Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received letters from the honourable member for Lyne and the honourable member for North Sydney proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 46(d), I have selected the matter which, in my opinion, is the most urgent and important; that is, that proposed by the honourable member for Lyne, namely:

The current failure of the Commonwealth and States to reach agreement on the future funding of technical and further education.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to 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.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Higher Education and Skills) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Liberal state governments.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to 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)

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Higher Education and Skills) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I start by thanking the member for Lyne for putting this particular item up as a matter of public importance and it is, indeed, a matter of importance. As I reflected in a debate on legislation yesterday, he and I have spent quite a bit of time on the education committee of this parliament and from that experience I know of his personal commitment to education and training, given that we reflect similar areas for young people who need access to vocational education and training to transform their lives.

I will acknowledge in particular that the member in his contribution, which I listened to closely, made the point about the national partnership and that it should be used for good and not for evil. I can assure him that this government uses everything for good and not for evil. It is a standard operating practice for this government across all portfolio areas and I would argue none more so than in the education area.

The member went to the issues of the wellbeing and strength of the technical and further education area as an issue not only for those in the sector or indeed its client group—the people in our own regions who we talk about and who need access to this training—but also more broadly for the economy as a whole. That is reflected in the concerns that have been expressed, as he indicated, by people like Innes Willox in August at the National Press Club about what is happening to this sector up and down the eastern seaboard.

In addressing the issues that the member has raised in his speech on this matter of public importance, I want to put on the record where we are at with the vocational education and training reform agenda and to reflect on some of the things that he has raised about the response of the Victorian, New South Wales and Queensland governments to the vocational education and training sector. Finally, I will raise my concerns about what a change of federal government would mean to this sector.

It is the case that we have been driving some real reform in the skills and training area. It has been in fact a $15.6 billion investment over four years. Many members of this House have been particularly encouraging of the government to continue with that investment, recognising how important that sector is. It would be no surprise, having gone from a TAFE teaching background, that I am never going to argue that the vocational education and training sector is not a critically important link between secondary education and tertiary education at university. Indeed, we see more and more people not only graduating from their TAFE and vocational training providers to university but doing the reverse trick—picking up university qualifications and then going back to TAFE to get some on-the-tools experience. It is a critically important sector to our economy and our communities.

As part of the reform agenda, there is on the table $1.75 billion over five years for the National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform that the member referred to. There is $1.4 billion allocated to the states each year for that reform agenda. Thirty-five per cent of the funding under the national partnership agreement will be provided for increases in VET outcomes, which will be measured by an overall increase in completions of qualifications. We want people to get the qualification at the end of the investment of government money and of their time, energy and effort. That is a particularly important commitment.

We signed that national partnership agreement through COAG in April of this year, as the member indicated, to progress those reforms. The reforms included improving course completion rates, improving the quality of training and fixing some of the issues that the member touched on. It is critically important that the quality issue is addressed. We need to ensure that we address some of the concerns that the member raised about the diversity of providers that might be out there. We need those providers to deliver what people entering into training want. There needs to be a robust quality system in place.

We also want to improve access to training through the provision of a new entitlement to a funded place up to certificate III and through the provision of HECS style loans for diplomas and above. We also want to improve transparency for students and employers to ensure that they have good quality information on courses and on providers.

Under the agreement, the states are asked to provide implementation plans to the Commonwealth. They are asked to set out in those plans their methods of delivering on those undertakings. The reward funding under the agreement—that is, the $1.75 billion over five years—will only flow to states when they have an approved implementation plan in place and are meeting the required milestones. It should be indicated that the Commonwealth has approved an implementation plan from the Northern Territory and is in the process of looking at finalising agreements with a number of states.

It is important to recognise that there have been some more recent developments which have triggered the concern behind today's motion from the member for Lyne. In particular, in the 2012-13 Victorian budget, which they announced in May, major changes to the funding of VET were made, including very significant cuts of $300 million to their 18 TAFE institutions and a reduction in funding rates for approximately 80 per cent of their VET courses. The full impact of those funding cuts will hit from 1 January 2013, when the new funding rates will apply. We are seeing significant concerns in Victoria about those impacts.

