• long running

[QLD] Free Apprenticeships for all Under 21s (139 Qualifications) @ QLD Government


The Palaszczuk Government is backing small businesses and young job seekers even further offering free apprenticeships to anyone under 21. The $32 million investment will take away the cost of training from employers and helps an estimated 60,000 young people into a trade. The Premier unveiled the free apprenticeships initiative at today’s launch of the new Skills for Queensland plan. Free apprenticeships will cover the cost of training for apprentices and trainees who commence or are undertaking a priority apprenticeship or traineeship qualification from 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2023. The fully subsidised training will be offered in 139 apprentice and traineeship qualifications including:

  • Electrical
  • Plumbing
  • Engineering
  • Healthcare
  • Hospitality
  • Early childhood

Related Stores



  • Palaszczuk Government is backing small businesses and young job seekers even further offering free apprenticeships to anyone under 21.

    Age discrimination!

    • +61 votes

      Yep. As a 24 year old who has been trying to pick up a trade my search just got harder.

      • -11 votes

        "Why should we hire you over this 20 year old?… haha! Don't worry, just gonna hire an Indian contractor instead of either of you and not pay him hoping his VISA expires or something similiarily illegal"

        • They like to hire 16-18 year olds because they don't have to pay them a decent wage

          • @Wilder94: And giving a few peanuts gets them used to voting for you early. Over time it maximises your return on someone else's investment

            Not that something shouldn't be done about youth employment opportunities. But if doing this, what about the impact on existing apprentices, and those looking for apprenticeships that are older? Why not do this for apprentices of all ages?

          • @Wilder94: Why would they deserve a decent wage if they have no skills?

            • @hippyhippy: Because they're trying to make a living like everyone else? If the employer can't afford it That's fair enough but majority of the time they just want to pay child min wage (21 is adult min wage)

              • @Wilder94: That's how it works… you are paid what you are worth…when u finish your 3 years… you'll get a bit more say in it.

              • @Wilder94: Because no one deserves anything for a start. Everyone has to earn it.
                If there are many low skilled workers looking for a job, few employers will offer a good wage. That's just economics.

          • +15 votes

            @Wilder94: To be fair, 1st and 2nd year apprentices are generally not paid a living wage as it is a largely learning role and their productivity is (should be) low. When I was an apprentice electrician years ago, I was paid peanuts for the first 3 years but I stuck it out because I knew that if I completed the training, I was set up for life. I no longer work in the trade but it has been a springboard to better things.

            • @R4: Should really be only 2 yrs. How much productivity is lost when bashing out houses (running electrical wiring).

              • +3 votes

                @IHatePeople: Yes. So many electricians in Australia are great at house wiring and/or commercial installations (given our love of building 4x2s and blocks of flats and offices. Very few are and good at industrial plant, controls and fault-finding and maintenance. Maybe we should have different levels of electricians.

      • Free apprenticeship NSW at any age. https://www.tafensw.edu.au/fee-free-apprenticeships

      • +17 votes

        No worries. In this day and age just say "I identify as under 21". Any disagreement, resistance or hesitation on their part immediately becomes an issue of hate speech, individual rights and the deserving target of coordinated social media smear campaigns.

      • The idea is for out of schoolers to go straight into a trade and minimise gaps.
        At 24 years, you're a fully fledged adult, and if you're still trying to figure out your trade.. well..that's on you. No being a preacher here, I found my calling at 26 and i take full responsibility for the time that wasn't used properly.

        • Maybe the school leaver has no idea what they want to do and will pull out, not wanting to put in the hard yards due to no life experience (the grind). That will leave a hell of a 'gap' later on when the scheme is a flop.

      • I feel you bro… 24 and have had to throw myself into IT Tafe courses. Feels like I'll never get a trade job.

    • This…. might actually be a legit issue. Age discrimination applies only to discrimination against those over 40 (45?) ish. But this does precisely that.

      • +19 votes

        Age discrimination applies to anyone discriminated against for their age. The Equal Opportunity Act (2010) outlines this explicitly in section 107. Don't spread false crap about the law.

        • +13 votes

          Of course the flip side is that the government is permitted to discriminate for the purposes of implementing social programs, otherwise the Age Pension would be unlawful.

