Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Strengthening Quality and Integrity in Vocational Education and Training No. 1) Bill 2024. When in opposition, the now government made a lot of noise about skills and about the training portfolio. But, to date, what we've seen from the government in the time that they've been in government is just a lot of window dressing when it comes to this issue. There is not a lot of substance behind what they're doing, and I seek throughout my contribution here to outline what I mean by that.

First, there was the sham Jobs and Skills Summit; that was in 2022. Then there was a bill that renamed the existing agency, the Jobs and Skills Australia Bill; it didn't do much more than rename that agency. Finally, there was an announcement to flood the market with fee-free TAFE places. And now we have a bill that impacts registered training organisations. But when it comes to actually delivering for Australians—for those who are wanting to get better, more skilled jobs and for those employers across the country who are desperate to find people to work for them that have the requisite skills that they need to be able to fulfil their market and what they're trying to deliver for the Australian economy, indeed for their own businesses—this government is found wanting because it's not delivering. In 2022, there were around 4.5 million VET students. Around 3.4 million were enrolled with private training providers, and around 720,000 were enrolled in TAFEs. Around 490,000 were enrolled with community education providers, and others were enrolled at schools, universities and enterprise providers. Students can be enrolled with multiple provider types. So what does this bill hope to achieve?

The most significant change proposed by the minister for skills is to seek to directly control market entry of the new registered training organisations. This bill introduces a new power that allows the minister, by legislative instrument, to direct the regulator, the Australian Skills Quality Authority, to pause the registration of new RTOs. The coalition support this change, in principle, but we are seeking an amendment, and we hope that amendment will be supported because it adds extra transparency and accountability to the change that this bill is predominantly making. This issue does need to be looked at. The bill also tightens the rules for RTOs in their first two years of operation and makes a number of changes to the way ASQA processes and prioritises the registration of new training organisations. The bill increases the penalty units specified under certain provisions of the current act.

In relation to these changes, the Australian Industry Group remarked on 7 February 2024:

The Australian economy is reliant on a strong, vibrant VET sector to develop the skills required for up to 50% of the jobs in our workplaces.

These skills are best developed from a trusted VET sector, renowned for quality-focussed skills development. For too long, some unscrupulous providers and poor practices have cast a shadow over the sector. In turn, this has damaged its broader reputation, and that of the many quality providers, and has undermined the student experience, including for international students.

Senator Cash in her contribution highlighted the absolute failure of the previous Labor government with their VET FEE-HELP scheme, which saddled students with incredible debt, as well as unscrupulous behaviour by providers, all supported by the previous Labor government's policy. It was unwound and fixed up by the coalition government when we came in but, sadly, some of those students are still battling with those debts, and the Commonwealth is covering the significant cost of what the Labor Party did when that policy was in place. Throughout the VET sector, we have seen a deterioration of quality, and there needs to be improvement. As someone who has worked across this field prior to coming into parliament, I can attest to it. We have to get our VET sector and our skills and training sectors focused on skills to deliver for jobs that exist and jobs for the future.

We can't just have training for training's sake. Sadly, I think this is still a feature of our system. The government likes to talk about the fee-free TAFE model that it has brought in. I have no issue with TAFE whatsoever. I am a student product of TAFE. I did an apprenticeship as an electronic technician at Midland TAFE in the outer suburbs of Perth, and I received a terrific education there. But what we're seeing with this fee-free TAFE model is a preferencing of TAFE, rather than just allowing the market to decide who should receive funding based on the demand that has been placed on them by employers and by students who are actively selecting courses that they want to do.

The reason that this is an issue is that the government, I think, have got the focus on the wrong metric when it comes to measuring the effectiveness of this program. They are focused on the number of places within the TAFE sector, rather than focusing on the outcomes. The outcome that matters to students and to employers is completion of courses and the number of people who are actually taking up work. That is an important measure because that determines whether or not the training that was received is actually suitable to the employers who want to employ these people. It's absolutely vital that we are not setting up our young people in particular to engage in training courses if they're not actually getting themselves involved in a course with a provider that is going to give them the skills that they need to be productive on day one in the job, when they set out to do it with their new employer. If you want an employer to come back for more trainees and you want an employer to come back for more new graduates, they need to have had the success with others that have come through.