An independent TAFE reform panel was convened to consider the transition plans of individual TAFE institutions and to make recommendations to the Victorian government on how to manage the changes. The panel has reported to the Victorian government. A summary of the proposed Victorian TAFE transition plans appeared in the media in September of this year. It reveals significant potential changes to the structure of the TAFE system in Victoria, including significant reductions in course offerings, large increases in student fees, significant loss of staff, industrial issues to do with the funding of enterprise agreements with TAFE teachers and amalgamations and campus closures. What the impact will be in Victoria is of great concern to us and in particular—and this is a point that I have made on numerous occasions—the impact in rural and regional areas. While we talk about competition, in many of those areas a public provider is the only provider. Cutting away the foundation of the TAFE system in Victoria is a real attack on the only provider in many of those regional and rural areas. Also, TAFE is often the only provider able to meet the needs of students with a disability. It is more broadly an important provider of training for those people with a disability who want to get skills so that they can get into the workforce.

Consequent upon the Victorian experience, the New South Wales government has now announced cuts to the TAFE system. A reduction of $16.1 million in capital was announced in the 2012-13 budget. In September they announced a further reduction of 800 permanent staff over the next four years, an increase in course fees of 9.5 per cent from 1 January 2012 and an increase in student concession fees. I note that there has been a significant amount of discussion and concern about how this is going to impact on areas across the state.

Indeed in my own local paper, the Illawarra Mercury, just today, there is a story with the headline: TAFE quality to fall under 'disastrous' cuts. The New South Wales opposition leader, John Robertson, was visiting with the Shellharbour state MP, Anna Watson, to address some of the issues that will impact on TAFEs as a result of the cuts in this area. I am particularly concerned to see that the Dapto TAFE will lose its campus library, for example. I think the actual impacts and how this is going to affect the TAFEs across New South Wales will begin to unfold, sadly and not positively, over coming months.

We add to that the circumstance in Queensland. The Queensland government is now looking at potentially shutting in effect half its TAFE campuses across the state. It is an extraordinary story up and down the eastern seaboard of state Liberal governments undermining the capacity of the public providers in their states. It is a real concern. We will be looking very closely at the national partnership agreement in terms of the commitment they are making to support public providers.

More broadly, one might say that perhaps those who are sitting in this chamber on the other side are sending a strong message to their own colleagues at the state level to stop this madness. Perhaps that is what they are saying, 'Stop this madness and reinvest in the public provider.' Sadly, I have seen no evidence of that. Indeed, each time we have debated these matters in this House, they have had to twist arms to get people to actually speak on the matter. I would encourage those opposite to take messages back to their state colleagues about how short-sighted this is.

I am ever an optimist. The opposition leader today released a book of his speeches. The words of the opposition leader, in the foreword, say:

If you want to know what the next Coalition government will be like, you should read this book. It's the plan for government that the Coalition has been developing to give everyone the hope, reward and opportunity that Australians deserve.

I thought, 'Great, this might be encouraging. They might be going to send a message to their state colleagues.' It is a free book. You can download it. I thought I would go and download it and have a look at it. I did a search on the word 'education'. People will be encouraged to know I had four results. In 191 pages, the word 'education' appeared four times. Do not get too excited just yet. The first use of the word 'education' was in the section: A Plan for Stronger Communities. It said:

We are going to work with the states to make public hospitals and public schools more accountable to their communities with local boards and councils.

So there is one sentence there on policy about education. The second reference was in the Commission of Audit chapter. It says:

The commission of audit will ponder issues such as whether the federal education department really needs all 5,000 of its current staff when the Commonwealth does not run a single school.

So the second reference was about cutting public servants. The third reference was in the chapter A Fair Dinkum Paid Parental Leave Scheme, which indicated, 'Childcare enables more parents to participate in the workforce but is an important means of early childhood education.' There was no following policy, just a statement. Fourthly, 'education' appears in the chapter Sound Economic Management, which criticises the Gonski education changes of $6.5 billion a year and says, 'Many of these are worthy projects but they should only be promised when they can be paid for.'

