For years, those concerned with vocational education and training have worried about how to lift the public profile of TAFEs. But what has taken many years for some – without much success – the Baillieu government in Victoria has done in a matter of weeks.
The state government’s cuts to TAFE in the May budget has put vocational training front and centre of public attention. All the while demonstrating a surprisingly deep well of public regard for these educational institutions.
There have been literally hundreds of media reports on the funding cuts worth $300 million, in all forms of media – metropolitan, regional and national.
At first, even the Victorian higher education minister Peter Hall was opposed to the cuts and considered resigning in protest. Although he is now vigorously defending them as reforms that make TAFE “better”.
So how has TAFE come to this point in Victoria? And are we likely to see similar “reforms” adopted elsewhere?
Cut to the bone
To give you an idea of what will happen to TAFEs under the cuts, the University of Ballarat TAFE restructure consultation paper revealed that changes would leave the university $20 million in debt by 2013, reduce its total TAFE activity by 30-40% and reduce services throughout the rest of the university.
The changes have also meant that Victoria’s only Australian sign language course will go.
In fairness, these changes haven’t all been down to the Baillieu Coalition government. It inherited “skills reform” from its Labor predecessor, which opened up public funding of vocational educational and training provision to all comers. Since then there has been an explosive growth in Vocational Education and Training (VET) – and with it the call on funding – following the “uncapping” of enrolments.
While training enrolments in skill shortage areas such as carpentry, plumbing, civil construction, aged care and nursing went up 10% over the past couple of years, programs in fitness and sport coaching went up by up to 4000%. This, the government has argued, is why the funding was unsustainable.
Rorting rife
The government also says that the system has been shamelessly rorted with enrolled students being paid to undertake training, multiple enrolments to boost payments for training, abuse of the the Recognition of Prior Learning assessment to obtain the 100% subsidy and the offer of free gifts such as iPads for students to enrol.
Providers have also been granting diplomas on the basis of 60-80 hours work even though the Australian Qualifications Framework requires about 600–800 hours for a diploma.
The government has vowed to crack down on the rorting but there are two details which have been ignored. First is that the explosive growth in fitness training and sports coaching has taken place in the private not public sector.
Second, every single identified instance of out and out rorting and illegality has been by private providers (although Hall has pointed to legal though dubious practices by public TAFEs, as well).

In that context, cutting TAFE funding by $300 million and placing TAFE funding on the same basis as funding to private providers as a response to the evident problems with “skills reform” in Victoria is counter-intuitive.
The Victorian government is essentially compounding a mistake with another mistake.
Other states to follow?
Other states are undertaking their own processes of “skills reform”, as part of national arrangements, which will see market reforms, a greater role for private providers and access to public funding.
They have been closely watching and deconstructing the Victorian process precisely because it provides a great template in how not to reform vocational training.
After all, this open slather has resulted in a budget blow-out, a misallocation of funding to low priority training and millions of dollars of profit from the public purse to private providers, as well as debasing qualifications. Not to mention a public system which is now destabilised with big gaps likely in provision and stranded public assets.
South Australia launches its own more market oriented system on 1 July and shows every sign of having drawn rational conclusions. It will limit places rather than prices to avoid runaway growth in its forthcoming training market, as it strives to avoid the problems that have plagued Victoria.
The Australian reported that Elaine Bensted, chief executive of TAFE South Australia, said she’d been “horrified” by the funding rates provided by the Victorian government and that South Australia’s rates would be far more generous.
The state will also limit the number of providers with access to the funding through an “onerous” application process. Victoria has 536 colleges approved to teach government-funded courses, after the number of private providers snowballed from 200 to 430 in three years.
Bensted has also said South Australia had received 200 applications but had so far approved just six providers, six weeks out from launching its own training market. South Australia also intends to cap publicly funded enrolments in disciplines showing signs of outlandish growth, such as the 20-fold increase in fitness instructor enrolments in Victoria.
The Deputy Director-General of Training and Tertiary Education Queensland Deb Daly has also vowed “not do what the Victorians did”. She said Queensland wants to avoid cost blowouts that necessitated rapid changes, unlike Victoria which has overhauled its skills system three times since last September.
Is there a Plan B?
You would think that, given the furore that’s erupted and rumblings that regional Coalition members are none too happy, the Bailieu government might be working on “plan B”.
Apparently not. The government is standing firm in public and aggressively defending its budget measures. The Victorian opposition too seems to be staying well away.
