Election battle returns to the home front with Labor tradies pledge
Labor is proposing to spend $78 million to train 6000 extra tradies, in the latest federal election promise relating to housing.
Anthony Albanese's election commitment will establish the Advanced Entry Trades Training program to help experienced but unqualified workers get new qualifications.
Research from Master Builders Australia shows that for every new qualified tradie, an extra 2.4 houses will be built each year.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers claims Labor is 'tackling the housing shortage from every responsible angle to build more homes, more quickly, in all parts of Australia'.
'We have a $43 billion plan to construct more homes around the country,' Chalmers said.
'Our investments in skills and training are playing an important role in putting that plan into action.'
Housing Minister Clare O'Neil says, 'It's tomorrow's tradies who will help us build our way out of this housing crisis, and Labor is backing them in, every step of the way'.
'Under Labor, we're investing in the skilled workers we need to build more homes across our cities, suburbs and regions,' she continued.
'The choice at this election couldn't be clearer, between a Labor Party investing in training up our tradies with free TAFE, or a Coalition of cuts and chaos.'
The Coalition last week announced it would spend $260 million to build 12 technical colleges around the nation to train high school students.
'Australian Technical Colleges are specialist skills schools for years 10-12 or 11-12,' The Liberal and National parties say.
'Students are enrolled in a school-based apprenticeship or traineeship as well as academic and business courses that lead to a Year 12 certificate.'
Voters under 45 will decide the election, and polling shows housing is a key issue for them.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Age
35 minutes ago
- The Age
The Libs have been handed a golden opportunity. Now, watch them stuff it up
One of the great entertainments of political commentary in Australia over the past decade-and-a-bit has been speculating on what new and inventive way the Liberal Party will find to comprehensively bugger itself up. I can't help thinking this must have crossed Treasurer Jim Chalmers' mind as he fronted the National Press Club this week to announce that he will undertake a process to develop a new productivity agenda. Chalmers' speech was solid, but then so it should be after so many have said the same things so often to so little avail. His words and aspirations have been written for him many times over, sometimes with hope, other times with emotions ranging from dull rage to despair. Sometimes even by the Coalition. We need productivity reform, politicians all know we need it, the media all know they know we need it, yet no-one ever does it. There's a simple reason for that: it's hard. The treasurer dwelt in his speech on why it's hard. Reforming an economic system requires trade-offs. Some choices will cost some people. They may or may not be recompensed in the rejig. Chalmers doesn't want the media to simplify economic reform by explaining it in terms of 'winners and losers', as they do after each budget, but there will be winners and losers in the short, medium, or long term as a result of any new tax system. And, naturally, the opposition will do what the name says on the tin. It will oppose. Given the last years of Liberal shenanigans, the real question is how it chooses to do that. In one scenario, Sussan Ley leads a team which analyses and criticises the government's productivity proposals to ensure the best outcome for Australia and Australians. Should they choose this version of their own adventure, there will be plenty of material to tackle. The prime minister has already shown that he has no instinct for making business more efficient or even any understanding that a healthy economy relies on the private sector, creating new wealth instead of just shifting existing money around. In the first term of the Albanese government, the size of the public sector grew relative to the size of the private sector, so now each private employee is supporting more public sector salaries. Loading Then-employment minister Tony Burke passed through an industrial relations bill which makes it harder for businesses to scale up without locking themselves into costly arrangements. Meanwhile, the 'Future Made in Australia' slush fund has been 'picking winners' (code for government making decisions on industries it poorly understands) by investing in bringing in an overseas quantum technology firm rather than backing existing quantum technology firms – ahem – made in Australia. Labor is even trashing its own legacy by changing the rules on the superannuation system it forced people to contribute to, undermining trust that the money you lock away for retirement is really yours for later. It's hard to see how a government which made policies of this sort a priority and prefers the public to the private sector will back a productivity agenda which turns Australia around. But one of the great paradoxes of politics is that sometimes you need the party which is seen to be the touchy-feely side to deliver hard-nosed decisions. Think Labour prime minister Tony Blair in the UK, Democrat president Bill Clinton in the USA, or chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in Germany, all of whom delivered welfare reform in the face of their countries' badly designed benefits systems, which were creating disincentives to work.