Sadly, you are not going to find much about how important education is for the future of the nation in this book. I thought, 'Okay, fair's fair. I will search for the word 'training'. Perhaps I will not focus on education more broadly but on "training".' I found eight matches for 'training'. The first seven were all in one paragraph though, so do not get too excited about that. The first seven were from the chapter Better Employment Programs for Indigenous Australians and they all related to Andrew Forrest's Australian Employment Covenant. I have to say, seven of the eight were simply in one paragraph about one program.

Mr Tehan interjecting—

I would encourage the member to download the book for himself and to have a look. It does not cost anything. You can download it for free. The eighth reference to 'training' was in the chapter on Australia's Infrastructure Challenge. It says:

The current government is more accustomed to link productivity with training than investment in transport infrastructure.

That is a paragraph about transport infrastructure. Persevering, I thought, 'I will try searching for "TAFE".' How many matches? None. I thought, 'All right, I will try "technical and further education".' How many matches for the future of Australia? None. I thought, 'I will go broad. I will try "skills".' For 'skills' I got one match, you will be pleased to know. It related to the fact we need a more skills focused immigration program.

I would say to those who are interested in the future of the nation and in the important matter that the member for Lyne has brought before the House that we are developing our technical and further education sector to match the challenges and needs of the future to provide real opportunity for people in our communities to be part of the economic growth and employment opportunities. Do not look to those opposite for any encouragement for investment in education, in training, in skills or indeed in the future of our young people in these opportunities.

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

I am pleased to speak on this MPI, the current failure of the Commonwealth and states to reach agreement on the future funding of technical and further education, by the member for Lyne. I appreciate his continued presence in the chamber. I would probably rewrite that as 'the current failure of the Commonwealth'. I agree with the member for Lyne. Yes, we have a problem but the problem is this government.

The member for Lyne also said that the vocational education sector is under threat. I think in many respects that is linked to a Commonwealth agenda that is displaced and misplaced from the local frontline state agenda. But I agree with him: it should be of great concern, because these things have always been of great concern to all members of parliament. I will, later in my remarks, mention what I think is a failure of the member for Lyne in his own electorate when it comes to vocational education and training. It is hard to mention, but it needs to be said.

I know that the COAG process is cumbersome, it is complicated, it is hard to understand—it is state and federal governments sitting around a table, ministerial councils hanging off, complicated senior officials' processes and so on. The current negotiations that we are talking about—the national partnership—stem from an announcement made by the Prime Minister on 19 March this year offering a national entitlement to a training place. Everyone knows there was no actual money attached to this—and the states and territories were under no illusions either. We had the Prime Minister and the various ministers who talk about skills trumpeting a $7.2 billion investment in skills. Well, there really was no new money; most of this money is the normal money that goes to state governments from the federal government to address areas of vocational education and training. I would be the first to agree that it is complicated to have these two streams of funding.

The Prime Minister talked about an extra $1-something billion in there. The agreement itself was really quite loose, quite warm and fuzzy. I detected a Prime Minister desperate to be able to make that announcement at the end of the COAG process, desperate to release that communique, and happy to say, 'Look, we'll work out the details later.' So we are working out the details later. I have talked to the states, and there are implementation plans that now have to be done—this is the real work. It is easier for this government to talk about the headline stuff, to talk about the warm and fuzzy announcements, to make us feel like they care and they are looking after us, and they really have money to help with our problems—but in fact that is not the case. Now we get down to the nitty-gritty; now we get down to the implementation plans.

Having said that, I do not know that they are going that badly, but I suspect the states are finding what we would always find on this side of the House—that is, that the money that is announced is not there, not there to the extent that it should be or not doing the job that the Prime Minister reckons it will. Those opposite will come out with the same old lines they always do on TAFE cuts. It is such a popular topic for members opposite in this place. As if premiers in this country run around wanting to cut TAFE. As if that is the thing they seek to do. As if it gives them some pleasure to cut funding to any areas of education. In fact in Victoria—and I am sure my colleague the member for Wannon may pick up on this—the funding to that sector has actually increased by $1 billion. In New South Wales, I am not sure—we are going through a process—but I know that Premier O'Farrell has said, 'These are difficult decisions; these are decisions that result from the state's finances; these are decisions we would prefer not to make, but we will make modest increases to some of the fees that students will pay'—and, yes, there will be job cuts, in line with job cuts across the public sector.

