Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the members who have risen to support this matter of great public importance and I thank the member for North Sydney for making it a little bit easier to choose this as the issue of importance today. I can see that there is good work going on in many areas in education. I am particularly pleased to see the work in the university sector and tertiary sector in the areas of improving equity and access for students from regional Australia and from low socioeconomic backgrounds. I am particularly pleased to see over the last couple of years significant increases in the uptake of tertiary degrees and related courses by people of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent.

Likewise, I am very supportive of the legislation brought into the House today to do with what is known as the Gonski review. Principles similar to those which came from the Bradley review and the reforms in the tertiary education sector are now being put to the House for the secondary education sector, where funding is on a more equitable basis and is attached to the goals of greater engagement and greater education outcomes for those who in the past have missed out. Again, it is those three key area where the data tells the story: those from a low socio-economic background compared with their richer counterparts; those of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent compared with others; and those from regional and rural Australia, compared with their metropolitan cousins. The data is clear and therefore the model of funding for equity and fairness is right to place a particular loading on those sectors to get greater outcomes and to lift the education outcomes for all of us and therefore build a better standard of living for all and more resilient communities.

However, the reason for putting an MPI before the House today is that in the middle of this work in secondary and tertiary education is a vocational education sector that is directly under threat in Australia today. I do not think it is too strong to use the language that we have a skills crisis in Australia today. I think it should be of great concern to all members of all political persuasions in all parliaments that we have allowed ourselves to have this unholy war of the moment between the Commonwealth and the state governments, particularly on the eastern seaboard, where we are seeing money either withheld or cut from the delivery of vocational education in Australia. This is not just some wont to keep public sector jobs and to keep TAFEs alive in Australia. I will certainly come to a point in relation to this. This is an issue being raised by peak business and industry bodies, as well. It is an issue of the moment and it must be resolved as a matter of urgency. I quote directly from the chief executive of the Australian Industry Group, who said the following in August at the National Press Club when referring to the closure of dozens of courses at regional TAFEs in Victoria:

It is of significant concern to industry that we won't be able to then drive that skills pool into the future and kids in regional Australia will miss out on opportunities to gain skills and then get into the workforce.

This basic point being made by AiG is backed up by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, or ACCI, the peak body, the Business Council of Australia and all who generally support the key principles behind vocational education and training reform in Australia. However, they are flagging deep concerns about the speed of the cuts and the adoption of some pretty dramatic measures by various state governments, post the signing of the interim National Partnership Agreement in April this year, I think it was. That was a key moment that has started to see this issue go off the rails. In early 2012, COAG agreed a National Partnership Agreement for skills reform should be delivered and said it will:

… contribute to the reform of the Vocational Education and Training (VET) system to deliver a productive and highly skilled workforce which contributes to Australia's economic future, and enables all working age Australians to develop skills and qualifications needed to participate effectively in the labour market.

If only today those words were true and could be upheld as being gospel about what is being achieved on the ground, in practice and in the lives of many who are either currently trying to gain access to vocational education or are in vocational education. That is sadly not where we have ended up, six months post that agreement being reached.

The agreement identified a number of reform directions. There are five of them. The first is the introduction of a national training entitlement and the increased availability of income contingent loans. I know there are some who have concerns about that, but I do not. I think that is a sensible reform, if delivered in the appropriate way. Secondly, improving participation and qualification completions at high levels. Again, that is something I endorse. Third, encouraging responsiveness in training arrangements by facilitating the operation of a more open, competitive market. Again, that is something I support. The fourth is recognising the important functions of public providers in servicing the training needs of industries, regions and local communities and their role that spans high-level training and workforce development. Again, I think you would struggle to find someone opposed to that.

See this speech in context