        • If it fulfills a genuinely needed purpose where X group is disadvantaged though it's not discrimination. I suspect that would fall under this principle ( is giving young people a leg up when it may be hard for them to find work)

        • Despite your user profile pic…

          Don't spread false crap about the law.

          You should take your own advice.

          The Equal Opportunity Act (2010)

          The Victorian Act?

          When the title of this thread is very clearly: [QLD] Free Apprenticeships for all Under 21s (139 Qualifications) @ QLD Government?

          Did I mention it's a QLD program?

      • Do you scream discrimination when you have to pay adult prices for things when kids prices exist for the same service?

        • Oh I don't care personally, I'm just finding it ironic that a government program itself breaching the government's own anti-discrimination laws.

        • There is a difference between discounting full price, and charging more. I would imagine the kids v adult prices aren't the later. So it is more an incentive to attract a specific group, as opposed to discriminating against a group.

          Though I'm sure a very good lawyer could argue the case, perhaps even successfully.

          But then…all you will do is increase the kid price, not reduce the adult price..and so any PC SJW doing this would just make it worse for everyone.

      • The free tuition is only available for junior apprentices. That is someone aged under 21 upon commencement of their apprenticeship. Who is a Junior and adult apprentice is already defined in relevant Commonwealth legislation (Fair Work Act/Modern Awards).

        If you read the fine print you will understand there are many lawful exceptions when it comes to discrimination. There is a big difference between what someone finds as discriminatory compared to meeting the legal definition of discrimination. That's what keeps lawyers in business!

        • If you read the fine print you will understand there are many lawful exceptions when it comes to discrimination.

          Yeah, but the irony isn't lessened by the fact the government is finding and using loopholes in their own anti-discrimination legislation…

          As to the definition between junior and adult apprentices, the legislation already covers indirect as well as direct discrimination, so that's not really relevant for the purposes of irony here.

    • what you expect? They have stalled the economy and most of these places will go to govt agencies anyway. Red tape has changed the game. The money comes from loans from the US who gets around 1.6% interest. There are thousands of tradies on the dole just because their work can be done by some subsidized el cheapo person. And just when you think this was only age discrimination the mostly female govt will have female supervisors with a natural gender preference. Trade firms will fire workers and replace them with subsidized apprentices. Once the sub are gone they stop paying the bills and register a new pty ltd. Most apprentices will later find a university that requires far less skills to get some BA degree to look after bludgers.

      • What a load of sexist crap.

      • if you can be dismissed and replaced by an apprentice with absolutely no skill or knowledge in the field at all, then how valuable are you to the company? not very I'm thinking.

        • It's the old adage when referring to losing your job to an immigrant - if you lose your job to someone who barely speaks English and has no connections, how good are you? If people are willing to do the job for less, companies are more than entitled to pay those people less.

  • Why? University degrees and TAFE courses aren't free, why should trades be? Very low interest loans sure, but not free.

    • +14 votes

      Why? To get more people into trades / qualifications, which will support infrastructure, building, housing, public services, etc.

      I know Victoria did it last year, and I think NSW have similarly introduced it.

      • Why? To get more people into trades / qualifications, which will support infrastructure, building, housing, public services, etc.

        People with an education support the country too. Seems egotistical to think tradies are more essential than doctors, teachers, IT workers, nurses (the list goes on).

        All of our jobs contribute, that’s why we get paid to do them.

        • They're addressing the current skills shortages, which is apparently in trades. The government will incentivise what we need, and disincentivise what we don't.

        • I'm not getting my doctor to rewire the house, no matter how smart they might be

        • "All of our jobs contribute, that’s why we get paid to do them."

          obviously, but is it not just as obvious to you that this has nothing to do with the perceived value of, or how "essential" a job is, and is simply a case of trying to funnel the numbers towards a perceived shortage?

          this should be an apples and oranges comparison anyway, but seeing as universities are practically glorified trade schools at this point I can see why you've made it.

        • Nobody claimed that tradies were more essential that doctors or teachers. That's your conflation.

          There's already a huge emphasis on getting a university degree, and trade qualifications have long been considered a poor cousin only considered by those "too dumb" to go to uni.