Everyone who takes an interest in skills and training, as I very much do, look for several important, key things. You look for training that leads to real skills, real jobs, in the real economy. And that comes back to the proper investment of the public dollar, because this is not about having unlimited money to do the education course that a person might want to do at a particular point in their life and their career—although we should always support people doing the course they want, to the extent that we can. But what we have to remember is that we are investing the public dollar for the public good, therefore we have to get the maximum public good for the scarce public dollar. I ask those opposite to concentrate on that when they look at the very necessary changes—yes, they will call them cuts, but the language does not really matter—that are being made at state levels to technical and further education.

I know that in New South Wales TAFE is very important. I am a regional member of parliament, and a rural and remote member of parliament, and I know the importance of TAFE. It will remain, and it will continue to take its place as the very important public provider. But maybe TAFE cannot do everything. Maybe TAFE, that is the public provider, cannot do courses in ceramics or fine arts. I do not for a moment knock the arts, but maybe we should not invest the scarce public dollar in courses that are not going to lead, if not directly then almost directly, to a job—because it is jobs that we should be investing in: people, through our human capital; and the training that we help them with.

Government members will talk about their fantastic record. I just have to mention—actually, in connection with the member for Lyne's comments—about 'vouchers' being a dirty word. It is definitely not a dirty word, and in any national entitlement system, that gets the best value for the public dollar. Vouchers for training are, I think, a very positive thing. They are not the only thing, but they are a very positive thing—vouchers have their place.

The Productivity Places Program that this government launched was a dirty term. Those who understand what it actually meant—courses online, diabolically bad employment outcomes—have no wonder why the states do not trust the federal government on training.

I want to talk about one issue in the member for Lyne's electorate, because he moved this motion. I refer to the former Port Macquarie Australian Technical College, now the Newman Senior Technical College. This is an exceptional centre. It is run as part of the Catholic education system; it has around 320 students a year. Yet under this Labor government it was forced to give the Manning Valley campus to local government. The diocese has done a fantastic job. They have been subsidising the Newman Australian Technical College since 2007, because this government decided they did not like technical colleges—no matter that they provided training that led to real jobs with magnificent support from industry; they did not like them because they were ours.

What has happened in the member for Lyne's electorate is that this particular technical college is now been managed by the Catholic diocese. They have done a fantastic job. The people who manage the college, and want to talk to parliamentarians about it, were brought to see me recently by the coalition candidate for Lyne, Mr David Gillespie. Mr Gillespie has taken this cause on and he is determined to get results and he is determined that a future coalition government will not ignore this wonderful example of local education with a commitment from industry and a huge commitment, as I said, from the diocese. So I believe, in that respect, perhaps the member for Lyne could do better for his constituency and recognise that Australian technical colleges were indeed set up as centres of excellence, a gold standard of technical education—close oversight and influence from industry.

I talked about the things people look for in skills and training policies, and quality training is one of them. I must mention that quality in this country is now being managed by the VET regulator, ASQA. ASQA is trying to do an enormous task with way too little resources. I ask the government to be genuine in their comments on what ASQA can and cannot do, because if they are claiming that it is ensuring quality with Western Australia and Victoria not signed up to the process and the regulator itself badly underresourced, with only six accreditors for the whole country to check on the quality of courses, this is hopeless. This is hopeless stewardship on the issue of VET quality by this government.

The coalition is committed to a training system that meets the needs of industry. We want world-class training. A future coalition government will listen closely to the states and work collaboratively, ensuring the best outcome for Australian businesses and workers. That is the key. This is not magic; we just have to talk to the states. The current government has a vast architecture of skills that no-one really understands, as much of it actually lives in Canberra, the union movement and remote bodies that are removed from real workplaces. There is a lot of money attached to this process, so there needs to be a discussion. There needs to be an honest discussion between the federal government and the states about how those resources could best be combined to have a real skills and training policy that can give students, whether they be school leavers or adult students, absolute confidence that they are getting the best training and that it will lead to the best possible job. That is part of our undertaking to build a stronger economy, boost productivity and benefit all.

