TAFE SA BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 31 May 2012.)

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (15:24): The Greens rise today to speak on the TAFE SA Bill 2012 and indicate that this will also be inclusive of our position on the Statutes Amendment and Repeal (TAFE SA Consequential Provisions) Bill. We sincerely thank the Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills and his staff for a briefing, in particular the minister's adviser Ms Anna Bradley, Raymond Garrand and Clare Feszczak from DFEEST, TAFE SA. I would also like to acknowledge the work of the Australian Education Union's federal TAFE secretary, Pat Forward, and the AEU SA branch, who have held a strong stand in defending a progressive and dynamic public TAFE system. I would also like to thank Joy De Leo from ACPET for providing a submission to my office on this bill.

The bill before us sets TAFE SA as a separate government-owned statutory authority. The government has assured us that this will give TAFE SA greater commercial autonomy and provide financial independence. What it is not able to assure us of is what the outcome of this move will be for the role of VET in this state. The Greens, both in this state and across the nation, at federal, state and territory level, have pushed for a well funded and resourced, functioning, public TAFE sector.

The Greens support publicly owned and accountable vocational education and training, not a sector which is privatised. We do so because there are principles of the role of vocational education and training that should not be left to chance, to markets or the whims and demands of students. The needs should be driven by government. That is the role of government, to ensure we have a strong VET sector. We do so because education and training is an investment and should not be viewed as a cost. It should also not be viewed as a private profiteering market option.

The bill before us paves the way for corporatising TAFE in South Australia. This move is against the Greens' fundamental position of defending a strong and publicly owned TAFE, with funding prioritised for public VET courses. We argue that private providers play a very important role in delivering courses that TAFE cannot deliver, but we do not support full contestability and competition between TAFE and private VET providers for all courses. That has been disastrous in Victoria, it has downgraded the public TAFE system there and we think it is a step too far to take in any other jurisdiction.

Our principle is that vocational education and training should be primarily provided through the public TAFE system, while the community and not-for-profit VET sector should also be supported. Government must ensure that public funding of private providers of VET and businesses that supply training opportunities does not diminish the viability of public TAFE services, expertise or facilities, and if this cannot be guaranteed then the risk is too great. We ask: where TAFE can provide the same educational and training outcomes as private providers, what role is there for private sectors in those operations?

It is almost like being the child in the emperor's new clothes to ask such a simple question, but the reason we do so is because our vision for a TAFE sector where education is an investment not a cost is borne out by the economic benefits that could come to the South Australian economy from maintaining this position. We point to the 2006 Allen Consulting Group report in New South Wales, which has found that for every dollar invested in the New South Wales TAFE system $6.40 is generated to that state in long-term economic benefits. Those benefits include: improved productivity, higher wages and, of course, greater employment.

We recognise that public TAFE also particularly benefits regional economies and disadvantaged communities. Those least able to access the opportunities of our societies need to be given that government support and we are strong defenders of that. TAFE provides skills to build local economies and create opportunities for people who would otherwise be shut out of our society or confined to very low paying jobs. TAFE can create the workforce flexibility to adapt to changing economic circumstances by uniquely combining education with vocational training. This can create an engaged and innovative workforce, capable of taking on the new skills that we need in our ever-changing economy and structures of society.

At no point have we seen such a constant as change being the only thing we can expect in our futures. We see it with technology and we see it with the rapid globalisation of our planet. On 13 April at the relevant COAG meeting, the South Australian government signed up for the reforms that are attached to the national partnerships and these reforms include the expansion of income contingent loans and a national entitlement to training, which can be used at either public or private providers in the sector. The National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development received $7 billion in funding nationally from the federal government over five years, with federal funding for TAFE and VET; in South Australia that component being $516.7 million over that next five years.

The National Partnership Agreement for Skills Reform will be $1.7 billion over five years and South Australia's share is looking at being $127 million over that same time. It is a reward in introducing the Skills for All that we are going to get from the commonwealth. Some of the criteria, of course, are the income contingent loans and the national entitlements, which is a form of voucher system which the students will be able to access which detaches the funding from TAFE and is in fact attached more to the student to be able to use that voucher. It is applicable to either public or private providers and this is the basis of Skills for All and why the Greens cannot support this bill.

The total federal government funding for SA over these next five years from these national agreements is $643.7 million, so we are roughly 7 per cent of the national VET system, with total revenue in 2010 according to the most recent figures I had access to being about $430.6 million annually. So, I ask at this point that given the federal share of SA VET funding is about 29 per cent of total revenue and 38 per cent of total government revenue, can the minister clarify whether the commonwealth can offer this entitlement only and solely to TAFE? I understand that is the case.

Before we proceed further with this bill, a very pressing issue is the National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development's requirement to implement a national training entitlement up to certificate III or an implementation plan. I am aware that the union at the very least, the AEU, has written to the premiers of each state, and I have seen a copy of the letter to Premier Weatherill, calling for the release of the implementation plan. So, at this point, I echo that call and note that if we are to proceed with this bill we need to see the fine detail and we need to have that implementation plan tabled in this council.

In addition to that requirement, states were required to put in place a number of measurements to protect TAFE institutes including specifically measures which recognise their role in industry in regional and local communities, high level training and workforce development and improved skill and job outcomes for disadvantaged learners. Of course, my questions to the government are: can they outline how they intend to achieve these goals? How will they ensure that there are concrete measures to support and guarantee the long-term survival of TAFE in South Australia with the passage of this bill?

I have some amendments to this bill which I will get to in committee. They are largely to do with the governance and also defining the unique role of TAFE as a public institution of great importance in vocational education and training to our state. I will discuss those as we move into committee. With that, I indicate that the Greens are happy to have this debate. We will vote to move into the second reading stage, but certainly at this stage we are not assured that the risk is not so great that we will be convinced that it is worth supporting this bill in the third reading.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.