VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) BILL 2011

[5.24 p.m.]
Mr FERGUSON (Bass) – Mr Deputy Speaker, I will be leading the debate on this bill on behalf of the Opposition and I thank the minister for his second reading speech. I also want to take this opportunity to thank the minister and his office and department for the briefing which they provided to me and our office some three weeks ago.

In addressing the Vocational Education and Training (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2011 the Opposition has a number of a specific concerns, objections and areas of agreement. My comments today will encompass the vision of the Tasmanian Liberals for the future of VET in Tasmania as well as our specific standpoint in relation to this bill which is specifically the result of decisions made by COAG in December 2009 without reference to this House.

In addressing this bill yesterday the minister made a number of closing comments that the Opposition and I entirely support. These were that it is vitally important that Tasmania has a high quality vocational education and training system, that increasingly our economy and business enterprises rely on more highly-skilled workers and that Tasmania cannot afford to be left behind and that we must ensure that skill development through our vocational education and training system delivers the high level of skills we require.

While I have no doubt that the minister will not enjoy or agree with much of what I am about to say, he ought to understand and acknowledge that the Liberal Opposition stands ready to work with the Government and to endorse policies and funding decisions which deliver on these worthwhile goals.

That is a genuine statement of motivation because we are tired of Tasmania having poor education and training statistics in comparison with the rest of Australia, despite having some of most highly skilled and committed teachers, adult trainers and training organisations, and of course we have learners who want to learn and achieve their potential in life.

First, to address our vision for VET in Tasmania. I know that I do not have to point out that there is a long history together with a lot of media and political comment attached to this question. Prior to 2009, TAFE Tasmania was the recognised State training provider, providing skills training and other VET programs to all sections of the Tasmanian learning community. This included many but not all senior secondary students, apprentices and trainees. It also provided for adult learners, whether they were unemployed or simply looking for training to a new employment pathway. TAFEs around Australia have traditionally had mixed reputations in terms of quality delivery and cost effectiveness. The history of the evolution of TAFEs in recent decades has been shaped by the interaction of the States and Commonwealth, which funds some 30 per cent of VET, as well as the increasing interaction of the State-based TAFEs and non-government registered training organisations.

I well remember, as a member of the Howard Government with a specific interest in education and skills, that Government’s view of TAFE Tasmania was that it was superior to its interstate peers. All of this has to be seen in the context of a strong move, led by successive Federal governments to see an increase in competition, flexible training models, improved workplace productivity and user choice. The current reform agenda of the Commonwealth, it has to be said, is a continuation on that theme and currently includes moves toward opening up State-based training providers to additional competition in 2013 as well as much closer alignment to Labor market demand for training. Specifically, this means that the move is on to maximise taxpayer-funded training outcomes towards skill shortage areas and projected industry requirements for training.

To be frank, there is now no safe place for bloated or underperforming State-based training providers to hide anywhere in Australia and neither should there be. It is with this in mind that I am very concerned about the current arrangements in place which are a consequence of the former majority Labor Government’s decision to split TAFE and the current Labor-Greens Government’s reluctance to deal with the increasingly urgent viability question surrounding the Tasmanian Polytechnic and the Tasmanian Skills Institute.

The so-called Tasmania Tomorrow post-year 10 reforms resulted in Labor deconstructing TAFE and creating two separate vocational education and training entities. As it currently stands, the Skills Institute provides training for employees including trainees and apprentices, while the Tasmanian Polytechnic caters for college-aged learners and adult learners looking to start prevocational and Certificate 1 to Certificate 3 courses. Although there have been signs of promise, especially at the Skills Institute which has been forced by its creation and legislation to adopt a labour market-driven model, there is no assurance at all that across this split system there are improved educational outcomes for individuals or improved productivity for employers, representing good value for the Tasmanian taxpayer across the system. In fact, these reforms contradicted the national trend of dual sector institutions that provide education and training in a one-stop-shop, from pre-employment training to post graduate studies and research.

