Advance Australia Fair - Building Sustainability, Justice and Peace
Workshop - Delusions and destruction in Howard's education program
Saturday 30th July 2005

Back to workshop program

Pat Forward

TAFE Secretary, Australian Education Union

Howard threatens vocational education and training

In 2004, more than 1.7 million Australians participated in the national training system. More than 1.3 million of these students were enrolled in TAFE institutions across the country. It is a robust and dynamic system, the product of a cooperative settlement between the states and territories and the Federal Government which saw the establishment of the Australian National Training Authority in 1993. This historic settlement saw state and territory and the Federal governments reach agreement around a series of issues which enabled the system to almost double in ten years, and enact a range of reforms which saw the establishment of national portable industry recognised qualifications, and the respective levels of government commit to growing the system in response to the needs of industry and Australian society.

In the lead up to the federal election in late 2004, it became clear that the Howard Liberal Party intended to stamp its mark on the system by exerting greater direct control over many aspects of its operation, despite the fact that it contributed less than 30% of recurrent funds. It became apparent that the Howard government was intent on threatening the evolution of the system by using its funding to lever an ideological agenda which had little to do with the functions of the system itself. Again, these moves were not surprising, because the Howard government had been imposing increasing levels of User Choice on the states, encourage a greater proportion of government monies to be tendered out to private providers, and effectively reducing the commonwealth’s overall contribution to the system. In the last few years, the private market in vocational education and training has reached more than 20%, despite concerns in many states about the impact of this relentless competition on the system, and on students. The states and territories have been unable to reach agreements over funding since 2002, and the frustration on all sides was palpable.

Midway through 2004, skills shortages in key industries had reached levels which were causing alarm. The Federal Government used the general alarm about skills shortages to fuel uncertainty in the system in the lead up to the election, announcing a series of ill conceived initiatives like the establishment of Australian Technical Colleges in an attempt to further undermine the system. Skills shortages had been emerging in some areas for many years, particularly in the traditional trades where a range of factors including the privatisation of state public utilities (a source of significant apprenticeship training in the past), casualisation of the workforce and a lack of investment in apprenticeship training. Many key unions had been warning of impending skills shortages for years.

The Howard government announced the abolition of the Australian National Training Authority immediately following the election, proposing that the Department of Education, Science and Training would takeover the functions of the authority, and signalling the end of the period of collaborative and cooperative relations between the commonwealth, state and territory governments, and other stakeholders including industry and the trade union movement.

On May 11, 2005, following the failure of the states and the Federal Government to reach agreement on VET funding at the MINCO meeting held in Sydney on April 15 the Federal Government tabled its Skilling Australia’s Workforce Bill 2005.The contents of the Bill were not a surprise. Most of the issues covered by the Bill had been foreshadowed in proposals from the Federal government around the re-organisation of the system following the abolition of ANTA. The Bill is a blatant attempt by the Federal Government to extend the reach of its power and influence over education and training beyond what would be considered reasonable given the relatively modest contribution they make to funding. More significantly, many of these issues lie outside of the realm of the training system.

There are four critical issues contained in the Bill and in the discussion between the state and territory and Federal governments which will affect the future of the VET system in Australia. These are:

Funding – The funding offer is inadequate. It contains no growth funds whatsoever, and the states will be required to match components of funding. In return, the Federal Government is proposing an unprecedented level of control and influence over the states proportion of vocational education and training funds.

AWAs and performance pay – The Federal Government’s legislation ties the funding to a requirement that the states offer AWAs and performance pay. In addition, the Bill proposes a range of conditions which would allow TAFE CEOs in each state a much greater degree of control over the employment conditions of TAFE teachers, and ultimately, a much greater degree of control over their own budgets. The Federal Government has shown the extent of the control they wish to exert over the employment conditions of university workers, and this legislation has the same intent.

The extension of User Choice - The Federal Government is requiring a much broader application of User Choice, including the setting of targets for increasing the proportion of apprenticeships and traineeships eligible for User Choice funding by 5% each year.

Removal of requirements for time-based training in state awards, and any impediments to this in national licensing arrangements.

