Tuesday, 8 September 2026

 Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (18:02): I rise to make a contribution on the Education and Training Reform Amendment (Apprenticeships, Traineeships, Schools and Other Matters) Bill 2026. This is a very important bill. On 11 August the Victorian government introduced this bill to the Legislative Assembly, and it is to amend the Education and Training Reform Act 2006, principally to strengthen protections for Victoria’s apprentices and trainees, strengthen the permission-to-teach scheme and ensure that schools remain safe places of learning and work through a range of reforms that will better protect school staff and students against harmful behaviours.

First of all, I will deal with a matter that is of particular importance to me, being a mother of two children who are both apprentices, or one who was an apprentice but is now a qualified tradesperson and my daughter, who is an apprentice and will be a qualified tradesperson in about 18 months. As a parent of two children who have gone through the trade training system, I could not recommend it enough. Our trade training and apprenticeship system is an incredibly important part of our post-secondary education system. The good thing about it is that once you go through the apprenticeship system and become qualified at whatever it is you want to do, it generally is a pathway to well-paid and secure work. I often say to my kids, ‘I can guarantee you one thing: basically your jobs will not be replaced by AI.’ That is something that I can absolutely guarantee. I cannot see how AI will be replacing plumbers, carpenters, brickies or anything of that note, unless perhaps at some point down the track people start looking at having robots or something like that. But nevertheless, it is pretty hard to have these sorts of jobs replaced by AI. It just makes undertaking a trade and looking at a trade as a post-secondary career choice all the more important.

First of all, 62,000 apprentices and trainees are crucial to Victoria’s economy and our society, but the regulatory framework that governs the Victorian apprenticeship system is outdated. The current legislation was established 20 years ago, and it does not provide adequate protections for apprentices and trainees. Over the past few years, sadly, there have been safety incidents in Victoria which have resulted in death and serious injury to apprentices. These accidents and incidents are tragic and are also entirely preventable. The bill before the house today will modernise and strengthen the regulatory framework for apprentices and trainees, making the system safer and fairer for our workers. A robust regulatory framework is particularly important for this cohort of workers, as they are generally young and mostly new to the workforce.

These reforms also deliver on a significant body of work that the Victorian government has been working on, which is to implement key recommendations from the Apprenticeships Taskforce, which was established by the Victorian government in 2023 following an election commitment in 2022. I note the former Minister for Training and Skills Gayle Tierney is sitting in the chamber, and I know this is a matter that is close to her heart. I want to commend and acknowledge the work that she did when she was minister on these important reforms in working with unions and industry, because one thing we know – perhaps sometimes we forget what the whole point of TAFE and trade training is – is that this is training set up for industry, paid for by government and backed by government. We listen to industry. They tell us what skills and training they need in order to be able to have qualified tradespeople go into the workforce. This is why it is so important we have government-backed trade training, not dodgy independent providers – fly-by-nighters – who end up giving qualifications that are not worth the paper they are written on. It is important when you have young people entering the workforce and undertaking four years of trade training that when they come out of that on the other side they have a qualification that is recognised and is verifiable as good-quality trade training and something the industry has asked for the government to do. This is something that our government continues to deliver on.

Back to the taskforce – the taskforce was chaired by former president of the ACTU Sharan Burrow and also Justice Iain Ross, who was the former president of the Fair Work Commission. He served as a special adviser. The taskforce’s membership was extensive and comprised of employer representatives and unions. Its work was also informed by a reference group of apprentices and trainees, and it consulted extensively with key stakeholders throughout 2023 and 2024. The key limitations of the existing apprenticeship and traineeship regulatory system identified by the Apprenticeships Taskforce were that the current laws provide very limited tools that prevent the regulator from acting quickly in response to harms or risk of harm; that the regulatory framework does not enable proper oversight, meaning apprentice and trainee safety and quality training is not prioritised; that the current apprenticeship and traineeship system is complex, with many co-regulators; and that information sharing between agencies is inconsistent and not comprehensive, leading to fragmentation and a lack of coordination across the regulatory system. Therefore, by strengthening and modernising the regulatory framework, the reforms in the bill will address these critical gaps in the oversight framework. The taskforce finalised its report in March 2024, and it made 16 recommendations to reform the apprenticeship system, to strengthen the framework, to improve the apprenticeship and traineeship journey and to enhance collaboration and coordination across the landscape for apprentices and trainees. The Victorian government has accepted all of the recommendations in full or in part.

The most significant reforms in the bill provide for the transfer of the regulation of apprenticeships and traineeships from the Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority to Workforce Inspectorate Victoria, given its strong focus on protecting the rights of workers. This made sense, because the VRQA is really a body that is involved in regulating things in our education system, like public schools and secondary schools. It is not really set up as a trade training kind of associated entity looking at trade training, so it makes sense to transfer this oversight to Workforce Inspectorate Victoria. The bill also gives an expanded set of compliance and enforcement powers to the new regulator to be able to respond proportionately and quickly where risks of harm to workers are identified. A new licensing scheme for employers of apprentices and trainees will also help to improve system oversight, and new employer standards will set expectations for the employer’s role, with specific oversight arrangements for labour hire providers who engage apprentices and/or trainees.

I have to say I am rather concerned about the number of apprentices who are engaged through labour hire companies and not directly with employers. When I look back over the 30 years of my working life and my working journey, that is something that certainly was not the case. Apprentices were directly employed, but it seems now not to be the case in many circumstances. That is disappointing, but nevertheless there will be greater information sharing between co-regulators and a five-year statutory review of the new scheme to ensure it is operating as intended.

All aspects of the traineeship and apprenticeship reforms are informed by the work of the taskforce, which undertook a comprehensive review, and it undertook extensive consultations with key stakeholders as well. The Victorian government would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the important role of the taskforce under the leadership of Sharan Burrow with the support of the special adviser Justice Iain Ross, as well as the apprentice and trainee reference group, and to thank the numerous stakeholders from unions, employers, peak bodies, regulators and apprentices and trainees for their ongoing and thoughtful engagement in this process and contribution to the bill which is before the house today.

The default commencement for the new regulatory framework in the bill is 1 July 2029. However, the government has made a commitment to introduce the reforms earlier on 1 July 2028. The implementation period also recognises that key stakeholders need time to operationalise the changes to ensure a smooth transition to new arrangements. This is critical, because whenever we implement reforms the agencies that carry out the reforms need time to massage them through, and there might be some operational changes that they need to make. Also staff need to get across the changes, so it is critically important that we have this extra time to allow for a smooth transition.

The Victorian government will develop targeted communications informing key stakeholders, which will include employers, peak bodies, apprentices, trainees, unions and affected agencies, about the reforms and the new obligations in the lead-up to the reforms being implemented. A range of regulations will be required to operationalise the scheme and key stakeholders will have an opportunity to provide input into this process as well. Small business comprises about 80 per cent of employers of apprentices and trainees in Victoria. If you think about it, there are a range of businesses that employ apprentices, whether it is electricians, whether it is family plumbing businesses, bricklayers or carpenters. Many of these are small businesses, and there are builders and the like. As I said, 80 per cent of employers of apprentices are small businesses in Victoria. Given this scale, the government acknowledged that small business will be impacted more significantly than larger enterprises in operationalising these reforms.

The reforms have been designed and will be implemented in a way that minimises the regulatory burden while making the system fairer and safer for Victoria’s 62,000 apprentices and trainees. For example, there will be no ability to charge fees. The government has listened to stakeholder concerns about fees and made the decision not to include in the bill the ability of the regulator to charge fees. This is a critical way in which the potential burden on small businesses and employers will be minimised.

There will be a requirement for an employer to be licensed in order to employ an apprentice or a trainee. This replaces the current legislative provisions where an employer must be approved by the regulator in order to enter the training contract. There has to be a licence. The requirement for annual review of the licence has been designed to minimise the burden on employers, but applicants will only be required to affirm that information and documents previously provided remain accurate and up to date, or if there has been any change to that information the details of this. The Workforce Inspectorate Victoria will use this information in making a decision to renew a licence. These are commonsense provisions: having a licence, making sure the documentation that you provided to the inspectorate when being granted your licence is up to date and then, again, just ensuring that those documents remain up to date, because things change over time. That is not a problem. It is just making it easier and simpler for small business and not charging a fee. That will go a long way when the inspectorate needs to decide to renew a licence or not. They will have the accurate or most up-to-date and timely information at their fingertips to do so.

Additionally, with any new IT system there will be an opportunity to operationalise the scheme in a way that streamlines application and approval processes for compliant employers. It is important to note that the government appreciates that the vast majority of employers will do the right thing by their apprentices and trainees. However, because of their age, the majority of these employees are younger than 25 years old and inexperienced in workplaces generally, and therefore apprentices and trainees are a vulnerable cohort of workers, and their safety must be of paramount importance.

Over the past few years there have been numerous safety incidents in Victoria which have, sadly, resulted in death or serious injury to apprentices. These incidents are tragic, preventable and unacceptable, so a more robust regulatory framework is critical to protecting apprentices and trainees from harm and to ensuring they receive quality training, improving both apprenticeship and traineeship completion rates and the viability of apprenticeships and traineeships as offering compelling career pathways. This will assist in addressing Victoria’s significant skills shortage, including for occupations vital to the pipeline of skills required to support critical growth areas. The reforms will ensure employers will access skilled labour that supports business growth and industry sustainability.

The Workforce Inspectorate Victoria has also specific statutory functions in the bill to inform, educate and assist licence-holders, which of course will be employers but they will also be licence-holders. They will be able to educate and assist licence-holders in relation to their rights but also, importantly, their obligations. There will be extensive consultation with small business during the development and negotiations on planning to ensure small business impacts are well considered in the design of the regs and the scheme’s implementation. The clock is probably going to beat me. There is a lot more that I could say about this bill, because it is a very important bill and addresses a number of areas, but at this point I will leave other comments for my colleagues to make. I commend the bill to the house.

 Richard WELCH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (18:17): Just before I start, thank you to those opposite for being flexible and allowing me to see the first 10 minutes of the member for Croydon’s valedictory speech. He was just warming up when I had to leave, and it was very good.

I rise to speak on the Education and Training Reform Amendment (Apprenticeships, Traineeships, Schools and Other Matters) Bill 2026. I want to start with a basic fact about how apprenticeships work, because this bill suggests the government has forgotten it. Every apprenticeship in Victoria exists because an employer decided to create it. They looked at the work coming in, looked at the cost of the wage, looked at the pipeline of skills they needed and took someone on. If there is no employer, there is no apprentice, and that is it. If having an apprentice is too hard for any reason, they will pragmatically have to consider alternatives. There is one really useful question to ask of this bill: does it get one more apprentice hired and does it get them hired safely? That is a good test. A new regulator, a new commissioner, a licence – none of that is worth having unless it actually gets one more young Victorian into a trade and completing that apprenticeship or traineeship safely. Before we apply that test, the house should understand how badly Victoria needs a good answer about how many apprentices we have and getting more apprentices in.

The National Centre for Vocational Education Research released its latest figures in June. It said that trade apprenticeship commencements in Victoria were down 11.8 per cent – to the lowest number since 2001; non-trade commencements were down 20.8 per cent – the lowest since 1995, when the traineeship system was in its infancy; and over the 12 months Victoria recorded the largest fall in trade commencements of any state or territory in the country. Plumbers were down 15.5 per cent; carpenters, down 16.1 per cent; sheet metal workers, down 18.9 per cent; aged and disability carers, down 16.6; and child carers, down 23.1. They were in the construction workforce and the care workforce, the two fastest growing sources of demand in the state. In 2021 Victoria had 73,350 apprentices and trainees in training. Last year it had 57,015. Commencements overall have fallen 46 per cent since 2021, so they have almost halved. Then there are completions: Victoria finished 11,990 skilled trade apprenticeships last year; Queensland finished 13,265 and New South Wales 14,445. The government’s own taskforce found that our completion rates have been below the national average every year for at least 13 years. Now consider demand: the Victorian Skills Authority projects construction alone will need 162,000 new workers by 2035, and about half of all new jobs in the next three years will want a VET qualification. Demand is rising and supply is falling, and the gap has widened every year this government has been in office. Then look at what it does to the labour market. Victoria’s unemployment rate is 5.1 per cent, the highest of any state – higher than the government forecast in its own May budget. Youth unemployment is 11.8 per cent, the highest in the country. It was 8.6 per cent in January 2023. For young men it is 13.4 per cent. In Melbourne’s west it is 15.6 per cent. In the north-west it is 14.1 per cent.

The Australian Industry Group’s assessment is that ‘Victoria is sleepwalking into catastrophic skills shortages’ – that is their quote. None of this arrived overnight, and none of it was inherited; it is a product of 12 years and 12 budgets in which this government decided what mattered, and skills did not make the list. The government built this shortage, and they have done nothing about it – nothing effective anyway. Now, at the last minute, they want to throw in some random stuff from a 2024 review that they have sat on for two years and that will not be implemented for another three.

What makes this all the more damning is that the taskforce behind this bill was set up because apprentices were being bullied, underpaid and hurt and lives were being risked and, in some sad cases, lost. No-one on this side disputes that the safety of apprentices is non-negotiable, but how does this bill deliver on it? It does not. We have significant concerns with this bill, and we will be seeking to amend it to make it the least worst version of itself we think it can reasonably be, because businesses, apprentices and anyone with a stake in the Victorian economy are entitled to ask a very simple question: faced with the lowest commencements this century, the worst youth unemployment in the country and industry warning of catastrophe, what is the government’s answer? Two years after its own taskforce reported, the answer is a licence – a licence that will not be implemented till 2029. Employers already need approval to train an apprentice. It is a one-off approval, and it can be revoked. The government is replacing it with a licence renewed every year, a fit and proper person test, standards to comply with, inspectors to enforce them and an offence of training without one – a licence to hire a kid.