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this very, very important matter. I am delighted that the Speaker determined that the topic for consideration today in the matter of public importance debate would be in the area of education—an area very close to my heart—and in particular technical and further education. The actual statement says that there is 'a current failure of Commonwealth and states to reach agreement on the future funding of technical and further education'. That is right, because the Commonwealth government wants to put money into education, while the states, particularly down the eastern seaboard, have one goal. That goal is to take money out of education. That is a point of conflict, and I understand that the member who has put this forward today is very concerned about the tension.

We should be concerned about the tension because right now as a federal government we must not lose sight of the fact that if we do not fight this out hard enough and if we do not fight strongly for the right for people to access TAFE—an institution that has seen generations of Australians able to access technical and further education—it will be absolutely destroyed. It is right now in the custodianship of this federal government—thank God we are committed to education, unlike those opposite—to make sure that the TAFE system, which has delivered so much for so many, will actually survive the onslaught of Liberal state governments up and down the eastern seaboard and across the rest of the country.

We know, and every Australian understands, that qualifications are the passport to a better job, are the passport to a higher pay packet and give you a secure future. I have taught many, many students in schools for whom school was not the place in which they were going to excel. But I am very pleased to say that, in the many years since, I have seen my students moving around in the community and so many of them have spoken about wonderful experiences of learning at our TAFEs. They had skills that TAFE helped them discover, develop and use to build opportunities for a future. Many of them are now local business men and women on the Central Coast who are getting on using their skills and giving jobs to a whole new generation who need access to technical and further education. But up and down the east coast we see the constant slashing of funding for education, as if it does not matter.

Parents with kids in schools are very, very aware of this. In terms of TAFE, in New South Wales we know that 800 job losses are on the line. Front-line teachers are being completely removed. There is a 9.5 per cent increase in TAFE course fees and an almost doubling of the TAFE student concession fee to $100. If there is a student who is thinking about becoming a learner at TAFE, now they know that if they are going to do even a certificate I they are going to pay an extra $44. It is the same for a certificate II. The reality is that, for people who need access to these courses, often $44 is just enough to make it that little bit too difficult. Often people engaging in TAFE I and II courses are people who might not have had success at school. They are people who might already have a vulnerable sense of their identity as a learner. They could go and do something that they think they are good at and have a go, but $44 could become an impediment that stops them from getting there.

We need to make sure that we fight for these people, that our TAFE system is maintained and that it is properly funded, not slashed and burned as we are seeing with the Baillieu government, the O'Farrell government and that Newman government up in Queensland. If you want to do a certificate III course in New South Wales, a standard apprenticeship qualification, the fee has risen to $793. If you want to go on to an advanced diploma, it has gone up to $793. That is an increase of $150. All of these things add up to disconnection of people from TAFE, and that is if they can actually get the course because the courses are being slashed left, right and centre at the moment. The Liberal New South Wales Minister for Education, Adrian Piccoli, has continued the trend that we saw established in Victoria by cutting TAFE funding. He is slashing jobs and he is increasing student fees. There is no difference in what is going on there, except perhaps it is a little worse in Queensland than it is in New South Wales at the moment.

We have heard that in Queensland, since the election of the Newman government, there is a proposal—which was recommended by the task force—which is much more concerned about dollars and cents than it is about people. We need to understand that these things have to go hand in hand. We on this side do understand that. It is dollars, cents and people; it is not dollars and cents over people. What they are proposing to do is take 82 TAFEs that spread across that broad state of Queensland and cut them back to 44. They want to cut back to 44 TAFEs. What does that mean if you live in a regional area and your TAFE is gone? That is your future out the window. That is your disconnection from being a productive and engaged member of the workforce of Australia.

In Queensland, the Minister for Education, Training and Employment, John-Paul Langbroek—

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He's a good bloke.

