed to stage 2. Mr Stowell’s company, Learning Australia Pty Ltd, is being paid $19 360, including goods and services tax, for stage 1. Stage 1 is over a period of three weeks. If the project progresses to stage 2, Learning Australia will be paid $14 960, including GST. Stage 2 is for a period of approximately two weeks. (2) Yes, I table the document. [See paper 1446.] (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable. (6) See stage 1 of the terms of reference. This project was primarily instigated to address a number of concerns raised by industry stakeholders regarding existing institutional delivery of trade qualifications to international students.
(6) What other proposals other than institute-based apprenticeships is Mr Stowell investigating? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. I preface my response by saying at the outset that I certainly have not announced that we will be introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system, and the government is not considering it. However, having said that, I can understand why Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich would assume that that was the case, because I did as well. I woke up yesterday morning—I am sure that I am looking at the same newspaper article that Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich is looking at—to see the headline “Push to teach trades in school”. The first paragraph states — The State Government is considering a proposal for a new school-based apprenticeship system in which students pay to learn a trade in the classroom, rather than getting paid to learn on the job. I was totally confused by that, because it is not something that I had considered or that anyone had ever broached with me at all. So the thought that we, as a government, were considering it came as news to me. I am sure that if anyone in this chamber or anyone out on the street had read that article and was asked what it means, they would say that they assume it means the state government is considering introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system. That is not the case. I rang the journalist and asked her, firstly, why I was not consulted or asked for a comment, and, secondly, why she said it. She said, “It is not for schools. It is for TAFE colleges, private registered training organisations and trade schools.” I said, “Well, that’s not how the article reads. The article reads as though it is a new school-based apprenticeship program.” After a fairly colourful conversation for a few moments, she said, “Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree, because that’s not the case.” I explained to her that we are looking at having a more flexible apprenticeship system and that I am looking at the concept of more institutional-based apprenticeships. However, that is outside the school system and is meant to complement the current traditional apprenticeship system—not replace the current apprenticeship system but — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Will apprentices be paid under that system? Hon PETER COLLIER : I will respond to the member’s question in a moment. I want to clarify once again that we are not considering a new school-based apprenticeship system; we simply are not. While the journalist involved is satisfied that this article does not imply or suggest that we are introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system, I beg to differ. I said to her once again, “I suggest that if you asked most people out there whether that is the inference they would draw from that article, they would say yes.” I want to clarify that. I will now respond to Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich’s questions. I have made no announcement regarding a new school-based apprenticeship system, nor is such a system being considered. (1) The project is in two stages, with consideration of the stage 1 report determining whether the project will proceed to stage 2. Mr Stowell’s company, Learning Australia Pty Ltd, is being paid $19 360, including goods and services tax, for stage 1. Stage 1 is over a period of three weeks. If the project progresses to stage 2, Learning Australia will be paid $14 960, including GST. Stage 2 is for a period of approximately two weeks. (2) Yes, I table the document. [See paper 1446.] (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable. (6) See stage 1 of the terms of reference. This project was primarily instigated to address a number of concerns raised by industry stakeholders regarding existing institutional delivery of trade qualifications to international students.
Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. I preface my response by saying at the outset that I certainly have not announced that we will be introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system, and the government is not considering it. However, having said that, I can understand why Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich would assume that that was the case, because I did as well. I woke up yesterday morning—I am sure that I am looking at the same newspaper article that Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich is looking at—to see the headline “Push to teach trades in school”. The first paragraph states — The State Government is considering a proposal for a new school-based apprenticeship system in which students pay to learn a trade in the classroom, rather than getting paid to learn on the job. I was totally confused by that, because it is not something that I had considered or that anyone had ever broached with me at all. So the thought that we, as a government, were considering it came as news to me. I am sure that if anyone in this chamber or anyone out on the street had read that article and was asked what it means, they would say that they assume it means the state government is considering introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system. That is not the case. I rang the journalist and asked her, firstly, why I was not consulted or asked for a comment, and, secondly, why she said it. She said, “It is not for schools. It is for TAFE colleges, private registered training organisations and trade schools.” I said, “Well, that’s not how the article reads. The article reads as though it is a new school-based apprenticeship program.” After a fairly colourful conversation for a few moments, she said, “Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree, because that’s not the case.” I explained to her that we are looking at having a more flexible apprenticeship system and that I am looking at the concept of more institutional-based apprenticeships. However, that is outside the school system and is meant to complement the current traditional apprenticeship system—not replace the current apprenticeship system but — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Will apprentices be paid under that system? Hon PETER COLLIER : I will respond to the member’s question in a moment. I want to clarify once again that we are not considering a new school-based apprenticeship system; we simply are not. While the journalist involved is satisfied that this article does not imply or suggest that we are introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system, I beg to differ. I said to her once again, “I suggest that if you asked most people out there whether that is the inference they would draw from that article, they would say yes.” I want to clarify that. I will now respond to Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich’s questions. I have made no announcement regarding a new school-based apprenticeship system, nor is such a system being considered. (1) The project is in two stages, with consideration of the stage 1 report determining whether the project will proceed to stage 2. Mr Stowell’s company, Learning Australia Pty Ltd, is being paid $19 360, including goods and services tax, for stage 1. Stage 1 is over a period of three weeks. If the project progresses to stage 2, Learning Australia will be paid $14 960, including GST. Stage 2 is for a period of approximately two weeks. (2) Yes, I table the document. [See paper 1446.] (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable. (6) See stage 1 of the terms of reference. This project was primarily instigated to address a number of concerns raised by industry stakeholders regarding existing institutional delivery of trade qualifications to international students.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. I preface my response by saying at the outset that I certainly have not announced that we will be introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system, and the government is not considering it. However, having said that, I can understand why Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich would assume that that was the case, because I did as well. I woke up yesterday morning—I am sure that I am looking at the same newspaper article that Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich is looking at—to see the headline “Push to teach trades in school”. The first paragraph states — The State Government is considering a proposal for a new school-based apprenticeship system in which students pay to learn a trade in the classroom, rather than getting paid to learn on the job. I was totally confused by that, because it is not something that I had considered or that anyone had ever broached with me at all. So the thought that we, as a government, were considering it came as news to me. I am sure that if anyone in this chamber or anyone out on the street had read that article and was asked what it means, they would say that they assume it means the state government is considering introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system. That is not the case. I rang the journalist and asked her, firstly, why I was not consulted or asked for a comment, and, secondly, why she said it. She said, “It is not for schools. It is for TAFE colleges, private registered training organisations and trade schools.” I said, “Well, that’s not how the article reads. The article reads as though it is a new school-based apprenticeship program.” After a fairly colourful conversation for a few moments, she said, “Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree, because that’s not the case.” I explained to her that we are looking at having a more flexible apprenticeship system and that I am looking at the concept of more institutional-based apprenticeships. However, that is outside the school system and is meant to complement the current traditional apprenticeship system—not replace the current apprenticeship system but — Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Will apprentices be paid under that system? Hon PETER COLLIER : I will respond to the member’s question in a moment. I want to clarify once again that we are not considering a new school-based apprenticeship system; we simply are not. While the journalist involved is satisfied that this article does not imply or suggest that we are introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system, I beg to differ. I said to her once again, “I suggest that if you asked most people out there whether that is the inference they would draw from that article, they would say yes.” I want to clarify that. I will now respond to Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich’s questions. I have made no announcement regarding a new school-based apprenticeship system, nor is such a system being considered. (1) The project is in two stages, with consideration of the stage 1 report determining whether the project will proceed to stage 2. Mr Stowell’s company, Learning Australia Pty Ltd, is being paid $19 360, including goods and services tax, for stage 1. Stage 1 is over a period of three weeks. If the project progresses to stage 2, Learning Australia will be paid $14 960, including GST. Stage 2 is for a period of approximately two weeks. (2) Yes, I table the document. [See paper 1446.] (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable. (6) See stage 1 of the terms of reference. This project was primarily instigated to address a number of concerns raised by industry stakeholders regarding existing institutional delivery of trade qualifications to international students.
Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Will apprentices be paid under that system? Hon PETER COLLIER : I will respond to the member’s question in a moment. I want to clarify once again that we are not considering a new school-based apprenticeship system; we simply are not. While the journalist involved is satisfied that this article does not imply or suggest that we are introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system, I beg to differ. I said to her once again, “I suggest that if you asked most people out there whether that is the inference they would draw from that article, they would say yes.” I want to clarify that. I will now respond to Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich’s questions. I have made no announcement regarding a new school-based apprenticeship system, nor is such a system being considered. (1) The project is in two stages, with consideration of the stage 1 report determining whether the project will proceed to stage 2. Mr Stowell’s company, Learning Australia Pty Ltd, is being paid $19 360, including goods and services tax, for stage 1. Stage 1 is over a period of three weeks. If the project progresses to stage 2, Learning Australia will be paid $14 960, including GST. Stage 2 is for a period of approximately two weeks. (2) Yes, I table the document. [See paper 1446.] (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable. (6) See stage 1 of the terms of reference. This project was primarily instigated to address a number of concerns raised by industry stakeholders regarding existing institutional delivery of trade qualifications to international students.
Hon PETER COLLIER : I will respond to the member’s question in a moment. I want to clarify once again that we are not considering a new school-based apprenticeship system; we simply are not. While the journalist involved is satisfied that this article does not imply or suggest that we are introducing a new school-based apprenticeship system, I beg to differ. I said to her once again, “I suggest that if you asked most people out there whether that is the inference they would draw from that article, they would say yes.” I want to clarify that. I will now respond to Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich’s questions. I have made no announcement regarding a new school-based apprenticeship system, nor is such a system being considered. (1) The project is in two stages, with consideration of the stage 1 report determining whether the project will proceed to stage 2. Mr Stowell’s company, Learning Australia Pty Ltd, is being paid $19 360, including goods and services tax, for stage 1. Stage 1 is over a period of three weeks. If the project progresses to stage 2, Learning Australia will be paid $14 960, including GST. Stage 2 is for a period of approximately two weeks. (2) Yes, I table the document. [See paper 1446.] (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable. (6) See stage 1 of the terms of reference. This project was primarily instigated to address a number of concerns raised by industry stakeholders regarding existing institutional delivery of trade qualifications to international students.
I have made no announcement regarding a new school-based apprenticeship system, nor is such a system being considered. (1) The project is in two stages, with consideration of the stage 1 report determining whether the project will proceed to stage 2. Mr Stowell’s company, Learning Australia Pty Ltd, is being paid $19 360, including goods and services tax, for stage 1. Stage 1 is over a period of three weeks. If the project progresses to stage 2, Learning Australia will be paid $14 960, including GST. Stage 2 is for a period of approximately two weeks. (2) Yes, I table the document. [See paper 1446.] (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable. (6) See stage 1 of the terms of reference. This project was primarily instigated to address a number of concerns raised by industry stakeholders regarding existing institutional delivery of trade qualifications to international students.
(1) The project is in two stages, with consideration of the stage 1 report determining whether the project will proceed to stage 2. Mr Stowell’s company, Learning Australia Pty Ltd, is being paid $19 360, including goods and services tax, for stage 1. Stage 1 is over a period of three weeks. If the project progresses to stage 2, Learning Australia will be paid $14 960, including GST. Stage 2 is for a period of approximately two weeks. (2) Yes, I table the document. [See paper 1446.] (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable. (6) See stage 1 of the terms of reference. This project was primarily instigated to address a number of concerns raised by industry stakeholders regarding existing institutional delivery of trade qualifications to international students.
(2) Yes, I table the document. [See paper 1446.] (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable. (6) See stage 1 of the terms of reference. This project was primarily instigated to address a number of concerns raised by industry stakeholders regarding existing institutional delivery of trade qualifications to international students.
(3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable. (6) See stage 1 of the terms of reference. This project was primarily instigated to address a number of concerns raised by industry stakeholders regarding existing institutional delivery of trade qualifications to international students.
(4) No. (5) Not applicable. (6) See stage 1 of the terms of reference. This project was primarily instigated to address a number of concerns raised by industry stakeholders regarding existing institutional delivery of trade qualifications to international students.
(5) Not applicable. (6) See stage 1 of the terms of reference. This project was primarily instigated to address a number of concerns raised by industry stakeholders regarding existing institutional delivery of trade qualifications to international students.
(6) See stage 1 of the terms of reference. This project was primarily instigated to address a number of concerns raised by industry stakeholders regarding existing institutional delivery of trade qualifications to international students.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.