Frankly, Victoria does not need more regulators that are there for box ticking. Victoria needs more apprentices. Consider what this bill requires of an employer who simply wants to train an apprentice. Under new chapter 4A no employer in Victoria may enter into a training contract with an apprentice or trainee unless they hold an employer licence. It replaces the one-off approval employers hold today, so it is not new, it is replacing something that already exists. They will apply to Workforce Inspectorate Victoria, they will make disclosures and they will pass a fit and proper person test. The licence lasts one year. Every year they keep an apprentice they must apply again. Every training contract must then be approved by the regulator. They will then need to comply with employer standards. Those standards have not been written.

At the bill briefing we were told that they will be developed later in consultation, after this Parliament has voted, but what has been written is that if they breach these unwritten standards, the penalty is up to $25,092 for an individual and $125,460 for a company. Authorised officers may enter their premises, search them and inspect their records and issue notices to produce and infringement notices. The Magistrates’ Court can add civil penalties and adverse publicity orders. Effectively it is the labour hire licensing scheme lifted whole and dropped onto every employer who trains an apprentice. That is this bill. That is what the government is asking of the plumber with two vans and the panelbeater with four staff, and the Housing Industry Association will tell you that small and family businesses like those provide most of the apprenticeship opportunities in the state. So I see a lot of business bashing. I do not see many initiatives to increase the number of apprentices or to make them safe.

Anyone who has run a small business knows exactly what a licence is. It is a cost, sometimes a fee but always time and always the risk of getting something wrong. Consider what the employer is already putting in: wages for someone who is still learning and an experienced tradesperson’s time taken off the tools to teach. At the end of it the qualification walks out the door with the apprentice for the benefit of the whole economy. The employer carries the cost, Victoria gets the skilled worker and this government’s response is to licence the persons doing the giving. Time spent on compliance is time not spent on the job that pays the apprentice’s wage. Every business owner in Victoria understands that, and I doubt it featured anywhere in the drafting of this bill. That is where it gets somewhat absurd, frankly.

At the bill briefing the opposition asked how the regulator intends to process a renewal from every apprentice employer in the state every single year. The minister’s adviser said the renewal would most likely be automated – and in its own written responses to the taskforce the government said it would examine the viability of a contribution model. The reapproval process would be automated. So if the renewal is a real check, then it is a real burden on every employer, every year, in the middle of a skills crisis. But if it is automated, on the other hand, then it is just a rubber stamp, a computer confirming that you are still fit and proper with no actual genuine check behind it, so it protects no apprentice. Here is what the bill itself says about the renewal: while a renewal application is being decided, the existing licence continues, but the employer may not enter a new training contract until the decision is made. So the plumber with a clean record, who has done everything asked of him, lodges his renewal and cannot take on a new apprentice until the regulator gets around to it, however long that takes. That is in the text of this bill. Either the licence does something and therefore puts an onus on employers or it does nothing and it still costs employers anyway. Either way, it gets no-one hired, and it gets no-one protected.

Then there is the question of who pays. There is no fee in the bill, and the minister’s office did say that there were no fees. But there is nothing in this bill that prevents it. In its own written response to the taskforce, the government said it would examine the viability of a contribution model. A co-contribution model, in plain English, is a fee – from a government that has added increased taxes and charges 71 times. When the government says there is no fee, it is telling the truth, because at this point in time there is not. But there is nothing in the bill that prevents it from adding one further down the line. In fact, in accepting recommendation 11, it said:

A funding model to provide … additional assistance will depend on further work to understand the future structure and costs of the regulator.

A funding model will therefore be considered in parallel –

The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger): Mr Welch, we are going to break for dinner. You can resume at 7:30.

Sitting suspended 6:30 pm until 7:30 pm.

Richard WELCH: I will try to resume seamlessly. Before the break I was talking about the fact that the recommendations from the taskforce report speak specifically about the likely need for a financial model to fund the new program, a recommendation that was in part accepted by the government. In their response they said:

A funding model will therefore be considered in parallel with developing options …

And:

A funding model to provide this additional assistance will depend on further work …

So the posture was that it will require more funding. On the fact that the government has said there will not be funding, well, it is not in the bill; it does not rule it out. One of our amendments will be to make it explicit that there will be no fee or co-contribution charge associated with this licensing program.

Industry read this the same way. The Housing Industry Association has called for this bill to be withdrawn. The executive director said that the existing law already provides a comprehensive framework for employing and supervising apprentices and that no evidence has been presented that a licence would improve anything. If this proceeds, one of its members has said they would no longer employ apprentices in their company. So one peak body was saying out loud what thousands are probably thinking for themselves. The Victorian Automotive Chamber of Commerce (VACC) said the skills shortage ‘will not be fixed with licences, renewals and inspectors’.

Master Builders Victoria, the South East Melbourne Manufacturers Alliance and independent training providers said there is more regulation, more cost and not one extra apprentice. Two peak bodies support the bill, and both sat on the taskforce, but the VACC and the Master Builders sat on it too. The VACC said this bill targets the wrong problem, and the Master Builders said it adds costs and does nothing for the shortage.

When people who helped write the recommendations tell you the licence will not fix it, the house should listen. Apply the test. Does a licence hire an apprentice? It does not. It sits between the employer and the apprentice and asks the employer to justify themselves before they are able to give a kid a start. This is the government’s habit: faced with a shortage of something, it regulates the people who supply it. With the lowest commencements this century, the response is to make the employers who create apprenticeships apply for permission and renew it every year, and quite possibly pay for it. In the middle of a skills crisis that this government built, it has found a way to make hiring an apprentice harder: a licence to hire a kid. Victoria does not need more regulators; Victoria needs more apprentices.

How did we get here? Consider the process. In July 2023 the government set up the Apprenticeships Taskforce at a cost of $1.5 million. In March 2024 the taskforce reported with 16 recommendations. In October 2024 the government responded. Seven were supported in full and nine in principle, with a further promise of consultation before anything was done. And then nothing. For two years – nothing. And now, in the second-last sitting week of the Parliament, there are 217 pages, introduced a fortnight before debate, with peak bodies finding out after the fact. Two years of silence, and then two weeks of notice. That is the consultation the government promised. Consider what the taskforce recommended. Its central recommendation, in its own words, was ‘a new regulator with a dedicated focus on apprenticeship, traineeship and VET-related regulation’ started immediately and ‘delivered within this term of government’.

So new, dedicated and in this term. What the bill delivers is an existing regulator with an existing workload to be starting in 2029. Workforce Inspectorate Victoria began life in 2020 as the Wage Inspectorate Victoria, with criminal wage theft powers the government called nation leading. As the member for Evelyn in the other place set out in her speech on this, its first prosecution was withdrawn on the eve of a High Court challenge, most of those powers were repealed and it now looks after child employment and long service leave. This is the regulator now being handed 57,000 apprenticeships and traineeships and something like 37,000 employers who train them. And the minister’s own second-reading speech anticipates that the workforce inspectorate commissioner will also be the apprenticeship and traineeship commissioner – the same person, same desk. The dedicated regulator the taskforce asked for has become a second job. And remember too that the taskforce diagnosed fragmentation, duplication and poor communication as a problem. An apprentice employer in Victoria already answers to the Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority, Apprenticeships Victoria, WorkSafe, the Fair Work Ombudsman and the Fair Work Commission, and the government’s cure for too many layers is to add another layer.

Then there is the money. At the bill briefing we asked what the scheme will cost to stand up, and the minister’s adviser said that it is still subject to a budget bid. So the regulator is unfunded, the staffing is uncosted and the computer system the scheme depends on does not even exist. The explanatory memorandum also concedes that the new IT system must be built before any of this can operate. That is why the start date is July 2029, or at absolute best 2028, if the government’s software development hopes are met. It could not say what the system would cost. But this is the same government that spent $159 million on a computer system for the Magistrates’ Court and left magistrates working with pen and paper.

Please understand what is being rushed through in the second-last week of Parliament. It is a scheme that cannot start for three years, an unfunded regulator and a computer system no-one has designed or costed. The only urgent thing about this bill is the election and quite probably the ability to add a new tax in the new term if they have one. The government will say this bill is about safety, but if you just read it beyond the statement of objectives, there is not one operative provision that directly touches on the safety of an apprentice on a worksite. Workplace safety already has a regulator, and the approval scheme this bill repeals can already strip a bad employer of the right to train an apprentice – the Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority has done exactly that. This bill adds instead an automated form.

The government might say the taskforce recommended employer registration, which it did. Risk-based registration was agreed by employers and unions sitting around the same table. The government took that and wrote an annual licence for every employer regardless of record with an offence for training without one. Registration and licensing are different instruments, and the employers who sat on that taskforce knew the difference. The government will say that this bill acquits the taskforce. The taskforce asked for a new dedicated regulator this term. This bill rejects all three. It will say ‘free TAFE’. Free TAFE is a course; an apprenticeship is a job. A young person can enrol in a free course tomorrow and still have no employer and no trade. Free TAFE has never hired anyone. We heard them in the other place reaching back 30 years for someone to blame – that is, of course, ‘Kennett, Kennett, Kennett’. The government has been in office for 12 years. At some point the record has to be its own.

I have one further point on that because it also highlights how this bill treats Victorian businesses and apprentices. We are being asked to legislate a penalty now and read the rule in 2029. The standards, the fee, the committee, the shape of the scheme – all of it is left to the minister and the regulator after the vote and beyond the reach of any voter. That is a democratic deficit, and it is the government’s standard method. I apply a simple test. The scheme does not start until 2029. For this year, next year and the year after, the answer is no. The government’s record with computer systems means you probably would not count on 2029 either. Victoria does not need more regulators; Victoria needs more apprentices.

Then there is the other half of the bill, which is the schools half. The government has yet again stitched together two bills into one with scarcely anything to do with each other. It is a licence scheme bolted to a bill about protecting teachers so that a vote against the paperwork can be presented as a vote against teachers. We should not fall for this. We take the school part on its merits. We think there are some merits in there, though there is some overreach as well. If this had been presented as two separate bills, we would support it, but we are not going to be boxed into supporting something that in itself has also not had proper consultation with all parties. I will not go into much greater extent about the education side. There is some merit in there, but we have not really been given the opportunity to consider it on its merits, given the way it has been bolted together with this. For the employer: a licence reviewed every year, standards set by guidelines or authorised officers and a penalty.

I will go back to the plight of our young people. In May this year 8.7 per cent of Victorians aged 15 to 24 were neither in education nor work. That is the group at most risk of becoming long-term unemployed. Somewhere in Melbourne’s west, where roughly one in six young people cannot find a job, is a 17-year-old who would make a really good plumber – good with their hands, bored with the classroom and needing a go. Somewhere nearby is a plumber with more work than he or she can handle who took on an apprentice once and is weighing up whether they would do it again. This bill sends him to a regulator for a licence, tells him the rules will be written later, warns him of a $125,000 penalty for breaking them and leaves open whether he will be charged for the privilege. He does not fill in the form and, frankly, no-one could blame him.

You cannot promise Victorians much if you are going to halve the number of business regulators and then hand one of them a second job, a licensing scheme and a force of authorised officers. You cannot say there is no fee when your own response to the taskforce says you are looking into one. You cannot claim your own taskforce’s recommendation when it asks for a new dedicated authority this term and you have delivered none of these. Pick any of these you like – this bill fails all of them. We do have our amendments, and I would ask for those to be circulated now.

The three amendments are fairly simple. The first is we want to ensure it is written into the bill that there will be no fee for the employer licence. If the government has no intention of charging one, it will have no difficulty in supporting that, so we will find out. Second, we would like to change it from being a one-year annual approval to a three-year licence, as it is for labour hire, so the regulator checks properly once instead of pretending or having it automated the other two years. Third, we would like this to be reviewed after two years, not five, because this scheme is, in our view, going to drive employers out of taking on apprentices, and we would rather the Parliament found out before 2034.

The house is clear about what these amendments are. They are to make a scheme less bad. They do not make it a good scheme. The Liberals and Nationals would start from the other end of this problem: the employer. The answer to a shortage of apprentices is more employers taking them on, and everything a government does in this space should be judged by whether it makes that easier or harder. If we form government in November, that is the test this scheme will get. I will finish where we started in this debate. Apprentices – yes. Safety for apprentices – absolutely and always. The employers who train them – yes. Their safety is not negotiable. A licence to hire a kid – no. Victoria does not need more regulators; it needs more apprentices.

 Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO (Northern Metropolitan) (19:48): I rise to speak on the Education and Training Reform Amendment (Apprenticeships, Traineeships, Schools and Other Matters) Bill 2026. This legislation does three key things: it overhauls how apprenticeships and traineeships are regulated in Victoria, it seeks to strengthen the safety of our school communities and it makes changes to the permission-to-teach scheme in schools.

I want to begin by addressing the apprenticeship reforms, which are long overdue. I understand the Trades Hall Young Workers Centre operates as a community legal centre dedicated to supporting young people in the workplace. Its laudable work has uncovered a growing number of apprentices’ horror stories of underpayment, exploitation and unsafe workplaces, as well as hazing, sexual harassment and assault of female apprentices on the job. When the centre commissioned the McKell Institute to investigate, they found that only around half of Victorian apprentices actually complete their apprenticeship. This is leading to a serious shortfall in the skilled workers Victoria needs right now, including to build the homes to put an end to our housing crisis. The poor working conditions endured by apprentices are a product of longstanding government neglect of young people starting out their careers as apprentices. There is currently no appropriate vetting system for employers to hire apprentices, little to no regulation of employers and no system in place to identify or punish repeat offenders who mistreat their apprentices or commit wage theft. The McKell Institute report found that nearly two-thirds of Victorian apprentices were completely unaware of the Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority, the body currently tasked with regulating apprenticeships, and that complaints to the VRQA by apprentices were in the single digits each year. The system has failed a cohort of workers who are particularly vulnerable to exploitation.