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is such a good bloke that Tony Moore wrote a story about him in this morning's Brisbane Times. What did he decide? To save $300 in a TAFE course which provides life skills for disabled people, he wanted to cut the course. Each week it costs $300 for one teacher to provide skills in learning how to live for people with disabilities. The course was cut. That was this morning. Maybe there is a hint here. We need to have a huge public campaign because, by this afternoon, with the efforts of the Mayor of Ipswich—Paul Pisasale, a fine man who did great work during the response to the floods—the new headline is 'TAFE course closure decision reversed', because people are screaming, and they need to be screaming. We all need to be screaming right up and down this eastern seaboard so they hear us out in the west and get the idea that we cannot continue to allow the elevation of dollars and cents above people, which is happening on the east coast. We need to make sure that our essential institutions for TAFE education are maintained.

In Ipswich, for example, there was a fantastic course called the 'Skilling Queenslanders for Work'. I am indebted to the member for Blair for this information. This program was cut on 16 July, a very short-sighted response by those would cut TAFE funding—those who would cut everything. On 23 July, the Deloitte Access Economics report came in and was absolutely glowing in its praise of a program that had just been cut by the Newman government. This is a program that was said to have put $6.5 billion into the Queensland economy, raising $1.2 billion in tax revenue and adding 1.8 per cent to consumption in the state. We know that this program helped long-term disadvantaged people get jobs. In fact, there were 8,000 jobs for long-term disadvantaged people created in this program and, overall, 57,000 jobs. What did Campbell Newman do to it? He cut it. Let us look at that very simple number: 82 TAFEs have been cut to 44—and the story continues.

We have seen the story in New South Wales and Queensland; let's look at Victoria. Cuts to the Victorian VET sector have been absolutely ruthless. You cannot rip $300 million out of the TAFE system without it having a dramatic impact on the delivery of skills and training. Unfortunately, we are seeing that impact fall heavily on disadvantaged individuals and communities who cannot access the VET programs that they need. VET programs train our electricians and childcare workers. These are just two fields that require high-quality education. These are people looking after our children and putting wires into our walls. If we are going to have a safe place to live, it must be underpinned by an outstanding VET sector, and Australia can be very proud of what we have enjoyed until now. But, if the Liberals opposite get a hold of this place, and they get their hands on the federal budget, we have only seen a warm-up act of what is to come. It will be slash and burn, with no concern for people and no concern for the future of young people, who need access to high-quality, highly-enabling education that our TAFE sector offers.

In summing up, I indicate once again that those opposite have only one plan: to cut education, to cut training services for Australia, to cut the productivity of this nation and to disconnect themselves from the recommendations of great industry groups like AiG and ACCI, who are trying to get somebody on the other side to listen and are saying, 'Keep TAFE alive.' (Time expired)

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to remind the member for Robertson of two things—just two things. Firstly, the matter before us today is:

The current failure of the Commonwealth and States to reach agreement on the future funding of technical and further education.

I also remind her that she is in the federal parliament here in Canberra. She is not in Brisbane; she is not in Sydney; she is not in Melbourne. I remind her that, if she was in those state parliaments, she would have to check her facts, because what she has been saying has nothing to do with the actual facts. I will give you one fact which puts paid to what the member for Robertson said in her very passionate stump speech about what a federal coalition government would do. Let's just look at one fact. What has the Victorian government done in the TAFE sector? One billion dollars of extra funding in four years has been provided. I did not hear that mentioned once—not once. There will be $1 billion in extra funding for TAFEs in Victoria and it was not mentioned once in her speech. If that is not misleading this House, then I do not know what is. It is all very well to come in here and speak so passionately about what a coalition government would do if it were elected federally, but can I tell you: I hope that we as a federal government will be able to look after our federal responsibilities, and they include the coordination of proper technical training in this nation.

I go back to 2007, when there was a commitment given by the Labor government that it would stop the blame game. Yet, here we are, five years later and all we hear from the member opposite is, 'It's all the states' fault.' She took no responsibility at all for the federal government in this area, yet, as this matter of public importance clearly shows, the federal government has a responsibility as well. What did we hear from the member opposite about the federal government's responsibility—what it is doing to improve training across the nation? We heard nothing because they have got nothing to say. All they can do is come in here and blame the states for everything. It is pathetic. They accuse us of being a policy-free zone in opposition, but the sad thing is that they are a policy-free zone in government and they are meant to be running the nation. It is absolutely pathetic and we have to sit here and listen to it.