Sydney Morning Herald
38 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Good ideas strangled by red tape: Treasurer to crack down on bureaucracy
Treasurer Jim Chalmers has admitted left-leaning governments are strangling their own good intentions with bureaucracy, arguing it is time to deliver supply side solutions to problems ranging from housing to renewable energy. In his first extended sit-down newspaper interview since May's federal election, Chalmers has demanded regulators overseeing everything from the banking sector to consumer law identify regulations that can be axed or simplified to reduce costs and increase the pace at which the economy can grow. Chalmers revealed the recently released book Abundance, which argues progressives need to re-think their overly rules-based approach to making the change they want, had been a wake-up call for the left of politics. The book, by American journalists Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, was 'doing the rounds' of the ministry and senior MPs keen take on board the authors' insights which include trying to strip red tape from scientific research and housing construction. Chalmers said the upcoming productivity roundtable would tap into the ideas outlined in Abundance. Loading 'I mean the fascinating thing I found about Abundance was basically, even if you have quite a progressive outlook, we've got to stop getting in our own way,' he said. 'We want good things to happen, we've got to stop strangling good things from happening. I think that's very, very compelling for us. 'It's confronting for us because it's a kind of a – the term 'wake-up call' gets used a bit too easily – but there's a sense of at what point do we start getting in our own way, preventing good things from happening because of an abundance of good intentions.'
Sydney Morning Herald
39 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
The Libs have been handed a golden opportunity. Now, watch them stuff it up
One of the great entertainments of political commentary in Australia over the past decade-and-a-bit has been speculating on what new and inventive way the Liberal Party will find to comprehensively bugger itself up. I can't help thinking this must have crossed Treasurer Jim Chalmers' mind as he fronted the National Press Club this week to announce that he will undertake a process to develop a new productivity agenda. Chalmers' speech was solid, but then so it should be after so many have said the same things so often to so little avail. His words and aspirations have been written for him many times over, sometimes with hope, other times with emotions ranging from dull rage to despair. Sometimes even by the Coalition. We need productivity reform, politicians all know we need it, the media all know they know we need it, yet no-one ever does it. There's a simple reason for that: it's hard. The treasurer dwelt in his speech on why it's hard. Reforming an economic system requires trade-offs. Some choices will cost some people. They may or may not be recompensed in the rejig. Chalmers doesn't want the media to simplify economic reform by explaining it in terms of 'winners and losers', as they do after each budget, but there will be winners and losers in the short, medium, or long term as a result of any new tax system. And, naturally, the opposition will do what the name says on the tin. It will oppose. Given the last years of Liberal shenanigans, the real question is how it chooses to do that. In one scenario, Sussan Ley leads a team which analyses and criticises the government's productivity proposals to ensure the best outcome for Australia and Australians. Should they choose this version of their own adventure, there will be plenty of material to tackle. The prime minister has already shown that he has no instinct for making business more efficient or even any understanding that a healthy economy relies on the private sector, creating new wealth instead of just shifting existing money around. In the first term of the Albanese government, the size of the public sector grew relative to the size of the private sector, so now each private employee is supporting more public sector salaries. Loading Then-employment minister Tony Burke passed through an industrial relations bill which makes it harder for businesses to scale up without locking themselves into costly arrangements. Meanwhile, the 'Future Made in Australia' slush fund has been 'picking winners' (code for government making decisions on industries it poorly understands) by investing in bringing in an overseas quantum technology firm rather than backing existing quantum technology firms – ahem – made in Australia. Labor is even trashing its own legacy by changing the rules on the superannuation system it forced people to contribute to, undermining trust that the money you lock away for retirement is really yours for later. It's hard to see how a government which made policies of this sort a priority and prefers the public to the private sector will back a productivity agenda which turns Australia around. But one of the great paradoxes of politics is that sometimes you need the party which is seen to be the touchy-feely side to deliver hard-nosed decisions. Think Labour prime minister Tony Blair in the UK, Democrat president Bill Clinton in the USA, or chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in Germany, all of whom delivered welfare reform in the face of their countries' badly designed benefits systems, which were creating disincentives to work.