The minimal changes that Labor and the Greens negotiated last year after their alliance dealt only with senior secondary colleges but locked in the split and siloed VET system. Having blamed the Labor Party for creating this mess, I must at least acknowledge that the Labor Party went to the 2010 election with a policy to hang onto this system. Contrast that, however, with the Greens, and the document entitled ‘The State of Learning’. The then Leader of the Greens, Nick McKim, who was the spokesman for education and prior to becoming a minister under cabinet discipline, promised the restoration of TAFE as well as the restoration of the TAFE Tasmania brand. On page 2 of that document the Greens’ policy reads:

‘Labor’s enforced Tasmania Tomorrow reforms to post year 10 education have been disastrous for our students, teachers and school communities, dismantling world-class educative institutions, damaging the world acclaim for the TAFE Tasmania brand name, entrenching social inequity, especially amongst Polytechnic students’.

On the same page the document continues:

‘The Tasmanian Greens will restore the integrity of colleges and TAFE, restore the TAFE Tasmania brand’.

For more detail into this policy we go to page 4:

‘The Tasmanian Greens will restore the highly acclaimed TAFE Tasmania identity and brand. The re-establishment of the TAFE brand name is a crucial factor in the Greens’ plan. This organisation has won many national and international awards including the National Training Provider of the Year and yet under Labor’s Tasmania Tomorrow regime this strong brand and name recognition has been undermined and lost. The team leader structure on individual campuses will be re-established for TAFE’.

Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, that was the old Greens, the party that Greens voters voted for, but the new Greens have utterly capitulated on these past commitments. History, together with Hansard, contains a clear record of how the Greens allowed themselves to be captured by their Labor partners in exchange for this significant policy backdown. Suffice to say, the fact that the Greens and the Liberals between them hold 15 out of 25 seats of this House has not been enough to result in this area of policy agreement being delivered for the Tasmanian people. The Greens’ broken policy promise to restore TAFE has cost our State dearly. In the six months to December 2010 the Polytechnic alone racked up a deficit of $14 million while the Tasmania Tomorrow reforms overall resulted in $70 million in unexpected costs, according to the Government’s own Preliminary Outcomes document.

The Liberals believe that Tasmania can only afford and should only have one government-owned training provider; the size of our State largely dictates this. Duplication of vocational education and training, including top-heavy management structures, two sets of courses to manage and replication of registration requirements is a luxury we cannot afford, especially in the current budget climate. Removing duplication and streamlining the VET system in Tasmania would free up financial resources, which would make our State training provider more efficient and would reduce reliance of the sector on other areas of the department.

The Liberals believe that students and quality service delivery must be at the centre of all decisions relating to the Tasmanian education and skills portfolio. A Hodgman Liberal government would end the duplication and replace the two existing entities with a single entity – a modern-day, rebuilt TAFE, not the old TAFE Tasmania but one which is able to succeed in the emerging VET policy environment, deliver value for Tasmanian taxpayers and give the Tasmanian economy skilled, job-ready workers.

Furthermore, we would work with industry, the Commonwealth, Skills Tasmania and the University of Tasmania to ensure that a training funding model is refined to ensure that priority is given to allocating precious taxpayers’ funds to courses which will lead to employment, the commencement of a small business or clear articulation to a university qualification pathway. These moves would finally spell the end of the Tasmania Tomorrow mess that has resulted in the split system that is inefficient, top-heavy and with much duplication leading to widespread industry and community confusion. These measures will greatly improve the efficiency and financial viability of the resultant training entity. It would also remove the rivalry that does exist and end the community confusion about what training entity provides what course and to whom. We would do this with particular regard for the social inclusion goals that the Polytechnic is striving to achieve and, in many respects, is achieving very well.