The Victorian Apprenticeships Taskforce, established in 2023, found that almost half of apprentices are 19 years or under when they start, and many entering the workforce for the first time do so with little to no prior experience to draw on about how to be safe at work. This creates a real power imbalance between an apprentice and the employer, making apprentices especially vulnerable to workplace exploitation. The taskforce was clear about the consequences of insufficient protection for apprentices – the avoidable death or serious injury of apprentices and trainees. The taskforce found that employer-related issues like poor-quality training, poor supervision and mistreatment are the single most cited reason apprentices do not complete their apprenticeship. One in four reported simply feeling they did not belong in their workplace. These systemic shortcomings have the largest negative impact on the apprentices already least represented in the system. We are talking about women, First Nations apprentices, culturally or racially marginalised people, and people with disability.

This bill moves apprenticeship regulation out of the VRQA and into Workforce Inspectorate Victoria. It creates a licensing system for anyone taking on apprentices, with a fit-and-proper person test to stop the kind of illegal phoenixing that has let bad operators walk away from one entity and simply reopen under another. It also establishes a statutory apprenticeship and traineeship commissioner with clear functions and powers sitting inside the Workforce Inspectorate Victoria. I know that some in this place have raised concerns about this structure. They point out that the taskforce recommended a new independent regulator with a dedicated focus on apprenticeships and traineeships and argue that folding this function into an existing body falls short of that. But the reality is that what will determine the success of the Workforce Inspectorate Victoria in keeping apprentices safe and supported in the workplace will depend on whether the inspectorate is properly staffed and properly funded. This is what we will be holding the government to account for, and our expectation is that the government will transparently report on whether the new system is actually an improvement on the old one.

Turning to schools, the Greens welcome the new statutory principle that every Victorian school should be a safe and respectful place of learning and work and the strengthening of the school community safety order scheme, although I will reserve some questions in committee for this particular part of the bill. Special effort is required to make our schools safe for Aboriginal children. It is deeply concerning that the Yoorrook Justice Commission found that schools are too often culturally hostile places for Aboriginal kids, contributing to high levels of student disengagement, absenteeism and suspension. We support the changes to the permission-to-teach scheme, which will bring more educators into classrooms that need them. This ‘permission-to-teach scheme’ is a name change from ‘conditional authority to teach’. I will have some questions regarding this in committee, so I will wait for that.

But let us be honest about the real drivers of staff shortages in schools. Teachers and education support staff have just achieved a long-deserved pay rise that they were told was not possible, but the fight for better working conditions continues. The Greens will continue to push for things like fewer face-to-face teaching hours, so staff have the preparation time that they need, and smaller class sizes, so every student gets the attention that they deserve and so teaching and education support staff positions are a career path of choice and not a pathway to burnout.

The bill will also review digital content school community safety orders, and I will reserve my questions on this for the committee stage. The Greens support this bill and commend it to the house.

 Gayle TIERNEY (Western Victoria) (19:55): I am pleased to rise this evening to speak on the Education and Training Reform Amendment (Apprenticeships, Traineeships, Schools and Other Matters) Bill 2026. This bill is important as it will improve protections for apprentices and trainees, strengthen the permission-to-teach scheme and ensure schools remain safe places for teaching and learning. Members will not be surprised that my contribution will focus on the improved protections for apprentices and trainees that will be provided through this bill. I will not go through the bill clause by clause, but I will provide important context and speak directly on some of the most important features of the bill.

Before I begin I want to acknowledge each and every Victorian apprentice who is already contributing to our state. I also acknowledge the employers of apprentices and the training providers, mostly TAFEs – 70 per cent of our apprentices are trained at TAFEs – who participate in the system and pass on skills through industry experience and formal training. We do need an apprenticeship system, and we need one that is strong. We need one that supports people to take up and complete an apprenticeship, and we do need more highly skilled tradespeople to build our homes and the infrastructure that our growing state needs. It is only Labor, essentially, that constantly demonstrates its support for apprentices to succeed from day one through to getting their trade papers. Labor has provided better support for apprentices and trainees and improved trade training facilities at TAFEs right across the state, whether it be at Federation University TAFE’s new engineering centre in Horsham in the west, TAFE Gippsland’s Morwell Trade Skills Centre in the east or the Lilydale trade training centre at the previously closed TAFE campus. Of course it would not be me if I did not mention the number of TAFE campuses that were closed by the previous Liberal coalition government. When the opposition get up and say that the skills shortage was created by this government, I will put to those opposite: ‘Can you imagine the state of Victoria if it had not been for the Labor government winning that election in 2014, rebuilding TAFE and making sure that we have modernised and improved training facilities, particularly in the trades area?’

We are not just backing apprentices with great training facilities, we are supporting them on the job, and we are doing that through the apprenticeship support officers. That was an initiative of a previous Labor government, and it provides free and confidential advice and support to apprentices and employers right across Victoria. We have helped hundreds and thousands of apprentices to complete their apprenticeships, but there obviously is more to be done. I think we all recognise that, and that is why we have had a high level of participation in the taskforce.

I also need to say for the record that I am quite surprised in some ways that the opposition comes in here and criticises Labor in respect to the initiatives that we have put in place when not once did anyone from the opposition come and knock on my door when I was Minister for Training and Skills and raise any apprenticeship issues with me. They have never wanted to entertain a proper conversation about the apprenticeship system, and I think it is a telling point that they come in here and have these headline lines like ‘The skill shortages are created by this government’. It is just testament to how they do not understand the apprenticeship system.

The fact of the matter is that in terms of the funding arrangements for the apprenticeship system, it generally falls on the Commonwealth and the employer. The Commonwealth have done that through a variety of different schemes over a number of different Commonwealth governments. Employers make contributions, obviously, because they understand that providing contributions means that they are investing in their own business. They are investing in the industry in which they belong. But you would hear those opposite basically saying that governments should pay for everything. Of course that is not the reality and never has been the reality of the apprenticeship system.

The fact of the matter is that those opposite have had no real regard for the apprenticeship system. In fact it was this government that had to reintroduce trade papers. We did that in 2019 because they had been abolished by the coalition government – fancy that. The other thing that I was absolutely shocked about when I became the Minister for Training and Skills in 2016 was that when I started talking to people about trade papers, coming from blue-collar work experience in the car industry, no-one knew what trade papers were. I was absolutely shocked that people did not understand what trade papers were. We went about and made sure that we reinstituted trade papers because they are part and parcel of, one, having a national sense of what trade papers and apprentices are. The other thing of course was that we wanted to make sure that trades could be seen as an equivalent to other people that get certifications or degrees in other parts of the economy. So we went about that, and of course the Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority (VRQA) has distributed those papers when apprentices have completed their courses.

It was clear to me during my period that more needed to be done, and the taskforce was seen by everyone as a positive step and a timely step, given that we had heard many complaints about behaviours in the workplace, particularly in terms of young workers – and women as well of all age groups, I must say. We formed that taskforce. I established it along with the Minister for Industrial Relations Tim Pallas. Our thinking on the taskforce was clear. We needed to improve the apprenticeship system and workplace experience for apprentices and better support employers. We needed to hear the lived experience of apprentices and trainees, and we did that through the apprentice and trainee reference group. That was telling in itself, in terms of the stories that people came to that reference group with time and time again of the bad behaviour that unfortunately continued to exist in many workplaces. We needed employer representatives, unions and government working together very tightly and closely on that taskforce, and they did. I am very happy with the way that that taskforce conducted themselves. They did great work. It delivered to government a detailed and I think a thoughtful report, with recommendations on improving the apprenticeship system. This Labor government has accepted all recommendations of the taskforce in full or in principle. Again I want to thank members of the Apprenticeships Taskforce – the employer representatives, the union representatives and the public servants – for the work that they undertook. I particularly want to thank the former ACTU president Sharan Burrow for chairing the taskforce and the former president of the Fair Work Commission Iain Ross for his contribution as a special adviser.

As I said, we have provided supports to apprentices and the apprenticeship system and established Apprenticeships Victoria, but we knew that other things needed to work better within the apprenticeship system. We have not just sat on our hands since those recommendations came through. We acted swiftly in setting up an Apprentice Helpdesk. That help desk is there for apprentices to be able to have their stories heard and to be referred to various supports, but it is also a help desk for parents and employers. We have also established the apprentice employee assistance program. The Apprentice Helpdesk provides information, guidance and support to apprentices and trainees, including on training contracts – that was a major issue that was raised – wages, entitlements, safety and wellbeing. The free Apprentice Helpdesk has benefited over 3000 apprentices since it was launched in June last year. The apprentice employee assistance program provides apprentices and trainees in Victoria with free, confidential, short-term counselling and coaching for a range of health and wellbeing matters – again, a significant topic that was continually raised in the taskforce. Apprenticeships Victoria runs the apprenticeship support officers program and the Apprentice Helpdesk, helping apprentices sort through issues so that they can complete their apprenticeships and receive their trade papers. We established Apprenticeships Victoria because Labor values trades. This, I believe, absolutely contrasts against the position of the coalition and particularly previous coalition governments.

In terms of better regulation, providing additional support to apprentices and employers was the first important step following the Apprenticeships Taskforce. The next step is better regulation and better support for employers. This bill takes that important next step by delivering the improved regulation recommended by the Apprenticeships Taskforce. There is a strong rationale from the Apprenticeships Taskforce for a better framework for regulating apprenticeships after their finding that the current system ‘does not meet the needs of apprentices, employers and other stakeholders’. This was something I saw when I was the minister. I saw a system that was very, very difficult to navigate.

Before I go on, I want to thank Stefanie Veal, CEO of VRQA, and her team for their work supporting our apprenticeships training system within the current legislative framework. Shortcomings in the current system are not theirs but the result of decades-old legislation.

This bill delivers a more modern integrated scheme that will give apprentices and trainees stronger protections while providing clearer expectations and support for employers. The bill will transfer responsibility for regulating apprenticeships and traineeships from the VRQA to Workforce Inspectorate Victoria. This is a practical reform. It will bring regulation to an inspectorate already focused on workplace rights, labour hire, the prevention of exploitation and indeed generally understanding the workplace. More importantly, Workforce Inspectorate Victoria will be provided with the powers of a modern regulator of apprenticeship and traineeship needs. The taskforce heard directly from apprentices and trainees, and their experiences varied enormously. Can I say that the apprenticeship system does need further work. I look forward to further conversations with those that are interested in the apprenticeship system and to sitting down and actually having that conversation instead of walking in and having these polarised positions that are of no use to young people, no use to apprentices and of course no use to the employers or indeed the industries in which they participate.

I will leave it to others to mention issues in terms of commencement rates and completion rates. Those figures that have been provided by the opposition so far are absolutely incorrect. My time has run out, so I will hand my notes over to one of the other speakers that will take this issue on. But can I say a lot of hard work has gone into this. It is not a polarising issue at all. It is about making sure that governments at all levels and employers have got a proper role in making sure that we have a really good, frank, robust apprenticeship system. This government is prepared and will continue to be prepared to support the apprenticeship system. The funding of it is predominantly of the Commonwealth’s and the employers’ making.

 Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (20:10): I rise to make a short contribution on behalf of Legalise Cannabis Victoria on the Education and Training Reform Amendment (Apprenticeships, Traineeships, Schools and Other Matters) Bill 2026. Apprentices and trainees are among the most vulnerable people in the workplace. For many an apprenticeship or traineeship is their first real experience in the workforce. They are still learning not only their trade but also their rights and responsibilities as employees.

Apprentices are particularly vulnerable due to their young age and lack of experience, making it difficult for them to speak up about mistreatment. It can also be difficult for them to recognise unsafe conditions, exploitation and mistreatment. Even when they know something is wrong they may be afraid to speak up. They may worry about losing their job, damaging their future career or facing negative consequences from their employer. Others may simply not know where to go or how to report their concerns.

Serious problems include bullying, physical abuse and wage theft. In Victoria, WorkSafe Victoria has taken action against dozens of employers, prosecuting 66 companies and banning more than a hundred employers over five years for harming apprentices. These figures highlight a broader problem. For many years, apprentices and trainees have faced gaps in regulation, oversight and enforcement, despite being among the most vulnerable workers in the workforce. This piece of legislation turns the Victorian government’s response to the Apprenticeships Taskforce into a statutory regulatory framework and adopts its recommendations. Apprentices are arguably employees with the greatest power imbalance between them and their colleagues and their employer. This needs to be recognised and have protections put in place. Apprentices should not have to rely on serious injury, exploitation or workplace tragedy before the system intervenes.

One of the key reforms introduced in this bill is the establishment of a new regulatory structure, including an apprenticeship and traineeship commissioner. The bill also introduces stronger requirements for employers, including employer licensing and standards relating to the training and support of apprentices. Importantly, the bill gives regulators stronger monitoring and enforcement powers. This means employers will be held accountable for providing safe workplaces, appropriate supervision and quality training for apprentices. Our apprenticeship system must do more than simply provide training; it must provide a safe, supportive and high-quality experience throughout an apprentice’s training or a trainee’s entire journey. When someone begins an apprenticeship or traineeship, they should be able to trust that their employer will provide a workplace where they feel safe, respected and supported. Every apprentice and trainee deserves the opportunity to learn, develop their skills and build their future without fear of exploitation or mistreatment.