Often, it's the employer that determines the type of course, and this is actually how it should be. The employers in our country should be in the driving seat of what courses are offered, how those courses are delivered and, indeed, I would say, who actually delivers them. In many cases—in probably the majority of cases—the local TAFE can provide that. But there are circumstances where the employer might want to, with a training provider, provide that training so that they can get the bespoke training that they require for their business so that they can fulfil the job requirements that they have. But this government is fixated on fee-free TAFE, which sounds wonderful to the public. Australians love TAFE. It's a good brand, by and large. But employers are desperate for people with the skills that are necessary.

The other issue with this focus on places rather than real outcomes, which is jobs, people getting and taking up employment and indeed being retained in that job—which is the other measure that should be measured—is the fact that people are engaging in courses that aren't leading to employment outcomes. I met recently with the outdoor recreation industry association operating in New South Wales. This crowd looks after outdoor industry type jobs, such as hikers, tour groups that go out into the wilderness, people that take tours up into the ski fields and mountain bike operations, horseriding operations—all of these wonderful tourist operations and recreational activities. They are desperate for people that are skilled in their area that know how to operate in that particular field as managers. You need to have the skills in first aid. You need to have the skills in management and emergency management. All of these sorts of things are required to be able to be proficient in that job. Yet they've told me that they keep hearing of people that are just going and doing units of competency at TAFE in basically recreational type areas. They're going and doing a mountain biking course without completing the full unit that gives them the qualifications that they need to be able to actually work in the job. So, sure, they've got some wonderful skills in how to ride their mountain bike, but they haven't got all of the requirements and skills that are required to be able to maybe lead a tour group that actually pays and is building the economy.

This is the problem. When you just focus on places through this fee-free TAFE model and you're not focused on real outcomes, then you're missing out and we're putting taxpayers' money essentially into people's hobbies. That's not acceptable. Mountain climbing—you can go and do a mountain climbing course at TAFE. That's great, but people should pay for that themselves, frankly. People should pay for that themselves. Why is the taxpayer funding this sort of thing? If it's combined with, as I was saying, the other units of competency that are necessary to be able to get a job, then there's no problem with that. This is the issue. We need to have employer directed, industry directed, training. Employers should be in the driving seat of the courses. We can't just have people fulfilling their frolics in their interests. It has got to be about getting people into jobs that exist and that are real.

The amendment that we're seeking to this bill is important. In the closing moments that I've got, I just want to address it. The amendment here will ensure that the pause that this bill provides for that the minister will be able to put on new enrolments is limited to 12 months. That is an important limitation because we would not want to see this minister or any future minister provided with the unfettered power to be able to manipulate the market in a way by just pausing it indefinitely. It might be the intention to just pause it for a moment, and that's fine. But we should make sure that there are some limitations on the pause that is there. A maximum pause of 12 months is what our amendment is seeking to implement. I would hope that that is something that can be supported.

ITECA said they want to see:

… amendments that strengthen the legislation by putting in place safeguards. These include placing a limit on the amount of time that a ban on new RTOs would be in place. It's also sensible that the government publish the underpinning reason for making such decisions.

So it is absolutely non-controversial to ensure that this happens. It should be something that is supported because it provides the transparency that is necessary and it provides the assurance that there can't be a situation where a minister is using the power of the legislative instrument to just manipulate the market in a way that would prevent new registrations. There are times when industry, who are in the driving seat of the economy, are needing to be in a position where they can seek out the support of a training provider that is maybe uniquely purposed for them. Rather than just having this broadbrush TAFE model that doesn't actually address and deliver the needs specific to industry and specific to employers, we need to have a model that directly deals with them.

The other point I'll make in the remaining 60 seconds that I've got is that there are wonderful opportunities in my home state of Western Australia, where we've got to see the RTOs step up to the plate in terms of training and providing people for the jobs that are coming as a result of AUKUS. There are going to be over 3,000 people who will have new jobs in Western Australia, not far from my home around the Rockingham area in Henderson. There's a wonderful, burgeoning industry that's there in the naval and submarine sectors, and there are jobs that are going to go wanting if we don't have the skills that are required. I want to call on this government, as part of this debate, to step up and to lean on the state government because, frankly, we're not seeing the Western Australian government do anything near what it needs to do in relation to leaning into the opportunities that AUKUS provides, whether that's in housing, in infrastructure or, in this case, in skills.