Madam Deputy Speaker, we need to take these measures so that Tasmania and Tasmanians are better prepared for an ever-increasing global economy that demands qualified, skilled workers. This would build on the work that our K-12 schools and colleges currently do in preparing our children for an increasingly complex and competitive world. Notwithstanding these negative but accurate descriptions of the behaviour of the Greens’ Leader and minister, I express an interest in the review that the minister has recently been talking about in relation to the future of the Polytechnic and the Skills Institute. I say that cautiously given that there is no announced time line, there is no description of who will lead such a review and yet no description of what specific issues or terms of reference the review will even have.

Mr McKim – We’ll be announcing many of those things very shortly.

Mr FERGUSON – Good, that is encouraging. Apparently the minister will announce those terms of reference and details of the review very shortly.  I would just point out, though, of course, that the minister is asking the Tasmanian community to take him at his word in this, even though in 2010 he did have the opportunity to work with the Liberals to deliver this area of policy agreement that both our parties went to the election with. Let us see what comes of this review and to what extent its findings actually converge with what the Greens promised they would do in government.

Turning my comments to the bill before us today, the bill provides for Commonwealth legislation to be adopted so that a new vocational education and training regulatory body – ASQA – can operate in Tasmania. The new body will take over VET functions, regulatory functions and powers of the TQA – Tasmanian Qualifications Authority – which would continue in a substantially diminished form, managing senior secondary qualifications.

The bill also provides for the Commonwealth Parliament to amend the Commonwealth law. The Government says that this is within a strictly limited scope.

Section 51(xxxvii) of the Commonwealth Constitution provides that the Commonwealth Parliament has the power to make laws for:

‘Matters referred to the Parliament of the Commonwealth by the Parliament or Parliaments of any State or States, but so that the law shall extend only to States by whose Parliaments the matter is referred, or which afterwards adopt the law.’

The effect of this bill, once proclaimed as an act, will be to transfer State VET regulatory powers to the Commonwealth. The purpose and the making of consequential amendments will be achieved by amending the Vocational Education and Training Act 1994 and the Tasmanian Qualifications Authority Act 2003 and the making of amendments to other State legislation.

Regulation of VET providers and courses is currently contained in the VET act. These provisions are going to be repealed. The TQA currently undertakes VET regulation functions as provided in the VET act through a reference contained in the TQA act. This reference is proposed to be withdrawn and TQA would continue with fewer responsibilities.

By way of background, in 2005 the Howard Government led a process which resulted in a set of model clauses being developed and implemented across Australian States and Territories. Tasmania was a party to that agreement. This led to the current arrangements which ensure that, firstly, any RTO registered in one jurisdiction can deliver training in another jurisdiction and, secondly, qualifications are nationally recognised whereby the assessments and qualifications of any one RTO must be recognised by all others. This allows portability of qualifications and units of competency. I, for one, have never heard any member of this House or this Parliament state these two outcomes were not being achieved in reality. I listened very carefully to the minister’s second reading speech yesterday and noted that he seemed to be for the first time saying that we have a problem in Tasmania with the quality of RTOs delivering quality training outcomes in such a way as can be recognised between States. In fact this is what the minister said yesterday in his speech:

‘Unfortunately this regulatory scheme has led to inconsistent regulation across the nation, which in turn has resulted in the emergence of some providers that are more focused on the bottom line than providing quality training and assessment. We cannot afford to allow poor quality providers registered in another jurisdiction to operate in Tasmania and undermine the quality and integrity of our training system.  This is not an experience that is limited to Tasmania, with evidence of quality issues in all States and Territories.’

I note that the minister is claiming we have quality problems in Tasmania. The minister can correct me if he believes I am wrong in saying that he has never said this before bringing this bill into the Parliament, but if the minister and this Government truly believe that this is a matter of grave concern as would require a total referral of powers to the Commonwealth, then we in the Opposition are entitled and should be expected to ask why the Government has not addressed this matter in a practical and transparent way using its own statutory authority, the TQA, and the national training system mechanisms which already exist, including direct appeal to the Commonwealth to flex its funding muscle.