Our apprenticeship system must be built around safety, support, quality and knowledge. It is a special time for new and often young workers. Apprentices should be mentored and their skills developed. When apprentices and trainees start their journey, they deserve a workplace where they are respected, protected and given every opportunity to learn and succeed. An apprenticeship should be a pathway to a better future. It should be an environment where they are empowered to speak up without fear. This is a critical life skill and work skill; if you see something wrong, you should be able to name it. Every apprentice and trainee deserves to feel safe, valued and supported as they learn. Creating a safe environment is a shared responsibility between employers, training providers and the apprenticeship system as a whole.

Overall the reforms in this bill represent a significant shift toward a stronger and more accountable apprenticeship system in Victoria. The goal is simple: apprentices should be safe, properly supported and given genuine opportunities to complete their training and embark on a successful career. On behalf of Legalise Cannabis Victoria, we support this bill.

 Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (20:15): I am proud to stand and speak in support of this bill, but it should be no surprise to anyone that the Liberals are not here speaking on this bill tonight. It should be no surprise at all that the Liberals are not here, because while they were at university in their university clubs, studying Reagan and studying Thatcher and how they ripped the guts out of communities, when they were looking at closing the SEC and ripping the pipeline of workers out, ripping the apprenticeships out, I worked with what I call the last of the overall generation – the generation that worked their lives with a company and trained apprentices. And those apprentices went on to have jobs in those companies, in those towns, to service the people that lived in those towns, to service the people that they grew up amongst, to work amongst the communities that they would go on to live in, to raise families and to support the communities they were in. And we know what happened with them: in the 1990s Kennett and the Liberals got in and slashed it. But it was not just that. Between 2010 and 2014 Victorians talk about Baillieu and Nap Time doing very little, doing nothing. But I will tell you what they did have time to do: they had time to rip the guts out of TAFE. Twenty-two campuses were closed, 15 of them in regional Victoria. They sacked 2000 workers and ripped a billion dollars out of the system. That is what TAFE means to the Liberals; it means nothing. They have no experience of what it means to go to TAFE, they have no experience in working and they sure as hell could not care about ripping money out of it.

Labor, on the other hand, have invested in 45 new and upgraded TAFEs around Victoria. It is that real commitment since 2019 to getting 245,000 Victorians into free TAFE – getting them skilled up, getting them out in the workforce. And you know who benefits? We all benefit. When there are skilled workers in their local communities, we all benefit, everybody benefits, but the Liberals fail to see this. I heard a comment from the other side before, something about that not being what the lawyers think. Well, it is not about what the lawyers think, it is about what communities need. It is about what young Victorians need, which is getting skilled up to get out and work, getting a skill they can go and work in their entire life. That is what this is about. It is also about ensuring that employers who want to do the wrong thing cannot. Young apprentices, particularly in certain sectors and certain industries, absolutely need support. And if employers are going to do the wrong thing, if they are going to underpay, if they are going to steal wages, if they are going to put people in dangerous positions, you know what, they should not be hiring an apprentice. So that is what this bill does; it puts safeguards in to make sure that apprentices are safer. It puts safeguards in to make sure they have got good quality training. And it benefits us all when you have got more apprentices completing their apprenticeships and getting out into the workforce, because then there are more skilled workers in our communities for all of us.

 David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (20:18): I also would like to say a few words on the Education and Training Reform Amendment (Apprenticeships, Traineeships, Schools and Other Matters) Bill 2026. There is a lot in this bill, and I will go through a few of the things, but I will say from the outset that the Libertarian Party will be opposing this bill. The thing that concerns me most I will talk about first, and it is this idea of digital content orders from schools. So the idea here is that a principal may see something that parents are saying online or something similar to that and can issue an order which would effectively allow it to be taken down. Now, I see this as a dangerous encroachment on free speech. Parents are allowed to communicate with each other, to have online discussions about things and to have discussions about things happening at the school. And I get that in certain circumstances it may be appropriate for intervention from the school if something is directly harmful, and that is one of the categories here. But actually the bar here is far too low: ‘causes significant disruption to school operations or educational opportunity’. That is a pretty wide definition, and in fact if parents were expressing concerns about the way that a teacher was teaching or conducting themselves, that could easily come under that, you would think. I note that there are appeal mechanisms and this sort of thing. But the chilling effect here I think is dangerous and I think the bar is too low, and therefore we will not support that.

On the issue of apprenticeships, I speak to a lot of employers in the south-east. In fact the south-east, as many would know, has the largest manufacturing area in Australia, in Dandenong South. The thing that I hear a lot is it is very difficult to take on apprentices. It is very difficult to get skilled labour. I also hear that it is very difficult to keep apprentices, because many apprentices end up going and working on government Big Build projects because they pay more money than the apprenticeship. But I think that anything that the government does to make it more difficult for employers to get apprentices will just push them over the edge. It will just make them say, ‘Well, I’m just not going to do it.’ It is already difficult. They already find it difficult to do. I think the government should be providing more incentives to take on apprentices. I have said this a few times. One of the things that many of these employers have been upset about is land tax. Nearly every manufacturer in the south-east pays land tax. I think that they should be getting state government rebates on land tax for taking on apprentices. I think that that would be a good incentive. I offer that constructive suggestion to the government and maybe they will take it up, I do not know. But there are many ways that the government could incentivise without just throwing money around. I think that a rebate on land tax would be an entirely appropriate thing for a manufacturer that is taking on and educating apprentices. I think that that would be a good thing.

I think there are a lot of things that we could do to encourage apprenticeships, but licensing people to take on apprentices is not one of them. That is not a good thing to do, and in fact I think it will make it so much more onerous that many of these employers will simply just not bother, which is a sad state of affairs. Again, I think we should be making it easier, not harder, and for those reasons I will be opposing the bill.

 Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (20:22): I rise today to speak in support of the Education and Training Reform Amendment (Apprenticeships, Traineeships, Schools and Other Matters) Bill 2026. This legislation really is about the hardworking people who build the future of our state. Our Labor government knows that a strong, thriving economy relies entirely on a skilled, supported and safe workforce. Across Victoria we have got an unprecedented pipeline of work underway, and we need highly qualified tradespeople to build new housing for our growing population, to deliver major transport projects, to construct our massive renewable energy infrastructure and to drive our manufacturing growth. We simply cannot deliver these state-shaping initiatives without the apprentices and trainees who pick up the tools and do the hard work on the ground every single day.

Apprenticeships and traineeships are a vital pathway to stable, well-paid careers. They provide incredible opportunities for young people straight out of high school, for career changers looking for a new direction, for regional Victorians and for individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds who are seeking a reliable livelihood. If we are going to encourage more Victorians to take up a trade and help build our state, we have an absolute obligation to make sure they are safe and supported in their workplaces. The reality we face is that our current apprenticeship regulatory framework, which was established under the Education and Training Reform Act 2006, is two decades old. In fact many of the relevant components of that legislation date back over 25 years. The world of work, industry standards and educational needs have changed dramatically in that time. The current framework is simply not fit for purpose. It urgently needs modernisation to keep pace with the changing demands of our economy and to properly protect apprentices and trainees from challenges that can completely derail their careers. We promise to fix this.

In January 2023 our Labor government delivered on a major 2022 election commitment by establishing the Apprenticeships Taskforce, chaired by Sharan Burrow AC. This taskforce undertook the most significant wideranging review of the apprenticeships and trainee system in recent history. Can I take a moment to acknowledge the absolute powerhouse of work done in that taskforce by Sharan. I did have the good fortune of meeting with her at a range of TAFEs in the Northern Metropolitan Region, and she did talk a lot about the changes that the taskforce were looking to implement. The core purpose of that taskforce was clear: we wanted expert advice on how to improve safety in workplaces across the state, ensuring that more apprentices and trainees could get a successful start to their careers while also ensuring that industry continued to back and support the system.

In March 2024 the taskforce delivered its final report, handing down 16 recommendations and three supporting actions aimed squarely at modernising Victoria’s system. The findings were confronting but entirely necessary to hear. The taskforce highlighted that many apprentices continued to face serious workplace safety concerns, unacceptable harassment, deeply inconsistent training experiences and immense difficulty when trying to navigate the system to get help. These are not minor inconveniences that people should just have to put up with. Experiencing harassment or unsafe conditions on a worksite can completely destroy a young person’s confidence and ruin their career trajectory. It directly affects whether someone actually finishes their apprenticeship, whether they remain in their chosen occupation and whether they reach their full potential. The central message from the taskforce was clear: while apprentices are critical to meeting Victoria’s future workplace needs, the current system requires far stronger protections, simpler support arrangements and modernised regulation to ensure that we can complete training of apprentices across this state safely and successfully.

The government listened and supported all 16 recommendations either in full or in principle. We immediately backed this response with a $9 million package to support the rollout of these reforms. That funding included the creation of a centralised apprenticeship support helpdesk, new dedicated mental health and counselling services for apprentices, additional targeted support for employers and robust measures to improve safety, inclusion and training quality across the board. The legislation builds on that vital work, and this bill will fundamentally reform the regulatory system to provide far greater support, addressing safety, harassment, training quality and fairness at work. It will directly improve completion rates by ensuring quality training provision and enforcing more appropriate workplace environments.

We are completely overhauling how employers are regulated in this space. This replaces the current outdated one-off approval process with an annual employer licensing system. This means an employer’s ongoing fitness to employ apprentices or trainees will be actively assessed every single year. Employers will be legally required to update the regulator if there are any changes to the information provided on their initial licence application. This moves us away from the ‘set and forget’ mentality and ensures continuous accountability. To enforce this we are introducing a practical, commonsense set of compliance tools. The regulator will be equipped with notices to produce documents, notices to comply, infringement notices, official warnings and enforceable undertakings. The bill creates new offences and penalties, striking the right balance between implementing proactive safeguards and ensuring we do not discourage good employers from taking on apprentices. We are also bringing greater information sharing between relevant regulators. This will deliver improved coordination and consistency, ensuring that bad behaviour is caught and addressed swiftly rather than getting lost between departments. This bill also enables regulations to be made that set out clear outcome-based rules for employers. These regulations will clarify the ongoing expectations placed on employers across the entire apprenticeship journey, covering crucial areas like inductions, training progression, providing a supportive workplace environment, proper supervision and complaint resolution.

Importantly, the bill delivers stronger regulation of apprentices and traineeships under labour hire models, including group training organisations. When an apprentice is hired by one entity but placed on a site managed by another, the lines of responsibility can blur. The legislation provides the ability to prescribe specific employer standards for those who act as labour hire providers to ensure young workers are always protected. Furthermore, we are expanding oversight of training programs and introducing minimum content requirements, a formal lodgement process and strict reporting obligations for registered training organisations. To oversee this modernised framework, the regulatory function will officially transfer from the Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority to the Workforce Inspectorate Victoria. The Workforce Inspectorate Victoria has a strong track record in enforcing workplace laws and supporting workers, making it the right body to take on this responsibility. We are establishing a dedicated commissioner to regulate apprentices and trainees and their apprenticeships and traineeships, which will be a Governor in Council appointment. The bill also provides for a consultative committee made up of between five and 10 members directly representing the interests of employers, apprentices, trainees and registered education and training organisations.

You cannot reform a system without putting in the resources to support the people navigating it. Our Labor government is backing our apprentices. This year’s state budget provides $5.8 million over two years for safer and fairer apprenticeships. This specific funding secures the continuation of the Apprentice Helpdesk, supports the transition to the stronger regulatory framework and funds a vital workplace rights apprentice training program. This comes on top of the $22.8 million over two years we provided to Apprenticeships Victoria in last year’s state budget. That investment ensured the continued delivery of the priority apprenticeship model, which directly supports apprentices working in housing, construction, the clean economy and other high-priority industry sectors.

On the ground our apprenticeship support officer program is doing invaluable work. These officers provide apprentices with tailored one-on-one support and referrals. They help young workers navigate training and employment issues, address safety and workplace concerns, provide guidance on mental and physical wellbeing and offer critical assistance for those facing housing stress, financial difficulties or personal challenges. In 2025 alone over 21,000 apprentices were contacted under the apprenticeship support officer program, resulting in more than 150,000 individual interactions. The program works alongside the Apprentice Helpdesk, which was formally launched on 10 June 2025 to help apprentices, employers, parents and training organisations navigate the system. Since opening its doors, the helpdesk has handled over 3400 cases, and 90 per cent of those cases have been successfully resolved or closed.

I want to take a moment to reflect on the enormous leadership of Gayle Tierney, the former Minister for Skills and TAFE, who I know has been an absolute powerhouse and a force for apprentices. In fact I often have remarked that the happiest I ever saw Ms Tierney was in the company of apprentices at TAFE, watching them learn and grow and share with her their dreams for their careers and their hopes for themselves and their families. It is an almighty good thing that one of the last pieces of legislation we put before this place is in honour of her enormous work over the years. To you, Ms Tierney, congratulations. I support this bill, and I do it with the express understanding that I came from this sector and supported apprentices before I began my life in this Parliament. I understand just how significant it is to change a system that has been around perhaps a little bit too long without the eyes of a reformer in its wake. They had that with Gayle, so it is without any hesitation and with great pride, in fact, and probably with some phone calls that I will be making to apprentices after the passage of this bill, that I say that this bill establishes the modern standards that are needed for the future of apprenticeships in our state. With great pride, I commend this bill to the house.

