Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I direct my question to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations, Senator Evans. In a letter you sent to the New South Wales Labor MP Carmel Tebbutt on 29 September this year about concerns raised by the New South Wales Teachers Federation concerning vocational education and training, you stated that there was a role for healthy competition between public and private VET providers. How do you regard as healthy competition the huge profits being made by private providers as a result of the funding growth in their sector, given that private provider tenderers have been exempted from providing lists—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Rhiannon, you are entitled to be heard in silence. Order! Go back to the second part of the question; I did not hear it.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. How do you regard as healthy competition the huge profits being made by private providers as a result of the funding growth in their sector given that private provider tenderers have been exempted from providing lists of teachers and facilities they will use and when the growth in profits of private providers is being underwritten by students paying VET FEE-HELP loans?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Rhiannon for her question. I am not sure how she came to have the letter that I sent to Carmel Tebbutt, but that is a question for her and Carmel Tebbutt. I do not have that in front of me, but can I say that I do not accept some of the concerns expressed in the senator's question. We are very much committed to a strong reform agenda in the vocational education and training system. We do think the sector is in need of further reform, but we back that by record investment in the VET sector. Over the last three years, this government has put $11.1 billion into VET, compared to $7.2 billion over the last three years of the previous government. So we are seeking to reform and invest to try to build the skills base this country needs to take advantage of the growth in the economy and the opportunities provided by the mining boom. So we are committed to reform in VET. We are committed to greater investment in VET and have a commitment to the skills and training agenda.

It is true that a number of the states have gone down a series of reform programs, most notably in Victoria, where they have provided a greater role for the private sector. I do not have any problem with there being competition between private providers and the TAFE system in the VET space, and I do not expect that private providers would operate unless they were making a profit. So making a profit in itself, it seems to me, is not something one could be critical of them for doing. But it is the case that I have a very strong view that there is a significant role for TAFE to play in the future of VET in this country. We have invested enormously in both the facilities and the skills of the staff. It is a very key part of our training system, and in no way should these reforms be seen as a reduction in the contribution of TAFE. (Time expired)

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, if, as you state in your letter, TAFE must continue to play a pivotal role in delivering a skilled workforce, why has your government invested $53.6 million over four years to encourage private providers to form start-up companies with no teachers on their books and no facilities in their asset register to tender to provide courses that TAFE already effectively delivers? How is this competitive or delivering value for money or building the skills base you just spoke about?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that question refers to concerns about quality in the private provider area and I think there are legitimate bases for concern about some of the companies involved. That is why, as the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, I implemented a lot of measures to try and assist in breaking the link between some of those companies—the way they were operating—and the provision of services to international students. This government has also driven a reform program in this area in relation to quality. The new regulator, ASQA, has been set up to try and address these very concerns—where state based regulation was not adequately covering the performance of the sector. We had serious concerns about that state based regulation. That concern was reflected, for instance, in the Victorian Auditor-General's report. The new national regulator established by this parliament will provide us with greater confidence that proper standards are being applied to training and that students are getting value for money from their investments in the courses they undertake. (Time expired)

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Minister, can you inform the Senate if the VET competitive tendering process applies competitive neutrality adjustments to TAFE which effectively penalise TAFE for having access to state owned infrastructure? Has this happened in tendering in New South Wales and in other states?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think I will have to take the question on notice. I remind the Senate—I am sure Senator Rhiannon knows—that the states actually administer the vocational education and training systems. We are a funder of those systems and this government has greatly increased the funds going into the vocational education and training system. We also have a national partnership with the states where we agree on the objectives. We are in the process of renegotiating the national agreement and the national partnerships, which are due to come into effect on 1 July 2012. Those processes are looking to try and make sure we get better outcomes from the Commonwealth's investment in the state training systems, but the systems themselves are administered by the states. Your question really goes to the principles the states have been applying, so I think I will take that part of the question on notice.