On 7 December 2009 the Council of Australian Governments agreed to establish a new approach to national regulation for the VET system. Tasmania was a party to this decision. This has culminated in the recent establishment of the national VET regulator, ASQA, to register and audit training organisations and accredit courses and to exercise related functions. The new authority has already been established as a statutory authority under Commonwealth law and started in July this year.

The bill before us today provides for Tasmania to, in effect, refer State powers to the Commonwealth Parliament to allow the new regime to operate here in Tasmania by adopting the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2010 of the Commonwealth and the transitional provisions act of the Commonwealth, and making consequential amendments to other State acts and regulations.

The Commonwealth does not have constitutional powers in these areas in order to achieve the objectives of the COAG agreement. Referral of relevant State powers seems to be required or, alternatively, some arrangement of complementary or mirror legislation. New South Wales passed legislation providing for the necessary initial text-based referral of powers, and apparently Tasmania and other referring States now need to pass legislation which adopts the Commonwealth law if the new regime is to operate within their borders. However, to override States that are not cooperating – and I single out Victoria and Western Australia – the Commonwealth has now made explicit in its act that it is exercising its constitutional powers in respect of corporations – section 51(xx); aliens – section 51(ix); and interstate trade – section 51(i). This means that, although Victoria and Western Australia offered to introduce their own mirror legislation, the overriding provisions now mean that those States will, against their will and State sovereignty, be forced to go to a split system, with their State-based regulators responsible only for a smaller number of RTOs but, can you believe it, not even their own RTO – their TAFE institutes.

The Victorian Government submitted to the Senate inquiry that the new laws appear to override even the management and administration of Victorian Government TAFE institutes by the State Government. Further, in its submission it said:

‘Victoria does not accept that a convincing case has been made that it is impossible to establish an effective national system of State-based regulation with mutual recognition between jurisdictions of each other’s regulatory decisions. This is particularly the case given a Victorian commitment to enact mirror legislation and to create an MOU between regulators to ensure consistent application of national standards. Rather, in Victoria’s view, most of the difficulties that have occurred have arisen from national standards that have been vaguely expressed and lack the degree of certainty and clarity needed for effective regulation and enforcement.’

The Opposition has collated its thoughts around a number of issues. The first is national consistency. We strongly support Tasmanian VET strictly adhering to the principles of consistency, quality training outcomes and even sanctions for poor-performing RTOs. The corollary of this is that we also vigorously support the same strict enforcement of interstate RTOs to ensure that Tasmanians are not on the receiving end of certificated but not genuinely qualified employees.

I took a look at the Skills Tasmania website last night as a double check to see that the information was correct. This is what that website says under the heading ‘A National Training System’:

‘Australia’s national training system of VET training provides high-quality, work-based training with qualifications that meet national standards. Underpinning this system is a framework consisting of the Australia quality training framework, Australian qualifications framework and industry training packages which define the assessment standards for the different vocational qualifications. Since the States and Territories are responsible for most public delivery and all regulation of providers, a central concept of the system is national recognition whereby the assessments and qualifications of any one RTO must be recognised by all others and the decisions of any State or Territory training authority must be must be recognised by the other States and Territories. This allows portability for qualifications and units of competency.’

My question to the Minister for Education and Skills, Nick McKim, the previous minister Lin Thorp, and the minister prior to that and former premier, David Bartlett, at the time of signing up to the December 2009 COAG agreement, is this: Why have you allowed a situation where, for two years, the public face of skills in Tasmania, Skills Tasmania, has been allowed to make this glowing assurance to the Tasmanian community about the quality and consistency of the VET sector across all jurisdictions, while you have at the same time been signed up to a process which is based on an assumption or belief that the system is not working and is not delivering the consistent quality outcomes that people expect?