 Moira DEEMING (Western Metropolitan) (20:34): I rise to oppose the Education and Training Reform Amendment (Apprenticeships, Traineeships, Schools and Other Matters) Bill 2026. This bill is supposedly about making sure tradie apprentices are not exploited and making sure that schools are safe for students and staff and teachers, but it just could not be further from the truth. This bill exploits apprentices and the sympathy that we all have for them, and it makes schools less safe for students and teachers and everybody by further undermining parental rights and basically creating tin-pot dictators out of every school principal in the state. This bill is your garden variety communist–Marxist attack on the family and is just another ruse to take over more taxpayer dollars. It is not to pay off debt, not to build a road, not to ensure that apprentices are not exploited and not even to ensure that apprentices are given the skills they need or that are highly valued, but just to feed the bottomless pit of corrupt union Ponzi schemes where they claim there is a problem, demand the government create more red tape to fix it and then just happen to have founded a couple of businesses that can charge government and private businesses to meet their compliance duties. It is an absolute rort, and I am disgusted.

We all agree that apprentices should be safe, properly paid, properly supervised and genuinely taught the trade that they signed up to learn. Teachers and students should be safe at school, obviously. You do not get brownie points for saying something so obvious. Principals need authority to keep order and need trust to make sure that people believe in them. The people who are in that school need to be trusted to educate and look after the children, and we need to make sure that they are competent and accountable. Everybody agrees with all of that. But unfortunately, this bill answers the failures of enforcement by creating more regulation and by doing the exact opposite of making schools safer. This bill answers institutional failure by creating new powers and handing them back to the same kinds of institutions that stuffed it all up in the first place, and it answers difficult human relationships by replacing trust and responsibility with yet another administration process.

I have a different view of what government is supposed to do, obviously, than those opposite. I believe that good government should give people the power to do their jobs. It should hold them responsible when they fail and should get out of the way of honest, hardworking Victorians. A good society is held together by far more than laws. It is held together by relationships, goodwill, agreed rights and responsibilities, trust and enough grace for ordinary people to make mistakes and put them right. Law matters when those relationships break down. We need police when people are dangerous, courts when rights are violated and regulators where safety must be enforced. But the government cannot legislate trust, it cannot legislate goodwill and it cannot replace the millions of voluntary acts of responsibility that make everyday life possible. That is the real community.

Tradies are one of the great strengths of this country. They literally build, wire, plumb and maintain all of the infrastructure that we all rely on. Nobody should ever look down on tradies. In fact we could do with far more tradies and far less academics advocating for paedophilia in our school curriculums – and if you would like to challenge me, you can look up Gary Dowsett, you can look up Steven Angelides and many more. None of them have been renounced by this government. It is pretty insane.

Teaching young people the skills that they can be proud of and that they can use to build a better life for themselves is one of the most fulfilling and meaningful roles in life. In fact that was my main career, and it is the job that I have loved most, apart from being a mum. Learning in the classroom, however, can only do so much. That is why on-the-job training, an apprenticeship, where someone further along the same road passes on the skills and tips and tricks of success from one generation to the next, is so valuable to society. An experienced worker helps the younger one, lets them watch, lets them have a go themselves, and then they are the next generation to build businesses to contribute to society.

Despite the horror stories that usually hit the news and absolutely should be prevented and dealt with, I really believe in our business owners and that these employers who take on apprentices are not just after cheap labour. The truth is they have to give up their own valuable, productive time to teach, supervise and correct mistakes for a youngster who cannot yet produce like a fully qualified worker but just needs a foot in the door and a chance to get the experience they need. Victoria is facing a shortage of skilled workers, so we should be making it easier for small businesses to take on apprentices, not harder. This is so clearly about money and power. It is just another opportunity to rip off businesses and taxpayers with another round of bureaucracy; a licence that, no matter what anybody says, we all know is going to come with some kind of licence fee, renewal costs, bureaucrats patting themselves on the back for creating bigger departments with more processes and boxes to be checked, literally making the system that they say has failed bigger and more expensive without actually fixing the core problem, which was enforcement. If Victoria needs more tradies, then we need to back the people who train the tradies, not undermine them.

The government has pointed to real cases of apprentices being underpaid, bullied, unsafe or just simply not even taught. The example that comes to my mind is the 17-year-old who turned up on a building site for his first day of work wearing a T-shirt of the wrong union, and he was terrorised and locked in a shed and committed suicide – by the people who say that they fight for workers rights. I do not know what this state has come to, let alone unions. But when it comes to apprenticeships, this bill is actually redundant. The only thing it adds is a way to force money out of businesses. That will only make it less likely that they will take on apprentices, which means only big businesses will be able to afford to do it.

Let us go through the issues that this bill claims to fix. Wages and conditions – they are already governed by the Fair Work system; superannuation – that is already regulated under Commonwealth law; workplace safety – that is already governed by our own Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 and enforced by WorkSafe; bullying, discrimination and assault – already unlawful; and whether the employer is suitable and whether the apprentice is actually being trained – that is already supposed to be regulated too. Employers already have to be approved. There is already supposed to be a binding training contract, a training plan, competencies that have to be assessed and officers with power to inspect. So if a young person reaches their third year having spent most of it sweeping floors or perhaps bullied, sure, we want to know how that happened, but that is why we had the regulator. Someone had to know, and if not, why not?

Before this government asks Parliament for more power and more money, it should account for how they have used the money and power that they have already been given. This is something that the current Labor government is particularly bad at: taking accountability for the results of their own policies. The Housing Industry Association put it well. They said the simplest alternative, the simplest solution, is a regulator that actually does its job. You do not need to reinvent the wheel. They note that the Apprenticeships Taskforce itself found fault with the existing regulator and that government too often answers weak enforcement just by writing more rules which are also not enforced. This bill is remaking the exact same mistake. Why not just make the relevant regulators do their job and work hard to identify employers who have objectively proven themselves unsuitable to take on an apprentice and just prohibit them, rather than finding and punishing every good employer, forcing them to prove their worth by filling out paperwork over and over, year after year.

Then there is the whole issue about the money. As usual, when you follow the money, there is a loop running through these reforms. Union-linked organisations lobby the Labor government about a problem that they want more regulation for. Labor creates the regulation, and the new rules create more demand for taxpayer-funded training, education and compliance services. Government money then flows back to the organisations within the same union network that campaigned for the regulations in the first place. They get the funding, they get the work, they get the taxpayer-funded access to young workers, and then they lobby for the next expansion.

The Young Workers Centre was established by Victorian Trades Hall and affiliated unions. It is closely connected to the union movement, and it campaigned specifically for a licensing system for businesses employing apprentices. It wanted employers vetted before they could take an apprentice, campaigned for stronger regulation, welcomed the government’s Apprenticeships Taskforce and celebrated the resulting reforms as a big win. Then the money flowed back to them. In 2024–25 the Labor government paid almost $800,000 to the Young Workers Centre Incorporated for apprentice workplace rights education. That brought more than advice sitting on a government website; it paid a union-linked organisation to go into Victorian TAFEs and deliver workplace rights training directly to first-year apprentices – in a TAFE full of teachers who could have just done it as part of their ordinary job. That is very convenient, isn’t it? They lobbied Labor for greater regulation of apprenticeship employers, and then Labor paid them to operate inside that regulatory environment that they helped to expand – it is ridiculous. The people lobbying government to create more red tape should not then be part of a money pipeline that pays their own network to help people comply with it. It is an absolute rort.

I have got 18 minutes. I could go through every single page, but I will be kind. If the goal is more skilled tradespeople, then you should just incentivise the best businesses to take them on by removing onerous red tape and reducing their tax burdens through rebates for land tax, payroll tax or whatever the levies and fees are that are making it impossible to do business and to hire apprentices so that they can actually train the next generation. With each of these new kinds of legislation and schemes and regulators and licences, we see time and time again the government causes problems to grow while claiming to try and help and charging us for the pleasure.

The only thing that the government actually needs to do is get out of the way. I am a very big Ronald Reagan fan, and I am reminded of his wry humour when he said that the nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help’. What they could actually do to help is pretty simple. Here are five ideas. First, scrap payroll tax, WorkCover and every other state tax, levy or loading on apprentice wages. If any tax is still there, just pay it straight back to the boss who keeps the apprentice on. Second, put a firm cap on the forms and audits that a small business has to do to take on an apprentice. They are already a registered business. Learning happens on the tools. We need them to do that. They are doing us a service. Third, rebate other corporate taxes on businesses that keep an apprentice all the way through to qualifying. Fourth, hand back the equivalent of the income tax that they pay on earnings up to 50K while they train. That way they can cover their rent and travel and finish their trade. Finally, tell the truth. Publish how many apprentices start and finish every year. Before any more big announcements or skills summits or other garbage you want to get up to with Trades Hall to pat yourselves on the back, just publish the data. Those are the basics of a state that actually respects workers and the money that they earn.

Now we come to the other part of the bill about schools. This part of the bill they say is focused on schools and families, and I was delighted to read about that because that is my favourite topic. Everyone agrees that schools should be safe. Everyone agrees that teachers should have a safe working environment and they should not be abused. But that authority should exist inside a relationship with families, and the government should never, ever forget that parents do not co-parent with the government. These school provisions are actually insane. I cannot believe that you are giving principals the power to dictate what parents say on social media. I do not know if you can hear yourselves. If some principal tried to tell me that I could not post on social media that trans women are men and they should not be supervising my daughter in her change room on swimming carnival day, I would look forward to seeing if that principal could be brave enough to tell me to take that down. I do not know who you think you are – that you could give a principal or some adult on school grounds that kind of authority over parents saying what they believe and deem it as harmful just so that you can undermine them, attack them and discredit them. That is a total abuse of government power. It is a total repudiation of all the values that this society was set up on – the Western values. I could do the Labor thing where they are like, ‘Why do you hate families?’ every time you bring up a group of people – you know it is true.

That is just the latest. I do not know if people know that principals already have the power to ban parents from school grounds if they decide that a parent is impacting the emotional wellbeing of people on the grounds of schools. We already have laws for that. You call the police if it is that bad. You cannot be giving a principal dictatorship powers like some little embassy cutting parents off from their own children. Why are you trying to have everything secret away from parents and all this authority over their children on school grounds? Why? I do not think there is any good reason.

When you are talking to children about adults that are trustworthy and adults that are untrustworthy, everyone always says that a bad and untrustworthy adult will tell you to keep secrets from mum and dad. That is what the Victorian government has done. As I have said, parents are not a bed and breakfast. If someone believes that any family or any set of parents is unfit and unsafe to know about any kind of information or activity at that school, then they should prove it in a court of law and have the parental authority removed. Until you do that, it is outrageous that you would undermine parental authority, literally transfer medical power of authority and keep secrets from parents without any evidence that has actually proved that there was any justification to do so.

The other disgraceful thing of course is that the school is not going to be there when the consequences fall. They do not keep the name of the adult who declared a child a mature minor, so that if it all goes wrong, the government can say, ‘Well, they made that decision themselves. It’s their own fault that they chopped off their organs. It’s their own fault that they took poisonous cross-sex hormones. That’s their own fault.’ Saying that to a child, to a minor, is putting the responsibility back on their shoulders instead of saying, ‘If you believe in something, be accountable for it. Stand up and take the consequences. Put your name on that piece of paper.’ That is how we all know that it is wrong and that you are putting children at risk. I do not know why you do not rebel against your own party. Some of you are really, really lovely people and you just confuse the hell out of me, because this is an evil, evil law.

When young people get into trouble, people call up radio stations: ‘Where are the parents? It’s their fault. It’s their responsibility.’ Well, the parents have been sidelined and cut out and demoralised and have had all of their authority and their rights stripped from them. You cannot have it both ways. The absurdity of all this is that the government still actually views themselves as a better protector than ordinary mums and dads, when you could look at basically any of the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office reports in the last 20 years and see that every time this government, or any government really, wholesale removes parents rights and takes children away from families, statistically, not only do they not do better, but they do far, far worse. Removing parental authority should be extraordinarily carefully done, absolutely. Not only can a school lie to parents about their own children, it can change their name, change their uniform, change their gender at school, change which toilets or bathrooms they use, change which rooms they sleep in on camps and send them for counselling, which can then send them to other third-party health providers outside of school during school hours – all behind parents’ backs and with irreversible and very, very serious psychosocial and chemical interventions on the basis of nothing and with no paper trail, just because a kid might say that the parents might not agree with it – ‘I don’t think Mum and Dad would like that.’ You are damn right Mum and Dad would not like that, because they love you and they are your best protectors. So you have taken away the basics of parental authority, and now you are taking away parents’ rights to complain about it, and you are doing it under the guise of protecting children, yet again. It is absolutely appalling. In short, this bill is absolutely a threat to children and parents. It is garbage, and I delight in not supporting it.

 Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (20:57): I am delighted to speak on the Education and Training Reform Amendment (Apprenticeships, Traineeships, Schools and Other Matters) Bill 2026. The Carroll Labor government is committed to ensuring the safety of all Victorians. Everyone has a right to go to work, training or school and be safe. This is even more important when we are talking about our young people. This bill amends the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 to address the following areas: strengthening protections for Victoria’s apprentices and trainees; supporting the safety of students, teachers and others through embedding the principle of safety and respect into the act and through practical reforms to school safety orders; and amending permission-to-teach arrangements to ensure trainee and substitute teachers are well supported and trained.

There are 62,000 apprentices and trainees in Victoria, and they are the future of our workforce. The Labor government has continued to invest in Victorian apprentices and trainees, who are crucial to delivering the skills needed for Victoria’s economy. We know apprenticeships are a pathway for young people, people who want to change their career, regional Victorians and those wonderful creative innovators to take up well-paid careers. It is why we are supporting apprentices to complete their qualifications and engage in meaningful work. Victoria needs these qualified tradespeople to deliver housing, transport projects, renewable energy infrastructure – although that will all go if the opposition have their way – and defence manufacturing. We are helping to address these skill needs and encouraging more Victorians to enter an apprenticeship. More than 10,000 Victorian apprentices completed their training in 2025. The number of apprentices completing their training in Victoria increased by 16.5 per cent, higher than the national increase of 8.1 per cent, and more women are qualifying in traditionally male-dominated trades. Only last week I met with a group of young women who were exploring their trade opportunities at South West TAFE in Warrnambool.

