Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Hansard source

I will ask you a specific question, but I want to make a few comments. On the question of articulation, since you have raised it—and I acknowledge that you have raised it—is it your intention to revisit the question of the restoration of credit transfer arrangements? The reality is that, under that scheme, universities had a stake in quality assurance, because they did not want to be associated with crooks and shysters. All too often, I have had to point out in this chamber and at estimates that universities have let themselves down by being associated with such disreputable elements. They have subcontracted out their scripts and they have engaged brokers who behaved in a shocking way. One of their fundamental assets is their reputation for quality. I ask the minister specifically: are you prepared to consider the issue when you go to the issues of the design of the new scheme?

The view was taken at the time, in 2009—they have acknowledged that this is one of the unintended consequences—that the TAFE system was given too strong a position as a result of the credit transfer and there was reliance upon a quality assurance regime based on reputation and based on experience. The view at the time was generated from within the bureaucracy. The same bureaucracy that I have no doubt is advising you on these matters now advised the previous government that there needed to be an evening up by allowing the rapid expansion of the private sector, which of course has produced these, as said, unintended consequences.

I cannot possibly believe that an official would recommend or that a minister would agree to a proposition knowing that these types of events would occur—that has to be acknowledged—any more than I can blame John Howard for some of the abuses that occurred. The reality is that all of us in government have to take responsibility for what is on our plate at the time. It is a very short-sighted view to simply say, 'The previous government made some errors.' It is the nature of government, of course, that there is always a need to update, modernise and take into account learned experience. This area in particular has been a product of that. In the over 20 years that I have been engaged in these issues, that has been the pattern, irrespective of which government is in office.

The big difference here is that, in philosophical terms, in general, you could say that conservative governments have sought to deregulate because they want to see a higher level of private engagement in the provision of these services. The real irony is that this is a government that has pursued vigorously a deregulation agenda in education, and now it finds itself heavily regulating. That is what we have before us: a series of measures which have probably the most onerous regulatory powers that we have seen in the sector for a Commonwealth official with regard to a Commonwealth program. I take the view that, in fact, this could go much further and should go much further. I do not think these measures are adequate in terms of dealing with the problem.

I think, Minister, if I might offer this advice: you are about to discover just how inadequate these rearrangements will be. Even if you do think they are very robust at this time we will be back to actually have to enlarge these powers because there will be very smart folk out there who will find a very easy way to get around many of these provisions. And the same officers who have advised you, advised previous ministers responsible for vocational education.

I must say to you—I will make this observation—I never had the privilege of actually administering the vocational education system in my time in government; I had all the others. But I have had a deep interest—a profound interest—in this area and so I am familiar with the consequences. That is why I am concerned by your response on the question of the design of the new program that you are envisaging. It is my suspicion that there are very few real elements of the architecture prepared at this time. That is my suspicion.

I would be very pleased to hear if you are actually moving to a contract based arrangement which, of course, the states rely upon, so that individual providers actually have to have a direct contract with the Commonwealth. That would provide the Commonwealth with much greater capacities to manage this expenditure. But I am particularly concerned that any consultations that are undertaken are not limited to a series of informal discussions. There is a grave danger that proposals which involve the expenditure, as you have indicated to us today—even with your attempt to put a cap on this at $3 billion—involve just the VET FEE-HELP working group. There should be a much more formal process for discussion of specific proposals that the government has. It may be that you do not have time to do a green-and-white paper process, but that to me is the gold standard. That is the approach that we are taking with regard to the university system.

I believe that if you were actually advancing your thinking you could put out a government discussion paper outlining what you are actually seeking to do and getting people across the board to make comment upon that in an open and transparent way. The groups that have a profound interest in it are, as you said, student groups and employer groups. After all, this is the vocational education system—as you made the point. But there are also state governments, and the unions have a profound interest.

My understanding of the conversations you had with unions when you were minister for vocational education is that they were about the destruction of union involvement in the skills councils. Historically, there was a tripartite approach to these issues, which this government has sought to overturn. So those representatives of workers should have an opportunity here, because there are profound levels of expertise within the trade union movement on the questions of vocational education. But the idea of crisis management, whereby you have a meeting with this group and that group to try to shut up one group or another which makes a complaint is no way to redesign a program of this importance.

I make this observation, Minister: the Commonwealth is seeking to take over the entire VET sector. It has put those propositions to state ministers. There is no way—there is just absolutely no way—you are going to get the states to sign up to a transfer of responsibilities for vocational education to the Commonwealth when this sort of shambolic behaviour is going on. There is absolutely no way that the minister in Victoria, for instance—Steve Herbert, the minister for training—who has led this campaign to clean up the system is going to recommend to the Victorian government, as I said, to transfer powers to the Commonwealth when this sort of shambolic behaviour is in play. And there will need to be a demonstration that the states actually have a capacity to provide substantive policy advice on the administration of any new scheme.

Now, we have already indicated that there is no suggestion within these amendments that these measures are in fact temporary. I am deeply suspicious that what this program is really all about is getting past the next election. We will see what happens after that. It may well be that there will be a change of government at the next election, and there may well be an entirely different approach to the way in which these questions are dealt with.

Minister, I ask you, when you are considering these questions: will you look at the issue of the restoration of the credit transfer? I will leave it at that.