Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to reinstate two government responses that were on item 16 on yesterday's red: responses to the Education and Employment References Committee reports, Getting our money's worth: the operation, regulation and funding of private vocational education and training (VET) providers in Australia and Technical and further education in Australia.

Leave granted.

In recognition of the hour and the long week that it's been for most senators, I'll just briefly speak to both of these reports and then I'll seek to continue my remarks. I move:

That the Senate take note of the documents.

The inquiry into the operation, regulation and funding of private vocational providers was an inquiry that was referred to the committee on the 24 November 2014. The report was finished on 10 August 2015, and the government responded in February 2018. This report and the response by the government maintains the government's position that competition, contestability and choice are fundamental to the future of the VET system in this country. It also dealt with the regulator, ASQA, and it briefly dealt with the VET-FEE HELP fiasco that built up to a crescendo under the coalition government. We had four ministers in a period of 12 months in this area under the coalition, and we've had huge problems in the for-profit sector of the training providers.

This is a terrible situation that we find ourselves in in this area. We've had significant funding go to the for-profit sector, we've seen the for-profit sector gouge the Australian government and the public of Australia, and we've seen some of the most egregious rip-offs take place in this sector, and yet the government wants to continue with competition, contestability and choice—a mantra that even ACCI, the Business Council of Australia and academics and experts across Australia who have researched this for years have said has left the system in a mess. If the Productivity Commission, an organisation that I'm not a great fan of, is saying the system is in a mess, then we really do have a mess that needs to be fixed. The government's response is inadequate.

I seek leave to continue my remarks because I would like to deal with this in more detail at another time.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

The second government response is on technical and further education in Australia, similar to the government response on the VET inquiry and providers. The government talks about competition again in this area, along with contestability and choice. It simply wipes its hands of the TAFE system in this country by saying it's fundamentally the states' responsibility. Here we have the government, regardless of the ethics of the issues that arise from it, saying that they're going to set up this defence export industry. In relation to that, the OECD recently has said that we don't have the skills to access the global value chains across the world in either that area or any area. So the TAFE system is absolutely important. The TAFE system is fundamental. The TAFE system is where working-class Australians go to advance their training, go to advance their skills and go to advance their careers, yet this government has reduced funding in the TAFE sector to an extent where the TAFE sector is trying to compete in this flawed competition and contestability sector. We've seen problems across the TAFE sector but still huge problems in the for-profit sector in this area.

The government's response to this was the Skilling Australians Fund. The Skilling Australians Fund says, 'We will fund totally our training system in Australia through a charge on visas in this country.' Again experts, again business, again the BCA and ACCI are saying this is a flawed approach and we need guaranteed funding. So this government under Minister Birmingham and Minister Andrews do not have a clue how to deal with the skill acquisition in this country. And with those few remarks, I would seek to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.