Enn - I agree with you 1000%.  Incentives for employers with a proven track record of apprentice training would be a big help.  We keep hearing about the potential skills shortage - but we also are seeing plumbers looking for work and companies laying people off.  We are beginning to see a migration to Australia of our brightest and best - early after finishing their apprenticeships.  The will is there, but you can't take on new staff if you don't have the work for them.  I would hate to see a big influx of overseas tradespeople for the Chch re-build - especially when we have likely candidates for apprenticeships here.  I am beginning to believe that the money would be best pumped into existing firms (with the appropriate audit trail) and used for training - i.e. employers contract direct with the polytechnic for plumbing, gasfitting and drainlaying.  Our ITO is likely to be looking for suitable marriage partners so they survive, given that the government is surely going to cut the number of ITO's.  This will water down our influence - which is already small enough.  The current apprenticeship system is wanting - the one week block courses are not working in the best interests of apprentices - and we seem to have little influence over how this whole system works.  The ITO is full of academics and seems to be further removed from practitioners than ever - they do not want to engage in consultation, and they are far from transparent in their dealings.  I believe the money saved from this huge administrative giant could be much better spent directly on training.  Apprentice fees have risen by around 30% in the last two years - and service has not improved.  With contracting direct to the learning institutions at least we could discuss our needs and what fits in best.  We could also see the return of some "teaching" at the polytechnics instead of straight assessment.  Night classes could again be a possibility as I am sure polytechnics would want to meet the needs of their customers - which would be us instead of the ITO.  I would love to see some of the big players like the army for instance, contract direct to polytechs and then we could follow their lead.  The ITO are, unfortunately, less transparent in their dealings than the PGDB and that is saying something.  We get very little information other than the glossy annual report and they are not subject to the Official Information Act so we can't get the real story. 

Not a government department or agency.  (Unfortunately!)