I will tell you what is worse: when they came into government in 2007 we had set up Australian technical colleges.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They went well.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They were going extremely well. There was a very cynical response from those opposite, but let us get it on the record—they closed them down. They did not replace them with anything. All they have done is decide to blame the states for their failure in the training sector.

I say to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship—who has been very kind to certain people in Wannon and I thank him for that—that I would love to take him down to my electorate to show him the ATCs in Warrnambool and Hamilton. He would then be able to see what grand institutions they were before they were closed, to hear about the wonderful training they used to deliver, to learn how industry backed them and supported them and to see how gutted the local communities are that those ATCs were closed down.

We heard the member for Farrer, the shadow minister, speak about what has happened to the Australian technical college in the member for Lyne's electorate—not forgetting that it was the member for Lyne who put this MPI forward. As the member for Farrer outlined, this government has closed, or attempted to close, that ATC in the member for Lyne's electorate. It is very good to see that the coalition candidate for Lyne is looking to make sure that ATC can continue to thrive and deliver excellent training.

We also heard from the member for Cunningham. The part of her speech I most enjoyed was when she started referring to the book, A Strong Australia, successfully launched today by the Leader of the Opposition. What an outstanding document it is and what a fantastic speech the Leader of the Opposition gave in launching it today. The member for Cunningham need not worry about downloading a copy; we will personally deliver a hard copy to her office so she can continue to quote from the book when she gives her speeches. It was wonderful when she referred to the mentions of education and training in the book—they show what very sensible policies we will have in this area. Those policies were superbly outlined by the member for Farrer.

Let us have a closer look at what our policies will deliver. Our policies will deliver an end to the red tape and bureaucracy which is killing this sector. In particular, we will sort out what the hell is happening in ASQA at the moment. It is badly underresourced, it is producing impossible time frames for training businesses to try and match, it is not getting back to those businesses so they can comply with the regulations this government has put on them and it is causing those training enterprises to suffer slowly. In all good faith, I ask the minister—and I have spoken to his office about this—to have a look, please, at ASQA and find out what is going on there. When you have dedicated training business trying to deliver products to the Commonwealth government, to state governments and to other organisations, you have to do your best to ensure that these businesses do not get closed down by red tape and regulation. That is what is happening at the moment through ASQA.

Something drastic needs to happen. I have met with businesses who want to do the right thing, who want to explain to the government what the problems are with the regulations governing the sector at the moment—but they cannot talk to anyone. They cannot talk to anyone to try and get these matters addressed. They are drowning as businesses because of this red tape. You have to cut that red tape. You have to cut it, cut it and cut it so that these businesses outside the TAFE sector can deliver proper competition to TAFE in the training sector. This is getting dire and it needs urgent attention. I hope the minister, in the time left between now and the next election, will seek to address this. If he needs some help, I am happy to talk to him about it and to discuss it with him in good faith—because something needs to be done in this area.

To sum up: all we have heard on this motion from those on the other side demonstrates that they are a policy-free zone. They have no policy whatsoever. All they can do is say, 'Everything is the fault of the states.' I remind them again that this is the federal parliament and that this motion talks about the current failure of the Commonwealth and the states to reach agreement on future funding of technical and further education. So let us hear from them about what the Commonwealth is doing to try and address this problem. What is the Commonwealth trying to do to address the problem that there has been no agreement on the future funding of technical and further education? We do not want to hear about what the state parliaments should be doing, because—here is a message for those on the other side—we are actually in the federal parliament. After five years, I had hoped that you might have realised that. I had hoped that you might have realised that the federal parliament has responsibilities—responsibilities in this sector in particular.

Our policy was outlined by the shadow minister in her excellent contribution. We will also look to address what this government did to Australian technical colleges and to seek as best we can to restore them to what they were—they were magnificent training institutions—before they were so harshly cut by this federal government. If you want to talk about cuts, let us talk about cuts to the ATCs. That is what we should be discussing here today and that is what those opposite should be focusing on.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The discussion is concluded.