This is a massive issue. It is a big question which unfortunately can only have two possible answers. One is that you do not necessarily believe that there is such a massive problem that it cannot be managed through existing agreed quality processes and that Tasmania has unfortunately been carried along by the current excitement of the past COAG agreement, but that surrenders a fair degree of our State sovereignty and control over a very large part of our State budget. The other is that you have been deliberately deceiving the Tasmanian community with these reassuring statements that everything is all right and the system is working well but you genuinely believe that it is not.

Mr McKim – What statements?

Mr FERGUSON – The reassuring statements on the Skills Tasmania website.

Mr McKim – I thought you were talking to me.

Mr FERGUSON – It is a rhetorical question.

Putting all of that aside for a moment, let us now work on the basis that a greater level of assurance and quality consistency is desirable and needed. I would argue that the existing arrangements together with the suggestion from Victoria would have achieved the same goal without the level of risk that arises from ceding powers and having to place a high level of trust in a new organisation which has a zero track record in the VET sector. The Commonwealth has never managed, regulated or licensed the VET sector before now.

The second issue is about regulatory responsibility and the argument that it should really sit alongside funding responsibility. That is certainly the argument that the Commonwealth used when it was setting up the national regulator for tertiary education. Tasmania provides around 70 per cent of all government funding for VET delivery, with the Commonwealth contributing around 30 per cent. The State is in fact accountable for all outcomes agreed through the national funding agreements.

Why would the State Labor-Greens Government be happy to provide 70 per cent of the cost of an important socio-industrial sector but none of its regulatory responsibility? My thoughts on this issue and my rereading of the minister’s speech from yesterday do not answer this question in any way. Importantly, I note that the COAG decision in December 2009 occurred at a time when the Tasmanian Parliament was not sitting and would not sit again until after the 2010 election, so if you like, the then Premier and Minister for Education was outside the scrutiny of Parliament, both from the Liberal Opposition and the Greens, who were not in government. I am left wondering now if the former and now the present Government have just been caught up in a process from which it did not know how to escape. Parliament in 2009 last sat on 19 November, a couple of weeks before the COAG meeting, and did not sit again until May of 2010.

It is important to remember that the current State regulator, the TQA, oversees the national quality system for all Tasmanian RTOs under the Australian Qualification Training framework. In theory a national regulator could well make a good deal of sense. However, in reality, I say, and the Opposition believes, it will undermine the State of Tasmania in managing the VET market and make it much more difficult for smaller specialised training providers to operate and survive. Looking at this objectively, this outcome will make a mockery of the contestable funding model which will be in place in just 14 months from now.

The third issue is an important one and fits a pattern of legislation that we have seen in the year and a half that I have been in this Parliament, and that is the sovereignty of our Parliament. There is unfortunately no compelling case that the move to a national regulator will deliver the outcomes that could not have been achieved by further collaboration or refinement between the State and Territories. There is a dangerous pattern of this State Parliament and this House being railroaded into agreeing to legislation over which it later has no control, and there is a danger that this State is going to end up being run by committees with no scrutiny or accountability here where it ought to take place. I say that sincerely and ask that those listening in the Government to take that as a serious issue because we are here for a reason. We are here to represent Tasmania’s interests and, where possible, to collaborate and agree on national processes, but our first concern should be the Tasmanian community.

The fourth issue is the capacity of ASQA to deliver. There remains an open question to the ability of a newly-created body with no track record and without a Tasmanian office to ensure that regulatory processes will be performed effectively and in a timely manner.

The fifth issue for us is the future capacity of Tasmania to regulate VET. By ceding powers and supporting the establishment of the national regulator, we will lose the capacity and ability to regulate Tasmanian VET in the future should the national regulator model fail. Where is the insurance policy in case it fails?

