Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare and Early Childhood Learning) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the member for La Trobe's private member's motion regarding Victorian TAFE funding. It is important that we do not characterise the debate this evening in terms of those who support TAFE and those who apparently do not, because I believe that all members in this place do support TAFE. As a member of parliament from regional New South Wales I have had much to do with the Riverina Institute of TAFE and their many campuses across New South Wales—the good work they do, the community services they provide, the jobs that they give to small regional towns, and their connection with local communities, which is very much to be praised and admired.

But I would like to remind those opposite that the former Labor government in New South Wales budgeted $900 million for vocational education and training in the 2011-12 financial year and, regrettably, as with so much they do, they blew out the budget to the tune of at least $400 million. It is a basic tenet that a government, whether it be federal or state, has to live within its means.

And now we see that the Victorian Liberal government faces a difficult challenge in restoring economic credibility. Despite this monumental challenge, they have actually budgeted for a record level of ongoing investment into vocational education and training. This is far above what the previous government had budgeted. The quantum of dollars invested has not been reduced; in fact, it has been increased. They have also sought to refocus where exactly the VET funding is targeted. This measure is about ensuring that taxpayers get value for money and that the areas of skills in demand are given priority—those skills that will boost productivity and help grow the Victorian economy.

It is a difficult and challenging area of public policy. But if we as governments are investing public taxpayers' dollars in the development of skills in individuals to benefit the productive capacity of the economy—and it could be any of the state economies in Australia or in fact the federal economy, the total economy, because people who study at, learn at and attend, for example, TAFE in Victoria may go anywhere in the state—we have a responsibility to ensure that those public dollars are directed towards the best possible end.

The government in Victoria has sought to refocus where this vocational education and training funding is targeted. This measure is about ensuring value for money is achieved and that skills in demand are given priority, because it is the government's responsibility to grow its state economy. They have done this by changing the funding rates, providing more assistance for areas such as trade apprenticeships, and reducing funding to those courses that have lower educational outcomes and may have been oversubscribed in the past. Twenty per cent of courses will see an increase in funding levels, and the majority of these courses are in fact offered by the TAFE sector. In addition to this, the Victorian government has offered to underwrite debt for Victorian TAFEs. It is important to note that. This is especially important for regional TAFEs, which have much narrower operating budgets.

Ultimately, any government has a responsibility to its constituency. They must be held to account for their expenditure. It is vital that those courses and qualifications on offer do meet genuine workplace needs. The Victorian government have correctly identified areas of real demand and have tailored their funding program accordingly. If I am to touch on the history of the contestable funding model for vocational education and training in Victoria, it is important to note that this model is directly responsible for a plethora of new registered training organisations offering cheap-to-deliver courses with no discernible educational benefit.

These changes will prevent an overload of qualified people in areas where there are minimal opportunities and instead incentivise TAFEs and registered training organisations to focus their efforts on the skills that are really needed. Ultimately this should ensure that those mass offerings in courses that are not really in the public interest will be replaced with courses offering legitimate qualifications that promote the economic growth of Victoria. In fact, I believe that the Victorian government should be lauded for this move, not condemned.

See this speech in context