There are also aspects of the Federal Government’s proposals in relation to its takeover of the training system which are of considerable concern:

The independence of the DEST Secretariat which will service the VE MINCO, the National Industry Skills Committee, the National Senior Officials Committee and the National Quality Council.

The composition of the National Industry Skills Committee and the National Quality Council, and the Federal Government’s exclusive power of appointment.

The Guiding Principles which underpin the agreement. The Federal Government is proposing a much narrower set of principles than even the ANTA principles. The system requires a much broader and inclusive set of principles as its basis, for the current set of proposals threaten to narrow the basis of vocational education and training.

The evolution of the Australian training system over almost ten years has seen it become one of the most well regarded systems in the world. This evolution has been shaped by the cooperative arrangements between the states and the commonwealth, and through the close involvement of all key stakeholders in the system including the industry parties. The systems enduring strength has been the goodwill and commitment of key stakeholders.

The Federal Government’s proposed legislation is jeopardising the system putting at risk the future of more than one and a half million Australians who currently access vocational education and training.

In some respects, the debate around skills shortages is a good example of the lack of serious engagement with issues displayed by the Federal Government. The system, and in particular the TAFE system has been blamed for skills shortages at a time when most serious commentators acknowledge that the causes are multifaceted and complex. There is huge irony in this, when many trade teachers in TAFE have been warning that a lack of commitment from industry and from the government would inevitably lead to shortages.

But even so, under-funding of the public TAFE system has not caused widespread skills shortages in the Australian economy. What it has done is whittled away at the base of the system’s capacity to respond rapidly. It has undermined the facilities and the system’s stock of so-called “human resources” - teachers. And while under-funding has not caused the shortages, a rapid and relatively modest restoration of growth funds would pay dividends which would allow TAFE to gear up and respond swiftly and aptly to the current “crisis”.

More significantly, initiatives like Australian Technical Colleges will not solve skills shortages, even in the areas that have been targeted by the government. They are resource intensive, ideological responses by a federal government intent on making incursions into what it perceives to be the state government’s “stranglehold” on secondary education. Over the four years that the government has committed almost $290 million for the experiment, they will not produce even one skilled tradesperson. It takes on average about six years to train for some of the traditional apprenticeships, when that training is done either part time or school based. In a single year, the cost of education for a single student at an ATC would be almost 10 times the cost of training at TAFE.

Australian Workplace Agreements and performance pay for teachers will not solve skills shortages. The TAFE system in Australia currently “boasts” one of the poorest records in terms of employment conditions of any sector of education. In one state, more than 70% of teachers are employed casually; in many others the figure exceeds 50%. TAFE employers in the relevant jurisdictions claim under-funding as the major cause of the blow–out in casual employment. For individuals, many of whom have worked in the same job, teaching the same course with exemplary results for more than 10 years, the causes matter little. The reality is that it costs less than half as much to employ a casual as it does to employ a permanent teacher. Those costs are diminished when one considers that there is no investment in professional development for these teachers. But the real point is, TAFE does not need AWA’s to achieve so-called “flexibility” in the system. It currently employs in excess of 50% of its workforce in non-permanent positions, often with no contracts of employment at all, and at half the cost of permanent teachers, with the capacity to hire and fire at a whim, and with no investment whatsoever in professional or skills development. And AWA’s will not solve skills shortages.

Expansion of User Choice and third party access to TAFE Institutes will not solve skills shortages. Skills shortages in the traditional trades have emerged during a period where User Choice has been enforced in several ANTA Agreements by the current Howard government. In many instances, TAFE facilities are already accessed by a range of outside groups, including other providers. More User Choice, more marketisation of the sector, more third party access will not solve skills shortages because they are not intended to so do. They are intended as a frontal attack on public education in the vocational training sector because this is the real and despised target of the Howard government.

If the situation was not so serious, it would be laughable. Third party access to TAFE facilities, the expansion of User Choice, AWA’s and performance pay for TAFE teachers – all these and more are the conditions required by the federal government in return for no increased funding for VET – and for even more ideological control of the national training system. And lurking in the background, in the event that “recalcitrant” state ministers refuse to sign up to this wonderful deal for their system is the spectre of even greater control from the barons of big business. For if the states are denied the federal government’s contribution to building the national education and training system, ACCI, BCA, AiG and the NFF have been given the box seat through the Institute for Trade Skills Excellence to distribute the funds for it.

