Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

As the deputy chair of the committee. I wish to advise the chamber that the coalition senators have dissented from elements of the TAFE funding inquiry and express my appreciation to all those who were involved, including the secretariat and my colleague Senator McKenzie who so ably worked with us on this.

There is no doubt at all that there needs to be an improvement in the overall recognition of standards in the technical and further education of vocational education sector across Australia. I think there would be general acceptance of a move towards standards that are accepted and equivalent across state and territory boundaries. They would be beneficial to employers, employees and, of course, the students, because we have such a freedom of movement now and we are going to see that far more into the future as we try to bring this economy back to a level of acceptability to the Australian and wider community.

That will definitely require a circumstance in the vocational education and training area where we are going to ensure that standards remain high, from a student's point of view, including—but not exclusively—international students, who increasingly see value in coming to our country.

Where the coalition senators dissent from the majority report is in a number of sectors, and I wish to highlight them. The first is that whilst the Commonwealth government does provide and has a great interest in the vocational education sector, it is a fact and will remain the fact that the actual delivery of VET-type training is and should remain the province of the states and the territories.

We actually saw evidence of that in our hearings in the different areas of Australia. In Victoria we saw a heavy emphasis in the manufacturing sector because it is heavily a manufacturing state. In Western Australia we saw emphasis reflecting the industries which are active in that state. In Wollongong we saw a slight change of emphasis to students with disabilities. How interesting that particular hearing was to all of us.

The coalition senators, in presenting our dissenting report, wish to make very clear the fact that TAFE delivery, vocational education and training, is a state and territory responsibility. There should not be a role for the federal government to want to take control over that. Those states who wish to participate more fully should be encouraged to do so. But at the same time we do believe there needs to be a consistency of standards and transferability of qualifications across state and territory boundaries.

Vocational education is education with the purpose of equipping a person with the necessary skills to do a job. Coalition senators—and I have said this in the report—support a strong, vibrant, dynamic, financially sustainable vocational education system. Again, this is where the coalition senators dissent from the majority report. The majority report tends to emphasise that those most capable and most competent to deliver vocational education and training are exclusively in the TAFE sector, the government controlled sector. It is the case that it was the decision of the states to move well beyond the TAFE system of delivery towards a competitive system involving the private sector. That has achieved enormous gains for students, particularly, and into the future it will for employers. So that is an area of difference between the majority report and the dissenting report as delivered by Senator McKenzie and me.

We were disappointed the majority report did not give adequate air time or space to the essential role of industry. It is industry, in the main, that will provide the career opportunities for VET students on completion of their training. I believe Senator McKenzie will want to expand further on that involvement by industry in the provision of services. If industry, having the role that it does, wants that choice of a private sector service provider as well as a TAFE based service provider, all to the good. We heard some very interesting evidence around Australia on the need for liaison with industry in that context.

The issue of who drives skills development is crucial to the future role of TAFE, and we recognise it as the pre-eminent provider of vocational education and training in this country. Employers have told us that, as we all know, they rely on TAFE to provide consistent high-quality training and to ensure that trainees enter the workplace—particularly importantly—work ready. There are three areas that we identified in this report for this to happen, the first being skills development driven by employers and industries that will employee the graduates at the end of their training. The second is that TAFEs must respond to and liaise with employers and industry to ensure that the training provided is of the type and standard required by employers. Third, and most importantly, TAFEs have to be financially viable and sustainable in that competitive environment. We must never lose sight of the fact that each of those three criteria are driving towards one objective: the competence and capacity of students to come into the workplace work ready, safety ready, and willing and competent to go to the next stage of their careers.

The majority report concentrated on funding being reduced to TAFEs or making public funding for the VET sector contestable. The coalition senators are of the view that the system needs to involve a mix of contributors, including government, industry and students. That was certainly highlighted by the Victorian government's Vocational education and training market 2013 highlights report. To quote:

Over the past year, we’ve seen 10,000 more enrolments in construction, nearly 10,000 more people training in healthcare and 8,000 more in transport—all critical areas to the Victorian economy.

I wish to emphasise that point again. In the few moments left to me I make reference to the recommendation by the coalition senators that the states and territories take steps to each ensure their TAFEs are given the capacity to negotiate industrial agreements, to ensure that TAFEs operate on an equal footing with other vocational education providers. They must not be left behind. They must not be shackled in this new world of vocational education and training.

We amend a recommendation from the majority report that the Commonwealth work through its COAG partners on the National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform to ensure that all states and territories do provide clear statements of policy direction on the role of TAFE in their jurisdiction, in consultation with effective industries to ensure a quality education for students—coming back to that point of emphasis. Again, we recommend the amendment of a majority report recommendation that the committee recommends that COAG work collaboratively to develop a national workforce strategy for TAFE that addresses the level and quality of the teaching qualifications, an area that certainly was the subject of abundant discussion. We reject the recommendations that point to TAFE, pretty well exclusively, returning to being the only provider, and we certainly recommend that for quality vocational education outcomes a mix of contributors is required, that being government, industry and students.