New report on apprenticeships threatens training for women
By Emeritus Professor Erica Smith
A new report on apprenticeships by the Australian Government began as a review of the incentive system for employers and apprentices but expanded its scope, and now threatens to hit traineeship opportunities for females.
There are parallels between this report – which is government-commissioned but independently produced – and another independent panel’s report in 2011: A shared responsibility: Apprenticeships for the 21st century.
The main concern is the report’s adverse treatment of traineeships – a type of apprenticeship most often undertaken by women – as opposed to traditional ‘trade’ apprenticeships, which are almost always undertaken by men (apart from hairdressing). Traineeships were introduced in the mid-1980s as the result of the Kirby Report – a purposeful and welcome government move to include more women in apprentice-like arrangements. They are typically, but not only in business, retail and care occupations.
The main risk to women in the new report comes in Recommendation 2.1, on financial incentives for employers to hire apprentices and trainees. Incentives to employ apprentices have been in existence for many decades and were then applied to traineeships. The amounts involved are quite minor. While there were instances of abuse of the incentives by employers, linked to some sharp practice from training providers in the past, my own research on traineeships in the late 2010s found no evidence of abuse and many examples of good practice.
During COVID, however, for the first time ever in Australia, apprentice and trainee wage subsidies were introduced as a job-retention provision. This more substantial investment reignited the debate about incentives as there was profiteering by employers and training providers. These wage subsidies have now ceased, but the incident has helped to fuel anti-traineeship sentiment.
The report privileges ‘priority occupations’ which are mainly traditional trades. In fact, the government had already introduced a new priority list in January 2025, from which some major feminised occupations were missing. Not surprisingly, perhaps, the government’s recently announced generous ‘clean energy’ subsidies for apprentices themselves are also in male occupations. This gender imbalance has been noted internationally.
If Recommendation 2.1 is adopted, governments could defund all non-trade occupations at will. But if the funding amounts are so small, why are employer incentives so important? Let’s look at what happened as a result of the 2011 report. The report introduced the concept of ‘eligible occupations’. Several states used this as implicit justification to slash funding for the actual training for occupations like retail, business and front-of-house hospitality. It was not possible to train students for the amounts provided.
Research on funding for service industry training in which I was involved, found significant and long-lasting adverse effects on TAFE, training providers, students, and communities in Victoria. Training providers closed specific courses in some locations, or even shut down completely. Even in 2019, my ‘Young Futures’ project with Professor Annette Foley from Federation University found that girls leaving school in the towns we studied had no opportunities to undertake traineeships because the courses had been closed.
It was not just Victoria that was affected. Nationally, women’s participation rates fell dramatically from the mid-2010s, and total apprenticeship numbers plummeted, as I documented in a report for the National Centre for Vocational Education Research.
Of course, girls and women can undertake apprenticeships in male-dominated jobs, but historically, they have not done so. My current research shows that commencers in the major trade apprenticeships in 2024 were 90 per cent or more male.
While the report contains useful suggestions to assist women in these male-dominated apprenticeships, what is needed also is properly funded – and respected – traineeships or apprenticeships in jobs that women choose to do. The report itself shows that women are more likely to complete non-trade apprenticeships. This is hidden on page 212 but not followed up. All the report offers for feminised occupations is a suggestion for ‘a bespoke solution’ for the care and support sector.
I have undertaken a great deal of international research work for the International Labour Organization (ILO) and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in specific countries like India and Indonesia, as well as several international comparative studies. It is clear that most other countries offer a far more balanced choice of apprenticeships that suit women and men and also better reflect the distribution of jobs across the economy.
In a Press Club speech on the day the report was released, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese mentioned findings from the report that “as a number of apprentices have said, they could earn a lot more stacking shelves in their local supermarket”. Federation’s recent research for the National Careers Institute, the ‘Careers in Everyday Industries’ project, found that the retail industry provides good careers for young people, with excellent promotion prospects. During COVID, we realised how important this industry is, yet once again we are seeing an unjustified attack on feminised occupations.
It is hoped the government remembers the adverse consequences of the 2011 report and notes the potential dangers of this one. I hope the government will not endorse the report’s recommendations on incentives, and will critically examine the intended adverse effects on women and girls in the occupations they choose.
The Australian government has yet to announce its response to this new report, but let’s not repeat history. ‘Eligible occupations’ have now become ‘priority occupations’ – but both disadvantage women. At least the 2011 report acknowledged that its recommendations would adversely affect women – this report does not.
Erica Smith is an Emeritus Professor at Federation University Australia and a member of Federation’s Researching Adult and Education (RAVE) research group in adult and vocational education, one of Australia’s leading research groups in VET. She has managed many national and international research projects on apprenticeships and traineeships.