We are in danger in the present highly charged environment of romanticising the past and going back to the future. The present impasse over skills is a complex phenomenon which will not be resolved by simplistic or doctrinaire responses.

The logic in the public vocational education system in response to increased pressure to perform with much less money has been to attempt to remain as competitive as many private providers. This has resulted in a bias away from high cost, resource intensive areas of delivery like those in the traditional trades, as TAFE Institutes have been forced to remain viable and financially competitive. Private providers have cherry picked more lucrative areas of training, and are largely not responsible for training in those areas that require both significant investment in plant and machinery and teacher resources. In some trade areas across the country, teachers speak bleakly of the state of their facilities, the aging and lack of replacement of the workforce, the challenges of keeping young and talented new trade teachers when they can only be employed casually or on short term contracts, and the impending death of areas of training which are so vital to the future of the Australian economy.

At the same time, and in stark contrast, where investment in time has been encouraged, and where funding has been provided, TAFE institutes have developed robust partnerships with industry and other providers to respond innovatively to areas of shortage. They have developed new solutions, not returned to old ones, and they have engaged the passion and commitment of both industry and their students.

It is tempting to say in all this that the solutions are simple. They are not. But the achievements, through periods of adversity in the public TAFE system of the last decade are immense. There has been a revolution, and while we can debate forever who was responsible for the revolution, the reality is that TAFE has been at the forefront of change and has led the way into the next millennium. And it has done so in spite of, rather than because of respective state and federal governments. More than 80% of TAFE is outside of the area of apprenticeships and traineeships. TAFE provides a wide and diverse range of vocational and educational opportunities for all Australians, and embodies the notion of lifelong learning.

The state and territory governments should not accept the attempts by the Federal Government to force ideological change on Australian society. They should reject the imposition of Australian Workplace Agreements on TAFE teachers, and insist on maintain the overwhelmingly productive arrangements they currently have with the AEU in their own jurisdictions. The Federal government is insisting on a much greater level of power and influence over the system than their share of funding could justify. They are willing to jeopardise the future of the system in order to force changes to Australian society which have little to do with vocational education and training.

Howard threatens vocational education and training

In 2004, more than 1.7 million Australians participated in the national training system. More than 1.3 million of these students were enrolled in TAFE institutions across the country. It is a robust and dynamic system, the product of a cooperative settlement between the states and territories and the Federal Government which saw the establishment of the Australian National Training Authority in 1993. This historic settlement saw state and territory and the Federal governments reach agreement around a series of issues which enabled the system to almost double in ten years, and enact a range of reforms which saw the establishment of national portable industry recognised qualifications, and the respective levels of government commit to growing the system in response to the needs of industry and Australian society.

In the lead up to the federal election in late 2004, it became clear that the Howard Liberal Party intended to stamp its mark on the system by exerting greater direct control over many aspects of its operation, despite the fact that it contributed less than 30% of recurrent funds. It became apparent that the Howard government was intent on threatening the evolution of the system by using its funding to lever an ideological agenda which had little to do with the functions of the system itself. Again, these moves were not surprising, because the Howard government had been imposing increasing levels of User Choice on the states, encourage a greater proportion of government monies to be tendered out to private providers, and effectively reducing the commonwealth’s overall contribution to the system. In the last few years, the private market in vocational education and training has reached more than 20%, despite concerns in many states about the impact of this relentless competition on the system, and on students. The states and territories have been unable to reach agreements over funding since 2002, and the frustration on all sides was palpable.

Midway through 2004, skills shortages in key industries had reached levels which were causing alarm. The Federal Government used the general alarm about skills shortages to fuel uncertainty in the system in the lead up to the election, announcing a series of ill conceived initiatives like the establishment of Australian Technical Colleges in an attempt to further undermine the system. Skills shortages had been emerging in some areas for many years, particularly in the traditional trades where a range of factors including the privatisation of state public utilities (a source of significant apprenticeship training in the past), casualisation of the workforce and a lack of investment in apprenticeship training. Many key unions had been warning of impending skills shortages for years.