The game changer may well be the Commonwealth government, which has in its purse some $435 million in funding for Victoria under the VET National Partnership Agreement brokered at the Council of Australian Governments in April, an agreement to which Victoria is a signatory.
Following an “emergency meeting” with TAFE leaders, Commonwealth minister Chris Evans said that the Victorian government had failed to adequately address the Government’s concerns. He posed the question most people are asking:
How do you grow quality training and cut $300 million out of TAFEs?
It seems this question really has no credible answer.
This piece was co-authored by Brendan Sheehan and Leesa Wheelahan
Brendan Sheehan is a Melbourne policy consultant and former Skills Victoria executive. He publishes The Scan every week which reports on developments in tertiary education in Australia http://the-scan.com/.
Leesa Wheelahan is an associate professor at the LH Martin Institute at the University of Melbourne.
David Corbett
Air Emission Analyst
What do people expect when they vote in a Liberal government?
Gavin Moodie
Principal Policy Adviser
As the article stated, the Coalition's change is simply a rational extrapolation of the policy introduced by the Brumby Labor Government.
Western Australia is also planning to introduce vocational student entitlements, and it is also determined to learn from Victoria's mistakes, which have still some way to run and which therefore are likely to result in another sudden policy change within a year.
The crux of the problem is that Australia's vocational education is based on work competences which eschew educational standards and for which there is no reliable means for assuring quality.
Rob Crowther
Architectural Draftsman
I have two Diplomas. One under the competency based system and one before Dawkins can along in 1988 and killed it.
I agree with the competency comment. I now find myself spending time learning things TAFE should have taught me but didn’t because the competency based system had me doing hundreds of hours of busy work assignments.
It’s odd how changing the system to measure quality reduces it.
An extension on that is Professional Development.
Quality is turning up to a session and not paying much attention. Lack of quality is buying a technical book and taking 60 or 70 hours to work through it.
As I write this I note you have a negative mark meaning someone considered your comment unconstructive. Clearly that person has not been to TAFE in the last 8 years.
Rob Crowther
Architectural Draftsman
In addition to my last.
We actually need TAFE to engage with us (us being industry) to help with lifelong learning. Doing mindless competency based training assignments does not help.
They need to get back to upholding some academic standards as well as teaching practical tasks. They also should be there to help out for experienced people as they take niche paths that training courses do not cover.
Norm stone
Project Manager
May god forbid me, Rob, to defend the TAFE system of which I was a part for many years, but I feel compelled to note that "Competency" based education is not in itself at fault but the insistence on form rather than content. The only qualification required of your teachers would have been the Cert.IV in Workplace training and Assessment, which focuses on administrative requirements but does not cover "educating" people. Just remember we "train" animals and we "educate" people. Interesting also to see that you are blaming the system for your lack of attention. Another view might be that you made some bad choices.
Gavin Moodie
Principal Policy Adviser
But that is precisely the problem with competency based training: it reduces education to behavioural attributes, and Australian vocational education's cbt is even worse in being based not on educational competences but on work competences.
Norm stone
Project Manager
I am not denying this for one second, Gavin but I do feel that all parties have responsibilities in a good educational model. Australian VET is a symptom of our leaders' lack of understanding of most things practical and deep disrespect for tradespeople. Surprisingly this is just as true for Labour as for the Tories.
Gavin Moodie
Principal Policy Adviser
Let us not encourage the conflation of vocational education with education for the trades, which is only about a third of vocational education. While cutting its subsidies for most vocational education, the Victorian Government increased its subsidies for most apprenticeship education.
Valuing the theoretical more than the practical is pervasive, being shared by many other cultures, and is deeply entrenched, originating in Plato if not before. So while I agree that the Australian polity should do better, it doesn't value the practical any less than in Canada, the UK and the US.
Norm stone
Project Manager
And this subsidy increase is for the Apprentice, the employers or the trade, now let me see ...
Andrew Auzins
Retired
We desperately need a new word to replace "reform" when governments cut and burn programmes. Perhaps "debase" or "regress" might be more appropriate.
Gavin Moodie
Principal Policy Adviser
I agree. I suggest 'change'.
John Harland
bicycle technician
How many people who have gone through the private schooling and university education understand the needs of those in technical and vocational training?
Brumby and Bailleau were in the same class in the same school. We can suppose that both started out similarly remote from the lives of people less privileged. What is inexcusable in both cases, is that neither seems to have done nearly enough to inform themselves of the lives of so many Victorians on whose behalf they govern or governed.
The same question must be asked, too, of so many of their ministers.
This is not a matter of party politics but a basic question of how we select, and pre-select, politicians.