This is all a result of the Labor government’s efforts to rebuild and reform Victoria’s training system after it was left in ruins by the Liberals. They sacked more than 2000 TAFE teachers, shut 22 campuses and ripped a billion dollars from TAFEs across Victoria. I happened to be mayor of Warrnambool at the time that they did that. I popped in to see the chief executive of South West TAFE Joe Piper, and I asked what the impact was of these cuts that the Napthine government are making. He told me a story that in fact Denis Napthine had popped into his office to ask him the very same question. He did not know what effect his own government’s cuts would have on his own local South West TAFE. I will tell you what the effect was: 70 staff lost their jobs at South West TAFE, with almost $10 million cut from its budget and about 30 courses cut in the first year alone. That is 70 residents of Warrnambool, 70 families that could not pay their mortgage and had to make arrangements or could not get a mortgage. Is it any wonder the economy flatlined? Students were warned that they would have to pay between 50 and 400 per cent more for courses in future and that 169 courses would have to be cut over the next two years. That is what they were told.

Only Labor governments support TAFE and public provision of education and training, and we are delivering a TAFE legacy in this state that can never be unwound. In February this year we enshrined the free TAFE guarantee in legislation. More than 245,000 students have benefited from Labor’s free TAFE since 2019, and more than 5000 individuals in the south-west alone. It just goes to show that price does matter. Price is exclusionary, just like with access to trains. Now that we have capped the fares so they are the same as in Melbourne, regional Victorians are travelling more than they ever have. It has provided a real opportunity, and free TAFE has provided that opportunity as well for regional Victorians’ careers. Free TAFE has saved more than $816 million in tuition fees, an average of more than $3300 per student.

This bill is proof of our ongoing commitment to Victoria’s apprenticeship system. As my colleague and the former minister Gayle Tierney mentioned, we established the Apprenticeships Taskforce in 2023 to review that system and look for ways to improve it. The taskforce included employer and union representatives and consulted extensively with apprentices, trainees and other stakeholders. It found that regulators cannot respond quickly enough to harms and risk, oversight of training is inappropriate and the system is too complex. Tragically, there have been too many instances of appalling harassment, disregard for safety, serious injuries and even deaths of Victorian apprentices and trainees. The Carroll Labor government is committed to protecting the safety of all workers. The great majority of our apprentices and trainees are young and new to the workforce, so it is even more important that they are supported and protected. The government, as Ms Tierney said, has accepted all the taskforce recommendations in full or in principle. This bill provides more support for apprentices and their employers and addresses the key issues highlighted in the report, including safety, harassment, training quality and fairness at work.

Workforce Inspectorate Victoria will take over as the regulatory body for apprentices and trainees, and the inspectorate will bring a strong focus on protecting the rights of apprentices and trainees, safety and a high level of training. It will be supported by an expanded set of compliance and enforcement powers to enable it to respond quickly and appropriately. We are also introducing a new licensing scheme for employers and new employer standards, as well as specific oversight for labour hire providers.

Before closing, I want to mention briefly the changes to safety at school. Everyone deserves to feel safe at school – students, teachers and staff. The bill introduces a new principle into the act that all schools should be safe and respectful places of learning and work. This will make staff and student safety a guiding principle for the act as a whole, ensuring it has equal importance to the other principles, such as access to high-quality education. We know if we take a trauma-informed approach to education, it is quite relevant in a number of contexts. If a child does not feel safe, they are like a turtle: they hide inside and their shell protects them. But what happens is they are not looking outward – they are not learning and they are not listening to what is happening in the classroom. They are protecting themselves all the time if they feel unsafe. So safety is the primary, first, core responsibility.

It is very, very good that this is an evidence-based approach, and it should always be recognised and elevated as an important cultural achievement in a classroom and a school. An independent statutory review and community consultation found that staff and principals backed the scheme as an important tool for managing harmful and unacceptable behaviours by parents, carers and other adults as well as students. Despite this, incidence of such behaviour continues to rise. This bill strengthens and refines the scheme by streamlining the process for issuing orders and improving social media protections. It empowers principals to issue a digital content order to prohibit someone from using social media or other online platforms to harm, abuse, intimidate or threaten staff members or students. These are basic behavioural expectations that are basically aligned with ordinary social norms. Hiding behind social media can sometimes allow people to perhaps say things that they would never say to the face of a principal or a teacher. These orders can require the adult in question to amend or remove these posts. Those kinds of posts can impact on whole school communities as well.

I will leave my contribution there, but there are also some great changes around formalising and codifying the permission-to-teach scheme, which is for trainee teachers, as well as enabling the institute to monitor compliance and take action where conditions are not met. I want to close by saying a thankyou to former minister Gayle Tierney, who presided over the TAFE sector for a very long time – I think it was almost a decade – and by saying that Minister Gab Williams inherits a sector in fantastic shape compared to when Gayle Tierney picked it up.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) incorporated the following:

This Bill makes a range of positive reforms to Victoria’s nation-leading education sector, but I would like to focus my contribution on the reforms that shall benefit Victorian apprentices and trainees.

Victoria is home to 62,000 apprentices and trainees, who play a crucial role in supporting Victoria’s economic growth and sustainability through the development of their skills and their participation in the workforce. Many of these 62,000 are training in industries where their expertise is needed to ensure Victoria’s workforce can meet its future skills needs.

However, the regulatory framework governing Victoria’s apprenticeship system is outdated, it lacks adequate protections for apprentices and trainees which has led to preventable safety incidents, bullying, and harassment. The Young Workers Centre has reported a concerning increase in the number of apprentices reporting employment issues. These employer-related issues are, unfortunately, a commonly cited reason for non-completion of apprenticeships and traineeships.

That is why this Labor Government established an Apprenticeships Taskforce in 2023 which worked with employers, unions, and a reference group of apprentices and trainees to inquire into how Victoria’s apprenticeship system could be reformed to ensure its effective operation into the future. The reforms in this Bill reflect the 16 recommendations made by the Taskforce in 2024, which the Government has accepted.

Before being elected to this place, I served as an Executive Director of the McKell Institute, where I worked on a report in association with the Victorian Trades Hall Council examining how Victoria’s apprenticeship system could better support more Victorians to take up an apprenticeship, and see it through to completion. Much of the discussion in that report was reflected in the Taskforce’s recommendations, and the Bill before us today.

The regulation of Victoria’s apprenticeships system is currently overseen by the Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority, however a majority of apprentices and employers are unfamiliar with the VRQA and the role its plays for apprenticeships. That is why we’re transferring those regulatory functions to the Workforce Inspectorate Victoria, allowing the VRQA to focus on regulation on schools and vocational education and training, while the Workplace Inspectorate Victoria can use its existing expertise in industry regulation effectively in this role.

The enforcement mechanisms for these regulations are also in need of modernisation. Presently, the VRQA is limited to enforcement tools such as cancelling an employer’s approval or training contract, or prosecuting said employer that are often disproportionate to reported incidents. With these reports of workplace incidents rising, it is crucial that the regulator has tools that can allow it to act quickly, flexibly, and proportionately to complaints. These reforms will introduce infringement notices, compliance notices, official warnings, or enforceable undertakings as tools that the regulator can use where risks of harm to workers are identified.

To complement these new tools, a new licensing system is also being introduced so the regulator can assess the suitability of an employer throughout the course of an apprenticeship rather than the beginning of the process, without increasing the burden upon employers. This gives the Workplace Inspectorate Victoria capacity to manage poorly performing employers throughout the course of an apprenticeship.

Regulatory oversight will also extend to labour hire providers who engage apprentices. In comparison to other employers, apprentices engaged with labour hire providers work for a third party – who have contracted the services of the labour hire provider – often with little oversight.

This Bill is also legislating a minimum standard quality of training for the course of an apprenticeship. Expectations for employers about what makes a successful apprenticeship journey are now being prescribed in regulation for the first time, having not been explicitly listed previously. Further to that, a range of minimum standards for training will also be included in the regulations. These reforms will ensure there is clarity for both the employee and employer about the course and quality of an apprenticeship or traineeship.

The current web of entities that provide advice, support, and regulation to apprentices and trainees is complex with each agency having different areas of expertise and functions. This system can often be confusing to navigate, particularly when apprentices wish to raise issues with their apprenticeship. Given this structure, it is important that there is a consistent and uniform approach for sharing information – as it stands there is not. That is why this Bill enables co-regulators to share information consistently and comprehensively to create opportunities for organisations to improve their coordination when supporting apprentices and trainees.

This Labor Government understands the importance of Victoria’s apprenticeship and training systems, not only to ensure that Victoria’s workforce has the skills it needs, but to ensure that Victoria’s economy thrives. But for too long the number of Victorians undertaking apprentices has been in decline, but that number is finally starting to increase again.

And that is no coincidence because this government has consistently supported apprentices and trainees. From investing $5.8 million in this year’s Budget towards supporting fairer and safer apprenticeships, to delivering free registration for apprentices using their vehicle as part of their apprenticeship and delivering free TAFE more than 245,000 students saving them over $816 million in tuition fees.

What the Apprenticeships Taskforce made clear is that the current legislative framework for Victoria’s apprenticeship and traineeship system is outdated and is in need of reform. That is what this Bill delivers: more support for Victorian apprentices to navigate work, training, and personal challenges so they can receive a quality apprenticeship and complete their qualifications.

 Lizzie BLANDTHORN (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Children, Minister for Disability) (21:09): I rise to speak today on the Education and Training Reform Amendment (Apprenticeships, Traineeships, Schools and Other Matters) Bill 2026. I would like to thank all members who have contributed to this debate and broadly to the bill. It strengthens protections for Victoria’s apprentices and trainees. It strengthens the permission-to-teach scheme and ensures that schools remain safe places of learning and work through a range of reforms that will better protect school staff and students against harmful behaviours. The reforms in the bill reflect a significant body of work to deliver on the government’s commitment to implementing key recommendations from the Apprenticeships Taskforce that the government set up in 2023. The bill will transfer the regulation of apprentices and trainees to the Workforce Inspectorate Victoria and strengthen their powers. It will create an apprenticeship commissioner and yearly licence renewal for employers of apprentices.

I would like to pick up on a few points raised, including in relation to amendments circulated. In relation to fees: there are absolutely no fees under the new licensing system. There are no plans to introduce fees. There are no powers to issue fees. On the statutory review: we have included a five-year statutory review. As employers are being supported through an educative process to comply with the new regulator, two years would be too early in the scheme to determine if it is working as intended. Five years provides time for the policy to work and develop and provides a future review with plenty of evidence about what works and what might not. On annual renewal of licences: the annual licensing process was a key recommendation of the Apprenticeships Taskforce. The licensing renewal requirements have been designed so that they are not onerous for the employer; rather, the work to determine the suitability of the employer rests with Workforce Inspectorate Victoria. Applicants will only be required to tick a box to affirm that information and documents previously provided remain accurate and up to date, or if there has been any change to that information, provide details of this. The focus of Workforce Inspectorate Victoria’s consideration during the renewal process will be on whether the information submitted with the original application has changed.

The reforms have also been designed to minimise burden on employers. Importantly, this bill intends to make the regulatory framework clearer and more straightforward for employers so they can better understand their obligations. Employers will be given all the support they need to be fully compliant with the new regulator. There will be a 12-month opportunity to apply for a licence and transition their apprentices to the new regulator. Employers will also have greater oversight and understanding of an apprentice’s training plan, so they can be confident at the end of an apprenticeship that they have a fully qualified and safe worker.

On the impact of the reforms on commencement and completion rates, these reforms present a critical opportunity to drive up completion rates for apprentices and trainees. The Apprenticeships Taskforce found that the most cited reasons for non-completion of apprenticeships and traineeships were employer-related issues, especially those related to the quality of training and employment. Improving Workforce Inspectorate Victoria’s ability to oversee training plans and training contracts, coupled with measures such as minimum requirements for training plans, will contribute to better quality training and supervision. In turn, this is expected to impact positively on apprentice and trainee completion rates and improve productivity. The new regulator will start by 1 July 2028. The bill states default commencement by 2029 or earlier, but the government has committed to this earlier start.

Turning to the education elements of the bill, and in particular the school community safety order scheme, this implements the recommendations of an independent statutory review of the scheme as well as feedback from the community via Engage Victoria last year. The community’s expectations are clear: where all options and interventions in managing antisocial behaviour are exhausted, more needs to be done to protect teachers and students in person and online. The bill also introduces a new type of order called a digital content school community safety order, designed to protect school students and staff from harm perpetrated online using communication platforms and channels, including social media. Let me be clear: this is not about controlling genuine speech made in good faith online, this is about protecting the safety and wellbeing of staff and students and delivering a quality education to our young people. Digital content orders are only able to be made to prohibit a person from using a communication platform or channel to harm, abuse, intimidate or threaten a staff member or student where that content poses an unacceptable risk.

During debate in the other place, the member for Sandringham called on the government to consider retaining a high threshold for orders, procedural fairness and independent review, protecting good-faith parent advocacy and complaints and maintaining a pathway for constructive parent–school communications after an order concludes. The Carroll Labor government shares these interests. My contribution today confirms that the new regime is a measure of last resort and implements procedural fairness for those subject to an order. There are also multiple levels of review of these orders, including internal review and the ability to go to VCAT. In relation to supporting constructive parent–school communications, these orders are specifically designed to support the involvement of parents in the education of their child. Once an order expires it is our expectation that the school will make good-faith efforts to re-engage the parent in the school community so respectful behaviour and engagement can resume. This can be via things like communication plans or other agreements setting out the parameters of respectful communication. Resources like independent conflict resolution resources or mediation are available, including through the government’s Independent Office for School Dispute Resolution.