The Howard government announced the abolition of the Australian National Training Authority immediately following the election, proposing that the Department of Education, Science and Training would takeover the functions of the authority, and signalling the end of the period of collaborative and cooperative relations between the commonwealth, state and territory governments, and other stakeholders including industry and the trade union movement.

On May 11, 2005, following the failure of the states and the Federal Government to reach agreement on VET funding at the MINCO meeting held in Sydney on April 15 the Federal Government tabled its Skilling Australia’s Workforce Bill 2005.The contents of the Bill were not a surprise. Most of the issues covered by the Bill had been foreshadowed in proposals from the Federal government around the re-organisation of the system following the abolition of ANTA. The Bill is a blatant attempt by the Federal Government to extend the reach of its power and influence over education and training beyond what would be considered reasonable given the relatively modest contribution they make to funding. More significantly, many of these issues lie outside of the realm of the training system.

There are four critical issues contained in the Bill and in the discussion between the state and territory and Federal governments which will affect the future of the VET system in Australia. These are:

Funding – The funding offer is inadequate. It contains no growth funds whatsoever, and the states will be required to match components of funding. In return, the Federal Government is proposing an unprecedented level of control and influence over the states proportion of vocational education and training funds.

AWAs and performance pay – The Federal Government’s legislation ties the funding to a requirement that the states offer AWAs and performance pay. In addition, the Bill proposes a range of conditions which would allow TAFE CEOs in each state a much greater degree of control over the employment conditions of TAFE teachers, and ultimately, a much greater degree of control over their own budgets. The Federal Government has shown the extent of the control they wish to exert over the employment conditions of university workers, and this legislation has the same intent.

The extension of User Choice - The Federal Government is requiring a much broader application of User Choice, including the setting of targets for increasing the proportion of apprenticeships and traineeships eligible for User Choice funding by 5% each year.

Removal of requirements for time-based training in state awards, and any impediments to this in national licensing arrangements.

There are also aspects of the Federal Government’s proposals in relation to its takeover of the training system which are of considerable concern:

The independence of the DEST Secretariat which will service the VE MINCO, the National Industry Skills Committee, the National Senior Officials Committee and the National Quality Council.

The composition of the National Industry Skills Committee and the National Quality Council, and the Federal Government’s exclusive power of appointment.

The Guiding Principles which underpin the agreement. The Federal Government is proposing a much narrower set of principles than even the ANTA principles. The system requires a much broader and inclusive set of principles as its basis, for the current set of proposals threaten to narrow the basis of vocational education and training.

The evolution of the Australian training system over almost ten years has seen it become one of the most well regarded systems in the world. This evolution has been shaped by the cooperative arrangements between the states and the commonwealth, and through the close involvement of all key stakeholders in the system including the industry parties. The systems enduring strength has been the goodwill and commitment of key stakeholders.

The Federal Government’s proposed legislation is jeopardising the system putting at risk the future of more than one and a half million Australians who currently access vocational education and training.

In some respects, the debate around skills shortages is a good example of the lack of serious engagement with issues displayed by the Federal Government. The system, and in particular the TAFE system has been blamed for skills shortages at a time when most serious commentators acknowledge that the causes are multifaceted and complex. There is huge irony in this, when many trade teachers in TAFE have been warning that a lack of commitment from industry and from the government would inevitably lead to shortages.

But even so, under-funding of the public TAFE system has not caused widespread skills shortages in the Australian economy. What it has done is whittled away at the base of the system’s capacity to respond rapidly. It has undermined the facilities and the system’s stock of so-called “human resources” - teachers. And while under-funding has not caused the shortages, a rapid and relatively modest restoration of growth funds would pay dividends which would allow TAFE to gear up and respond swiftly and aptly to the current “crisis”.

More significantly, initiatives like Australian Technical Colleges will not solve skills shortages, even in the areas that have been targeted by the government. They are resource intensive, ideological responses by a federal government intent on making incursions into what it perceives to be the state government’s “stranglehold” on secondary education. Over the four years that the government has committed almost $290 million for the experiment, they will not produce even one skilled tradesperson. It takes on average about six years to train for some of the traditional apprenticeships, when that training is done either part time or school based. In a single year, the cost of education for a single student at an ATC would be almost 10 times the cost of training at TAFE.

