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

I am sure that is a point you will make! The fifth point is assuring the quality of training delivery and outcomes. It is one that, again, I hope is broadly supported. So, all five, as individual items, are ones of support. The issue of the moment, which is one for all governments, is the conflict between several of these points and the lack of clarity, particularly around the fourth point: recognising the important functions of public providers. Six months after this agreement was reached they do feel like they are swinging in the breeze, that they are being attacked by a greater investment in a competitive marketplace and in private providers, and a lack of support from their owners, which are, I accept, another level of government. But I do not think the Commonwealth entered into this agreement trying to encourage state governments to monster their public providers, through their own actions, yet that is the agreement entered into by the Commonwealth and that is why this is an issue of conflict before the House.

So, I understand the market based philosophy: seeking economic growth and seeking to provide students not with vouchers—that is a dirty word—but the equivalent of vouchers, and choice between public and private providers. That is sitting at direct odds at the moment with the actions we see of attack on public providers, even though that is explicitly written into the principles of the national partnership agreement.

We have a real problem. It is having a real and material impact on the ground in communities such as the Mid North Coast of New South Wales. In talking to many members in this chamber, conversations around the real impacts of TAFE cuts in their communities are alive and well in this building. We need to deal with the issue and we need to apply pressure not only on state governments to increase their defence of their own public providers, and recognising the important functions of those public providers, but also through this place and this chamber to keep pressure on the Commonwealth, the executive and the particular ministers and parliamentary secretaries responsible to make sure that this national partnership agreement is used for good, not evil. It has to be used to deliver market reform for greater outcomes in the training and education sector that makes more people industry-ready, makes us a more entrepreneurial nation and builds more resilient communities. It cannot be used in the context of reform designed as destroy which then destroys the public sector and the place of public providers. That is the reason for raising this matter today.

I notice in my TAFEs that there is a great deal of concern. It is not only amongst the student body, which is facing increased fees. I represent a comparatively lower socioeconomic community, so the fee impact is something that does shape decisions about their futures. It is not only from the teacher body, which is facing significant cuts to hours or job security more generally. Of more interest in this debate for the Commonwealth is the strategic decisions that each of the TAFEs are now faced with and have to make at the director and executive level. Along the eastern seaboard we hear of closures. Along the eastern seaboard we hear of great frustration from executives who feel like their hands are tied behind their backs in this national partnership agreement process. They are facing enormous structural adjustment. They look over the fence and see funds that go to universities for structural adjustment, yet for the vocational education sector they are told that they have to do it alone. There is no structural adjustment support in what is an environment of major change and they have to do it on the smell of the cliched oily rag.

As well most states—I know certainly in New South Wales—create the added burden where decisions around capital are difficult because, if you decide to sell anything, a fair slice of that money goes back into the state coffers into consolidated revenue. Strategic decisions around the moving of assets or the downsizing of assets are decisions that are limited and are limiting the business model decisions that TAFE strategically is being asked to make.

In the final minute and a half I will put several issues on the table. Firstly, in relation to point 4 of the agreement, state and federal governments have to explicitly state whether they stand by this agreement and recognise the important function of private providers. If so, how? If so, when? Secondly, there is the role of pathways and collaboration. I see vocational education as the critical link between secondary and tertiary education, yet we are doing things in those two areas that we are not doing in vocational education. We are almost making it the missing-out link rather than the missing link between the two. Investment in pathways and collaboration is needed. Thirdly, there is consideration around structural adjustment and, fourthly, there is the vocational education sector. Both of those areas are around financial support and some creative thinking to free up their ability to make business decision in an increasing business environment.

Co-investment strategies from the Commonwealth and the state in these implementation plans have to happen and have to happen soon before we go down the paths of withholding big money at the expense of students. The Commonwealth use of power is available to stick up for point 4 and public providers. That withholding power of the Commonwealth is one that I would ask to be considered. We need the capping of private providers. There are 5,000 private providers in the market in Australia and they are absolutely monstering the public sector. When is enough, enough? When do we have a fully competitive market? Basically, can we stop the education wars in Australia today? This matters. (Time expired)

See this speech in context