The member for Sandringham suggested these considerations could be facilitated via a ministerial order. I can confirm that the government’s expectations regarding the administration of the reformed school community safety order scheme, including advice on maintaining constructive parent–school communications, will be included in ministerial guidelines to be issued once the reforms are enacted. With those clarifying comments, I am pleased to recommend the bill to the house.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Clause 1 (21:17)

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: I want to ask a few questions on the functions of the Workforce Inspectorate Victoria. With regard to the new legislated functions of Workforce Inspectorate Victoria in relation to apprentices and trainees, I note that recommendation 7 of the final report of the Apprenticeships Taskforce is as follows:

Establish an independent VET, apprenticeship and traineeship regulator with additional immediate support for VRQA …

Can I ask what the rationale was for why the government has chosen to vest the Workforce Inspectorate Victoria with these powers as opposed to creating a new independent regulator, as was clearly recommended by the taskforce?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The apprenticeship and traineeship regulatory functions complement the workforce inspectorate’s existing functions and capabilities and align with the government’s strategic agenda on consolidating entities to make the system simpler and more accessible. The Workforce Inspectorate Victoria is already a mature regulator, having been established as an independent statutory body in July 2021 and previously as a regulator within the Department of Premier and Cabinet. Its scope is broad, covering public construction integrity, child employment laws, long service leave, contractor protections and education and compliance advice to employers, and the new functions will complement the Workforce Inspectorate Victoria’s existing functions and capability as an industry-focused regulator, with a practical focus on supporting employers. Furthermore, with its strong focus on protecting the rights of workers, including its previous function of enforcing wage theft laws, it is positioned well to take on these additional functions.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: What assurances can the government give that the new apprenticeship and traineeship commissioner and Workforce Inspectorate Victoria as a whole will be sufficiently resourced to take on these new functions?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: It is intended that staff from the Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority (VRQA) who work on regulation of apprenticeships and traineeships will transfer to the Workforce Inspectorate Victoria, ensuring that the expertise and knowledge of these functions will be maintained. It will then subsequently be appropriately resourced, including the necessary financial resources, ICT resources et cetera.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Minister, are you aware of the number of staff that are going to be transferred across?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Almost 30.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: How does the government propose to track the inspectorate’s discharge of these functions?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Through the five-year review, Ms Gray-Barberio.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: What statutory obligations, if any, will apply to Workforce Inspectorate Victoria to report on the fulfilment of its duties with regard to its new proposed regulatory and oversight functions with regard to apprentices and trainees?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The regulator will report in the usual way, as do other regulators, but they will also publish a list of employers that are found not to be suitable, if that goes to your question.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: I just want to ask a question about applications for an employer licence. Noting the reported prevalence of bullying, sexual harassment and discrimination endured by apprentices and trainees, must an applicant for an employer licence disclose a complaint, settlement, VCAT proceedings or finding in relation to unlawful discrimination, sexual harassment, victimisation or vilification under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 or the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001? And if not, why is this?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: That would come under the fit and proper person requirements.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Similarly, does this section require the inspectorate to have regard to whether an application for a licence has been the subject of a complaint, settlement proceedings or a VCAT finding in relation to unlawful discrimination, sexual harassment, victimisation or vilification under the Equal Opportunity Act or the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The bill enables employer standards to be made that cover matters such as training, work and support; supervision; and resolution of complaints. It sets out information requirements for licence applications, which the workforce inspectorate must take into account when assessing whether to grant a licence. This includes if they have been found guilty of a sexual offence.

The regulatory framework also complements other existing workplace protections. For example, the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 provides that an employer must, as far as reasonably practicable, provide and maintain a working environment that is safe and without risks to health for its employees. Health is also defined to include psychological health. The government will further consider how best qualitative and quantitative gender data can be collected and analysed to inform the five-year statutory review, as this is also an important opportunity to assess how the apprenticeship system is working for women in particular.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Thank you for that detailed answer, Minister. New section 31A(4) ‘Appointment of Apprenticeship and Traineeship Commissioner’ provides that a person may hold office as both the Workforce Inspectorate Victoria Commissioner and the Apprenticeship and Traineeship Commissioner. Given the pre-existing responsibilities of the Workforce Inspectorate Victoria commissioner, how is it feasible for both these functions to be held by the one person?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: It is an extension of the role but will also be supported by a deputy commissioner.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: I have just got a couple more questions, and then I will be done. Just in relation to school community safety orders, Minister, who would classify as an authorised person in government schools and in non-government schools?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Each of the following persons is an authorised person: the principal of a registered school; for a government school, the Secretary of the Department of Education; for a non-government school, the proprietor of the school or, if the proprietor of the school is not an individual, a person authorised by the secretary for that school; or any other person or member of a class of persons authorised by the secretary.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Are there any limits to how many community safety orders an authorised person can give out to parents or carers of the school?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: There is no limit on the ordinary orders. The immediate orders, which exist for 14 days and can be extended for a further seven, would obviously be limited by time. You could only have so many orders in a given period.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: Can I just ask a clarifying question. For an authorised person who makes an immediate school community safety order orally, is that the only way that an authorised person can issue a community safety order or can they also do it in writing? Are there other ways that they can issue a school community safety order?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: It can also be written.

Renee HEATH: Minister, have you consulted with the First Peoples’ Assembly on this bill?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: There is a statement of compatibility for the bill, Dr Heath.

Renee HEATH: The statement of compatibility shows that you have not consulted with them. It states:

The First Peoples’ Assembly was not given an opportunity to advise on and did not make representations on the Bill …

There is a clear gap between Indigenous Australians and non-Indigenous Australians when it comes to outcomes in both education and training, so I just want to understand why they were not consulted in this process.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The development of the bill overlapped the period in which Gellung Warl was in the process of being established, and so they were not at that point convened and able to be consulted with on the bill.

Renee HEATH: We are only getting it, though, to the upper house today. They have been running and in establishment for quite some time, so were they at least given a copy of the bill or a briefing on the bill?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: My previous answer stands; it was a question of timing. Obviously the bill in the intervening period was publicly available, and anyone at that point was welcome to examine it, but the point at which the bill was prepared and introduced through the Assembly did not align with that opportunity.

Renee HEATH: I have just noted down exactly what you said: it is publicly available and everyone is free to examine it. Am I correct in saying that for whatever reason, whether it was timing or whether it was convenience, the government has not followed its legislated treaty process with this bill?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I would appreciate it, Dr Heath, if you do not put words in my mouth. I made it very clear it was a question of timing.

Renee HEATH: Okay, so am I correct in saying that the government’s legislated treaty process has not been followed with this bill – yes or no?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I have made it very clear: it is a question of the timing.

Renee HEATH: I do not think you are quite answering my question, though. The question is: yes or no, was the treaty process followed in this bill? Not the explanation why, not the reason why not, just yes or no. Was it or was it not?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Dr Heath, you do not have the opportunity to dictate how the questions are answered, just the opportunity to ask them, and I have answered them accordingly.

Richard WELCH: Minister, the Apprenticeships Taskforce completed its report in March 2024. The government then delivered its response in October 2024. According to the government’s response, it said further consultation would be undertaken before acting on these recommendations. The Housing Industry Association, Victorian Automotive Chamber of Commerce, Independent Tertiary Education Council Australia, South East Melbourne Manufacturers Association and Master Builders (MB) Victoria all said they had not been properly consulted. Why did the government fail to properly consult with industry stakeholders?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: In addition to the work of the Apprenticeships Taskforce, the taskforce consulted extensively with apprentices and trainees, employers, industry peaks, unions and government representatives. In recognition of the need to make the system safer and fairer for apprentices and trainees, the Victorian government established the Apprenticeships Taskforce, investing $1.5 million to support its work. MB Victoria was a taskforce member. These reforms deliver on key recommendations of the taskforce, which had an extensive membership, as I said, across employer representatives and unions. The taskforce was chaired by the former president of the Australian Council of Trade Unions Sharan Burrow. Justice Iain Ross, former president of the Fair Work Commission, also served as a special adviser. The lived experience of apprentices and trainees was at the heart of the taskforce work, and it was supported by the apprentice and trainee reference group, which provided diverse perspectives and was extensively consulted. The taskforce also consulted extensively throughout 2023 and 2024 to inform its recommendations. It engaged additional apprentices and trainees from priority cohorts, such as women and – Dr Heath may be interested in this – First Nations apprentices and trainees, as well as unions, peak bodies, regulators and employers. In relation to reforms – sorry, I will end it there. The rest is about the next part of the bill.

Richard WELCH: I gave you a list of industry bodies who said they had not been consulted or not properly consulted. I did not hear of any new industry bodies in that list that you provided. What industry bodies did you consult with?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The Australian Industry Group, Apprenticeship Employment Network, Master Builders, Master Plumbers, the Automotive Chamber of Commerce and Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry were all members of the taskforce.

Richard WELCH: Yes, they were members of the taskforce, but were they consulted subsequently, as was your accepted undertaking?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Obviously as members of the taskforce they were deeply involved in consultation throughout. The Department of Job Skills, Industry and Regions consulted on detailed policy proposals in the first half of 2026, and consultations were undertaken with stakeholders and past Apprenticeships Taskforce members, including the taskforce chair; industry representatives; group training organisation representatives and unions; CEOs of Victorian TAFEs; Apprentice Connect Australia providers; industry and union representatives; regulators, including the Workforce Inspectorate Victoria, WorkSafe Victoria, the Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority and the Victorian Small Business Commissioner; the cross-border commissioner; the Killara Foundation, which provides pathways to employment for First Peoples – again, Dr Heath might be interested in that; as well as the Victorian Aboriginal Education Association Inc. This is in addition to the taskforce, which had extensive membership, as we have listed. The taskforce was again supported by the apprentice and trainee reference group, which provided diverse perspectives and was extensively consulted. The taskforce also consulted extensively throughout 2023 and 2024 to inform its recommendations, and it engaged with additional apprentices and trainees from priority cohorts such as women, again First Nations apprentices and trainees, unions, peak bodies, regulators and employers. Extensive consultation continued across the issues and across the breadth of stakeholders that I have listed already.

Richard WELCH: I will not re-ask the question, but I will observe that all these industry groups say that since the taskforce and since this legislation has been drafted they have not been consulted. You were not able to be very explicit about who you have had from industry, so industry is pretty unhappy about it. But I will move on. What is the cost of this new framework? What is going to be the cost of this new scheme?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I will respond to your observation and putting words in my mouth. As I said, an extensive list of stakeholders was consulted both as part of the taskforce and in the development of the bill, and they will also be consulted within the development of the guidelines yet to come. So I reject your assertion, and if you could repeat your actual question, please.

Richard WELCH: Sure. What is going to be the cost of this new scheme?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The government is currently preparing a business case to support a budget bid for consideration by the budget and finance committee, the expenditure review committee. Once the committee has determined the appropriate level of funding for Workforce Inspectorate Victoria’s new regulatory function an announcement will be made in due course, and of course reporting will happen in the usual way in accordance with the relevant instruments.

Richard WELCH: Minister, can you explain how the bill will contribute to increased enrolments in apprenticeships and traineeships and how the completion rates will be improved by this bill?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I did speak to this issue in my summing-up, but ultimately I think the reforms will mean that apprentices, and employers for that matter, will have greater trust in the system. Apprentices will feel safer, and ultimately that can only be a good thing for completion rates and retention in the system.

Richard WELCH: In relation to the proposed licensing system, does any form of licensing system of this nature exist anywhere else in the country in relation to apprentices and trainees?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: All Australian states have regulatory requirements in various forms. South Australia has a specific five-year registration period for engaging an apprentice and requires a range of information on registration, such as premises to be used during training and scope of work, to be provided by the business. Tasmania’s licensing system is specific to apprentices. It is a one-off and requires a fit and proper person test similar to Victoria’s current registration system. These jurisdictions also have trade-specific licensing requirements. In New South Wales registered trade businesses are required to hold general industry contractor licences and register training contracts with an apprentice. In Queensland employers of apprentices in registered trades must meet general licensing, regulatory and assessment criteria. They must also pass an employer capability assessment. Similarly in Western Australia businesses who employ apprentices must hold a trade-specific licence. The reforms Victoria is initiating will result in a more rigorous regulatory framework that will help keep apprentices safe from harms and drive improvements in the quality of training they undertake and the supervision they receive. This will in turn improve apprentice and trainee completion rates, as I was saying in my previous answer, ultimately improving Victoria’s supply of skilled workers.

Richard WELCH: But with each of those cases, none of them, as I understand it, are for a year. I am curious about why the employer licence is only for a year. By contrast, the labour hire licences are for three years. What is the reason for such a short period being adopted, especially when you consider the overhead that is going to put on employers?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: To ensure ongoing oversight of apprenticeship safety and quality of training, the Apprenticeships Taskforce recommended a risk-based employer registration scheme with a yearly renewal. The requirement for annual renewal has been designed to minimise burden on employers. Annual licensing addresses a key limitation of the existing system whereby once an employer is approved there is no ongoing requirement for the Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority to assess an employer’s ongoing suitability to employ an apprentice or trainee through having access to current information about the employer. Annual licensing was recommended by the Apprenticeships Taskforce. Annual renewals enable the currency of information to be maintained to enable the Workforce Inspectorate Victoria to determine an employer’s suitability in an ongoing way that a longer renewal period, such as two years or more, would not. The licensing renewal requirements have been designed so that they are not onerous for the employer; rather the work to determine the suitability of the employer rests with the Workforce Inspectorate Victoria. Applicants will only be required to affirm that information and documents previously provided remain accurate and up to date, or if there has been any change to that information, the details of such. The focus of the Workforce Inspectorate Victoria’s consideration during the renewal process will be on whether information submitted with the original application has changed.