Australian Workplace Agreements and performance pay for teachers will not solve skills shortages. The TAFE system in Australia currently “boasts” one of the poorest records in terms of employment conditions of any sector of education. In one state, more than 70% of teachers are employed casually; in many others the figure exceeds 50%. TAFE employers in the relevant jurisdictions claim under-funding as the major cause of the blow–out in casual employment. For individuals, many of whom have worked in the same job, teaching the same course with exemplary results for more than 10 years, the causes matter little. The reality is that it costs less than half as much to employ a casual as it does to employ a permanent teacher. Those costs are diminished when one considers that there is no investment in professional development for these teachers. But the real point is, TAFE does not need AWA’s to achieve so-called “flexibility” in the system. It currently employs in excess of 50% of its workforce in non-permanent positions, often with no contracts of employment at all, and at half the cost of permanent teachers, with the capacity to hire and fire at a whim, and with no investment whatsoever in professional or skills development. And AWA’s will not solve skills shortages.

Expansion of User Choice and third party access to TAFE Institutes will not solve skills shortages. Skills shortages in the traditional trades have emerged during a period where User Choice has been enforced in several ANTA Agreements by the current Howard government. In many instances, TAFE facilities are already accessed by a range of outside groups, including other providers. More User Choice, more marketisation of the sector, more third party access will not solve skills shortages because they are not intended to so do. They are intended as a frontal attack on public education in the vocational training sector because this is the real and despised target of the Howard government.

If the situation was not so serious, it would be laughable. Third party access to TAFE facilities, the expansion of User Choice, AWA’s and performance pay for TAFE teachers – all these and more are the conditions required by the federal government in return for no increased funding for VET – and for even more ideological control of the national training system. And lurking in the background, in the event that “recalcitrant” state ministers refuse to sign up to this wonderful deal for their system is the spectre of even greater control from the barons of big business. For if the states are denied the federal government’s contribution to building the national education and training system, ACCI, BCA, AiG and the NFF have been given the box seat through the Institute for Trade Skills Excellence to distribute the funds for it.

We are in danger in the present highly charged environment of romanticising the past and going back to the future. The present impasse over skills is a complex phenomenon which will not be resolved by simplistic or doctrinaire responses.

The logic in the public vocational education system in response to increased pressure to perform with much less money has been to attempt to remain as competitive as many private providers. This has resulted in a bias away from high cost, resource intensive areas of delivery like those in the traditional trades, as TAFE Institutes have been forced to remain viable and financially competitive. Private providers have cherry picked more lucrative areas of training, and are largely not responsible for training in those areas that require both significant investment in plant and machinery and teacher resources. In some trade areas across the country, teachers speak bleakly of the state of their facilities, the aging and lack of replacement of the workforce, the challenges of keeping young and talented new trade teachers when they can only be employed casually or on short term contracts, and the impending death of areas of training which are so vital to the future of the Australian economy.

At the same time, and in stark contrast, where investment in time has been encouraged, and where funding has been provided, TAFE institutes have developed robust partnerships with industry and other providers to respond innovatively to areas of shortage. They have developed new solutions, not returned to old ones, and they have engaged the passion and commitment of both industry and their students.

It is tempting to say in all this that the solutions are simple. They are not. But the achievements, through periods of adversity in the public TAFE system of the last decade are immense. There has been a revolution, and while we can debate forever who was responsible for the revolution, the reality is that TAFE has been at the forefront of change and has led the way into the next millennium. And it has done so in spite of, rather than because of respective state and federal governments. More than 80% of TAFE is outside of the area of apprenticeships and traineeships. TAFE provides a wide and diverse range of vocational and educational opportunities for all Australians, and embodies the notion of lifelong learning.

The state and territory governments should not accept the attempts by the Federal Government to force ideological change on Australian society. They should reject the imposition of Australian Workplace Agreements on TAFE teachers, and insist on maintaining the overwhelmingly productive arrangements they currently have with the AEU in their own jurisdictions. The Federal government is insisting on a much greater level of power and influence over the system than their share of funding could justify. They are willing to jeopardise the future of the system in order to force changes to Australian society which have little to do with vocational education and training.

Australian Education Union - Website

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to workshop program