          This imbalance has led to a shortage of tradies in the workforce, which drives up costs and increases delays in the infrastructure and construction sectors.

          This new initiative is intended to increase apprentice uptake in vital trades, leading to improvements in employment and hopefully addressing shortages in skilled labourers.

          • @klaw81: There is ZERO shortage! Just advertise a job on facebook and thousands of tradies will work for cash.
            QLD nowadays the quoted rates are $40 for cash, $400 per hr for invoiced work.

            • @payless69: Care to back up that statement with some evidence? I somehow doubt the price goes up 1000% for invoiced work.

              • @bradenpd: depends much on the area, where there are backpackers not all enjoy hard fruit picking work and will have a go at anything. German tylers for example work per square metre laid and if they have no visa to do that they can usually proof their speed and quality.
                Australian tradies are still very poorly protected when it comes to builders going into receivership.

        • This doesn't reflect how worthy certain occupations are, just where there might be shortages.

        • All of our jobs contribute, that’s why we get paid to do them.

          There are many jobs that could be eliminated while saving money, particularly in administration.

          Only of the largest job types in Australia, drivers are likely to be eliminated in the near future.

      • Heard their radio advert. this morning and according to that apparently the forecast is that in 5 years 9 out of 10 jobs in Australia will require a trade qualification.

    • Because, as fickle as this enticement may be in the long term, if they don't entice people then they won't go.

      What you pay for in taxes now will be saved later when you don't need to pay $6000 to have your toilet unclogged by the last 8 remaining plumbers.

      • if they don't entice people then they won't go

        The same logic can be applied to uni and TAFE. Are you claiming people doing trades lack motivation?

        Maybe welfare is too generous if we need to “entice” young people to learn a skill that will get them employment.

        • This incentive is more about the employers than the employees, encouraging existing tradies to take on an apprentice is more efficient than having them learn everything at a trade school - it makes better tradies.

        • Are you claiming people doing trades lack motivation?

          No. Are you?

        • There are still significant upfront costs that aren't covered by HECs, etc. Programs like this cover those costs, so those who can't spare a few hundred dollars on fees aren't disadvantaged.

        • Yeah but, the fact that you NEED to go to university is indoctrinated into all graduating high school students in the public school system. Obviously so they can preform better and raise their schools funding.

      • I wonder if the same will apply to accountants and lawyers given the current oversupply of graduates?

      • +5 votes

        Really? You don't think its incentive enough to get $6k to unclog a toilet?

        As prices go up more people will see an opportunity and organically enter an industry. There is no need for government handouts.

        • I think $6K to unclog a toilet would be great.

          But I also think smoking is best stopped for health reasons rather than because they're $35/pack.

          Others differ.

          Governments always use force or money to shape society to their own desired outcomes. Puppets' strings need pulling. Nothing new.

          • @thevofa: Every time I came across a blocked toilet I go to Bunnings and get an entire suite for sometimes as low as $65, the most I ever paid is $94. Undo 4 bolts and swap over, redo 4 bolts. A backpacker will do this for 20 bucks, the lowest plumbing quote is usually $800 plus! Thanks for all the licensing required from government agencies asking for huge bribes before such licenses are issued!

      • don't need to pay $6000 to have your toilet unclogged by the last 8 remaining plumbers

        Long before this was a reality, people would just do it themselves. A lot of do it yourself trade work is blocked for legality/insurance reasons, but it's not rocket science. You can buy the tools needed for unblocking a drain, doubt you'd need 4yrs training to use them.

        • I'd unblock my own toilet. But the reality is that, just as less people are entering the trades, so are less people doing general maintenance around the house and on their automobiles. (Actually, now even less people are even owning their own houses and automobiles, let alone maintaining them, but that's another story).

          • @thevofa: As we head closer to the Asian way there maintenance is more so neglected. To unblock say a greased up drain one can simply attach a hose with 3 reverse jets to a pressure washer I have done that heaps of times it is quick and easy. Once trees have grown into a sewer the delicate work of a skilled mini excavator is more helpful. I know plumbers who enjoy digging more than working on dirty toilets.

        • Surely plumbers learn more than unblocking toilets in the 4 years?