Richard WELCH: I think there is a bit of incongruency in that answer in two parts. The first part of your answer was saying the one-year renewal was to reduce the burden on employers; I think I heard you correctly in that answer. How does annual renewal reduce the burden on employers?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I will give you the benefit of repeating myself once, Mr Welch. I went on to explain that the requirements for the work that is necessary and the onus, if you like, sits with the Workforce Inspectorate Victoria’s consideration. Employers will be supported to meet those obligations. Their renewal process is about confirming that the details and other information on file remains accurate. If nothing has changed, then it is not particularly onerous for them, but if something has changed, then it is important that the inspectorate understands that. But ultimately, as I said, it has been designed so that it is not onerous for the employer, but rather the work to determine the suitability of the employer rests with the Workforce Inspectorate Victoria.

Richard WELCH: I still do not see how that reduces the burden on the employer. The renewal process might be expedited or automated potentially, but the other part of the incongruency is: if it is to protect the safety and has that extra rigour – if that is what it is called – then if in the subsequent two years it is just simply an online tick box, where is the rigour? Because there is no detailed check; it is just an automated process. So it cannot be both rigorous and automated and made easy or expedient. I do not understand. Could you reconcile those two positions?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: As I said, the licensing renewal requirements have been designed so that they are not onerous for the employer. Rather, the work to determine the suitability of the employer rests with the Workforce Inspectorate Victoria.

Richard WELCH: Yes, but that does not answer the question. If it is expedient, then it is not rigorous. And if it is not rigorous, how are you ensuring the safety? That does not make sense. Do you want to have another try at that answer?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: No, thank you, Mr Welch. I will refer you to my previous answer.

Richard WELCH: There are roughly 35,000 employers in Victoria who employ apprentices and trainees. How will this scheme cope and ensure consistency in protections if it is required to assess 35,000 licence applications on an annual basis?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The inspectorate will be adequately resourced, as I indicated to Ms Gray-Barberio, to do that work.

Richard WELCH: The person of good character test will be part of this. Could you just clarify what will be that standard of person of good character – which particular legal measurement is that?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The fit and proper person test, Mr Welch.

Richard WELCH: Yes, but there are a couple of different versions of that, and they have different reporting and submission requirements around them. So there are different levels. Could you clarify which one – what will be the requirement?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The current one-off approval system consists of an employer self-assessment that in many cases is not adequately verified, and identity verification processes are not routinely undertaken. This prevents currently the regulator from effectively assessing employers and puts apprentices and trainees at risk. That is why, as we know, the taskforce recommended an employer registration scheme. There are many factors that contribute to the employer registration scheme, but it would include assessment of employers’ suitability to employ apprentices and trainees, as well as more rigorous screening to avoid potentially illegal phoenix companies from avoiding scrutiny. There will be various factors that contribute to this, including a one-off declaration which includes verification of elements by the VRQA and is done through a paper-based self-assessment. In many cases, that information is not adequately verified to ensure its accuracy, and currently there is also the problem with the lack of personal identification. So it is intended that this will mean that we have a greater assessment of an employer’s suitability to employ apprentices and trainees.

Richard WELCH: I was not quite clear, though. Does that mean will there be a requirement for submission of financial documents? Let us compare it to, say, the Labour Hire Authority licence: is it the same test or is it a different test?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to employ an apprentice or a trainee in relation to determining this, the regulator, as I have indicated, will have regard to whether the employer has been found guilty of offences, including indictable offences, fraud – an offence under the new regulatory framework – or has been insolvent or under administration in the last 10 years.

Richard WELCH: Minister, the taskforce report states that the regulatory framework proposed will create additional costs to implement and administer, which will require additional funding. I think you might have acquitted the fact that you do not know how much more it will cost at this point.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I have acquitted an answer to a similar question, Mr Welch.

Richard WELCH: Why is it not yet costed, given the time between the taskforce response and now, when the bill is being asked to be passed? It is two years.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: As evidenced by the fact we are all here, the bill is under active consideration, and it would be unusual to make a budget allocation or even an announcement indeed for something that has not yet been worked through in the legislative sense. As I indicated in my previous answer, there will be the appropriate submissions made within government to ensure funding for the reforms that will move their way through the Parliament, hopefully, this evening.

Richard WELCH: I am not sure it is unusual to cost something you are implementing before you implement it. Usually part of the consideration of the merits of implementing it is costing it. Are you saying –

Lizzie Blandthorn interjected.

Richard WELCH: Okay. Well, I will not labour the point. The taskforce recommended that the Victorian government engage with industry partners to develop an appropriate and affordable funding policy to support a modern approach to regulation that can support education as well as compliance. The government is supporting recommendation 11 and has said it will examine the viability of a co-contribution model. Isn’t a co-contribution from industry code for a new tax via the licence fee?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Firstly, I would not consider a co-contribution to be a tax. Co-contributions were considered, but following consultation, it is not intended that they be followed through with.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Pursuant to standing order 4.08, I declare the sitting to be extended by up to 1 hour.

Richard WELCH: I agree that there is no provision in the bill to say a fee will be charged, but can you confirm there is also no provision that expressly states there must not be any fee or charge for the employer licence?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: We have made it clear that we do not intend for there to be co-contributions, and I refer you to my summing-up, which made that clear as well.

Richard WELCH: But there is nothing that will prevent a Labor government subsequently applying a fee in the future if it so chooses?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: There is no mechanism to enable a fee to be charged, Mr Welch.

Richard WELCH: The VCCI does not support recommendation 11 for co-contribution from industry for the regulatory scheme. In fact no industry group does. The government’s own recommendation said they would pursue a co-contribution from industry. If they are not going to do it through the licence fee, how are they going to do it?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I refer you to my earlier answers, Mr Welch. The co-contributions have been ruled out.

Richard WELCH: So the entire regulatory framework will be funded from the government alone?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: As I have said, co-contributions have been ruled out, so yes.

Richard WELCH: The workforce inspectorate currently has no experience regarding apprentices and trainees and has only very limited experience in the area of regulatory responsibility, being child employment and long service leave. Why was the workforce inspectorate selected to undertake the work? Because that would be a departure in the first instance from what the taskforce recommended, but there are also other bodies with more experience in workplace safety.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Rather than creating a new regulator, as was recommended by the taskforce, the apprenticeship and traineeship regulatory functions, as we are talking about, will be moved to the inspectorate, and this will complement its existing functions and capabilities as an industry-focused regulator. It also enables the Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority to focus on its core remit as a regulator of schools and the broader vocational education and training system. The taskforce established by the Victorian government in 2023 following our election commitment of 2022 was designed to address quality and safety issues in the apprenticeship and traineeship system, and they made that final report. But rather than creating a new regulator, the bill will transfer apprenticeship and traineeship regulatory functions to the workforce inspectorate. A range of stakeholders were informed about the government’s response, as we have also spoken to previously, and these new functions will continue to complement the Workforce Inspectorate Victoria’s existing functions and capabilities as an industry-focused regulator with a special focus on supporting employers. With its strong focus on protecting the rights of workers, including its previous function enforcing wage theft laws, it is additionally well positioned to take on these functions, and it will enable VRQA to focus on its core remit.

Richard WELCH: Minister, you said in answer to Ms Gray-Barberio’s question that 30 staff will be transferred across, but what will be the total headcount of the workforce inspectorate when enforcing this new scheme?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: That will be subject to government decisions in the future.

Richard WELCH: The bill refers to new employer standards being introduced to provide clarity to employers on what is expected of them when employing apprentices and trainees. Given that it is two years down the track, why have these standards not yet been drafted? When should we expect to see the draft of the standards?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The taskforce recommended employer standards obviously to improve the safety and quality of an apprentice’s or trainee’s workplace experience. The taskforce recommended outcome-based employer standards be developed to improve the safety and quality of the apprenticeship and traineeship journey. These will be set out in regulations following the passage of the legislation in the following broad areas: induction; training, work and support; access to facilities and equipment at premises; supervision; and the resolution of complaints. There will also be the ability to make as standard the requirements for labour hire providers who employ apprentices and trainees, and this is to reflect that typically there is a host employer who takes day-to-day management and supervisory responsibility for the apprentice or trainee. These standards are a new requirement, obviously, for regulating apprenticeships and traineeships in Victoria. However, they are not new as a regulatory concept. For example, South Australia has 14 standards that apply to employers of trainees and apprentices, and these also include supervision and complaint handling.

In 2025 the Department of Jobs, Skills, Industry and Regions consulted apprentices and trainees, businesses, unions and regulators on draft employer standards. Their feedback has informed proposed broad areas for employer standards in the bill. The relevant sectors and other key stakeholders such as business and employer groups, unions and apprentices and trainees themselves will be consulted on the design of the employer standards. Regulations are obviously time limited and sunset after 10 years, so there is an important opportunity at that point to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of those standards, with input from, again, the key stakeholders. There is also an opportunity to do that as part of the five-year statutory review.

Richard WELCH: It was a detailed answer, but the detail I did not get was when we would expect to see the draft regulations, assuming the bill passes today.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: That will be a matter of how quickly they can be drafted. I would not want to speak for the Office of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel in that process right now, but obviously the regulations cannot be drafted until the legislation is passed. We have outlined broad areas. We have said that there will be consultation and then the regulations will be accordingly drafted.

Richard WELCH: This is nearly the last set of questions. The new regulatory regime is not anticipated to commence until 1 July 2029, which is in three years and five years after the Apprenticeships Taskforce report was handed down. Is the only reason for that long delay the design and the build of the IT system that can operationalise and manage the new licensing requirements, or is there another reason?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The new regulator will start by 1 July 2028. The bill states that default commencement is by 2029 or earlier, but the government, as I said in my summing-up remarks, has committed to this earlier start.

Richard WELCH: Just for clarity, though, the lapse in time is still a substantial period of time. Is that because of the development of the IT systems to support it, or is there another reason?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: There are a number of reasons, Mr Welch. Obviously when standing up new functions in new or added-to regulators it takes some time to bring those aspects to fruition, including, as I was just talking about in answer to your previous question, the development of the regulations and the standing up and the transfer of employees. All of these things mean these kinds of transitions take time.

Richard WELCH: I agree and can accept that, but what is the outlier date? Which is the last date? Is the IT system the outlier date that actually defines the earliest operational time? Those other milestones probably could be completed much earlier. I am just curious: what is the outlier date that prevents the operation of the bill?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: As I said, the commencement date, as per the legislation as it stands, is 2029 or earlier, so arguably that is the outlier date. But the government has made it very clear that we intend for the new regulator to start by 1 July 2028, and there are various factors that lead to that date being the preferred date.

Richard WELCH: What is the cost estimate for the new ICT system?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: That will be subject to the work that will be done post the passage of the legislation and subject to the usual government processes, as I had spoken to in my previous answers. As I have said, the government is currently preparing that business case to support that budget bid for the consideration of the government’s expenditure review committee. Once the committee has determined that appropriate level of funding for all of Workforce Inspectorate Victoria’s new regulatory functions, those announcements will be made in due course.

Richard WELCH: Will the ICT build and design be subject to a competitive tender process?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The Department of Jobs, Skills, Industry and Regions will undertake a competitive process to procure the ICT solution for the new regulatory framework, consistent with whole-of-government purchasing requirements.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 (22:11)

Richard WELCH: I move:

1.   Clause 9, page 18, after line 31 insert –

“(2A) An applicant is not required to pay any fee in respect of an application for an employer licence.”.

This is where we would seek to make it explicit that there is no fee on the employer licence chargeable.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: The Greens will not be supporting this amendment. The bill as it stands does not enable fees.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The government will also not be supporting this amendment. The bill does not enable fees, as Ms Gray-Barberio has accurately indicated.

Council divided on amendment:

Richard WELCH: I move:

2.   Clause 9, page 30, line 22, omit “one year” and insert “3 years”.

This is where we are seeking to amend the renewal period of the licence from one year to three years. We think an annual licence renewal is onerous for employers and creates yet another barrier to putting on apprentices when we need them so badly.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The government will be opposing this amendment. As I indicated in answers to questions from Mr Welch, we do not believe that this is onerous for employers. Employers will be supported, but also the onus is really on the workplace inspectorate and not on the employer.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: The Greens will be opposing this amendment.

Council divided on amendment:

Richard WELCH: I move:

3.   Clause 9, page 76, line 11, omit “fifth” and insert “second”.

This amendment changes the review period. At the moment it is a five-year review period, which means the first review of this legislation and the efficacy of it would not be until 2034. We propose that that should be after two years. I think that is a reasonable period in which we can assess whether this is the right scheme to improve safety and to improve the number of apprentices.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The government will be opposing this amendment. The bill includes a review at five years, which is standard and considered best practice, and it allows for enough time for enough evidence to be collected and considered as part of a substantive review.

Anasina GRAY-BARBERIO: The Greens will not be supporting this amendment. I think what has been suggested in the bill, a five-year review, is reasonable, given it is a new scheme and an opportunity to iron out any bumps in the scheme.

Council divided on amendment:

 Lizzie BLANDTHORN (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Children, Minister for Disability) (22:28): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

 Lizzie BLANDTHORN (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Children, Minister for Disability) (22:28): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time and do pass.

Council divided on motion:

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.