    • Agreed, I've done a degree and apprenticeship. I got paid (not much) while doing my apprenticeship but not a cent with uni. I think this is more job stimulus. Employers have to pay for the training and if the government make it free then its incentive to hire more people.

    • Probably more vocational.

      Free B.A. Degrees majoring in the history and philosophy of post modernist Swahili basket weaving should be charged double to subsidize the cost of getting more apprentice tradies to fill the skills shortage

    • If they are working as well… As opposed to full time 'professional' students who don't contribute anything?

      And there is a need…. And it reduces unemployment…

    • You could enrol in a prestigious university degree, accumulating $50,000 plus in debt and the likelihood that jobs are scarce due to course quotas being removed and law / business / social science degrees being cheap to run.

      Alternatively, you could gain a trade qualification most likely resulting in a well-paid long-term career in an industry governed by regulation with a job that is difficult to outsource to overseas and challenging to automate. Did I mention you are paid while training?

    • Another thing - uni degrees and TAFE courses ARE subsidised, especially in the areas where we need skills. Most people don't see this part of their degree because everything is on HECS, but certain courses are more subsidised than others based on whether the skills are needed. You will find that a lot of useless courses cost more because there is less subsidisation.

      A lot of TAFE courses are free in Victoria, in skills that are required- early childhood, hairdressing (I think), sheep shearing… Similarly useful university units are also looked after.

    • Kids that go into trades would generally have low high school results… so not much hope of a decent job. They will make it back in taxes for these types of trades real quick.

      • +2 votes

        What a load of total rubbish. Firstly many trades actually require pretty good academic skills, and secondly most tradies are self employed and can write off heaps on their tax. If you're flunking high school you won't pass your trade either.

    • The conservative in me agrees with you.

      And for many reasons - economic being just one of them (there is no such thing as 'free' someone ends up paying for it in the end).

      But, I can't help but feel that all education should be free.

      I can't make a good economic or other logical argument to support my view, and I definitely do not identify myself as a social justice warrior.

      It's just my idea, a notion I have, that certain services (such as emergency services) and health care and certain public utilities (roads,electricity infrastructure, etc) should be 'free' for all (borne by the taxpayer) for the good of all, or the good of society, or whatever else you wanna call it.

      • Plenty of successful countries that provide free education, just as there is plenty that don't. Despite my liberal economic thinking, I think that there is a pretty strong argument for the government paying for tertiary education (university, TAFE, as well as apprenticeships) as the modern workforce requires specialist skills - we're not a manufacturing country anymore. Plus, even when these areas are privatised, the government spends a lot of money propping them up and providing oversight anyway.

        It goes against my economic training, which I received at a university degree that I paid for but was partially funded by the government and that the government has given me a pretty cruisy loan on.

        • My education background and situation is identical to yours, hence my internal conflict.

        • The problem is with distorted right wing philosophies, the models are oversimplified. "Let the market decide" is reactionary, which translates to slow and ineffective. The market ignores time (because they need solutions now!) and assumes you can just throw money at shortages, but it takes maybe 8 to 10 years to get a skilled worker in most tertiary educated fields (yes trades are one of those). The other factor the market ignores is the quality and availability of those who will provide on the job training to those new tradies.

          "Free education" is also an oversimplification, if you think about it long enough without a philosophical bias it's obvious the benefits vastly outweigh the costs to the community, i.e. the majority who received 'free' education will pay it back in productivity throughout their lives.

      • Education could be free, but that would require significantly reducing the number of students to around 10% and re-establishing cheaper forms of education delivery. This would have the positive benefit of increasing the quality of students.

        However there would be considerable opposition from unions who would see not requiring a degree as devaluing the job (e.g. nursing, childcare, etc.).

        Interestingly I heard a convincing argument that as universities are federally funded, state governments pushed to have training of nurses, teachers, etc. pushed into university system to save money at the state government level while spending more at a federal level.

        Quotas exist for Medical degrees because by limiting the number of doctors, the Federal Government can control the cost of Medicare. By contrast law and accounting degrees don't have quotas and universities are happy to increase enrolments without regard to opportunities / employer demand.

        • There's also the issue of ensuring that you have only the best students studying medical degrees, to ensure you do everything you can to guarantee the competence of the professionals. A bad accountant isn't going to kill anyone (unintentionally).