The sixth issue is a very substantial one. At least for industry it is the number-one issue, and that is the cost to RTOs. Evidence points to massive additional cost to Tasmanian RTOs for registration and quality audits, and this has been a key point of concern for ACCI, TCCI and RTOs who have responded to our consultations. The TCCI has said that it along with numerous RTOs strongly opposes the proposed fee structure. Fees of this level and structure have potentially dire consequences for RTOs in Tasmania and, in turn, significantly disadvantage learners and industry. In a number of cases the fees proposed under the ASQA would see an increase of 1 000 per cent. For example, an RTO with 30 qualifications on scope currently pays approximately $900 twice every five years for two audits and registration. Under the ASQA, these fees will increase to around $18 500.

That statement has been backed up by a large number of RTOs in that submission and I now take the opportunity to emphatically represent the concerns raised by the chamber representing constituent RTOs around Tasmania. They are terrified, Minister, of the cost base that is coming upon them.

Mr McKim – Is this the TCCI?

Mr FERGUSON – That is right. Through my own consultations with RTOs in Tasmania cost has been the number-one issue. They have raised issues on consultation and, Minister, many RTOs are telling me that they have not heard from you, your office, even Skills Tasmania or the TQA about this coming change in policy. In some cases they are saying to me that I am the first one to tell them about it. Ignorance is no defence. If you are running a business you need to be alive to the policy environment around you, but far be it from this minister to be like the Vogon constructor ships from The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, where they say to the human race -

Mr McKim – Are you going to recite some poetry here, Mr Ferguson?

Mr FERGUSON – I would need a babel fish to help you out there. But this is a serious matter, you cannot just expect RTOs who are facing a looming cash flow and cost-base issue – and the TCCI are saying a 1 000 per cent increase – you just cannot say to them -

Mr McKim – Sorry, in fees?

Mr FERGUSON – That is right. Do not laugh because I have plenty of other feedback. The minister said he anticipates that most providers will absorb those costs and that there is absolutely no case for providers to use fee increases to implement significant price increases. Well, that is what you say, Minister, but you have not consulted, so how would you know? Because this is what a southern-based provider had to say:

‘There will be a significant increase. Fees will rise from about $1 000 for an audit period every five years but may be as frequent as three years to somewhere between $7 500 and $17 500 for our organisation.’

He says that as a private provider he will be looking to recoup the above costs and the only place this can occur will be from employers or trainees themselves. He says,

‘Our only other option is to reduce the size of our scope of registration to minimise the cost of compliance.’

He said, quite rightly, that this reduces our capacity to earn as well as our capacity to service our existing clients. He says,

‘Michael, as you are no doubt aware, RTOs are funded under the user choice system of payment for some training services. At present we are paid somewhere between $4.50 per nominal hour for retail, to about $7.20 per hour for diploma of management – not a lot of money and difficult to absorb any other costs as Minister McKim thinks we should.’

From a small private RTO based here in Hobart the response, which was also sent to the minister directly says:

‘Thank you for your email … We are replying with feedback as requested. … You will see from this comparison that the financial burden on a small organisation through the transfer of VET regulatory powers would be considerable. This may have the potential to affect our viability as a College.’

Our viability, Minister.

‘It is our organisation policy to provide quality training to Tasmanian students, and this is threatened by such a fee structure.’

Importantly, this RTO here in Hobart says:

‘We have not been consulted by the Minister for Education and Skills, Nick McKim, regarding these proposed changes.’

An industry-specific RTO tells me:

‘If Mr McKim believes that there is absolutely no case for … price increases, then he must be absolutely certain what the fee increases … will be. If he does, could he enlighten us and if he doesn’t, then how could he suggest we wouldn’t pass on significant fee increases in our daily pursuit to keep our books balanced?’

One RTO which stated that its average enrolment of around 1 500 per year with a 99 per cent completion rate had this to say:

‘We analysed the original proposed registration fees and estimated an increase of over 2 000 per cent (from approximately $800 to around $20 000). We also noted the introduction of a full fee for service system approach to all other ASQA compliance obligations we would have.’

There is a lot of other feedback too but, Minister, I can assure you that it is not just one or two squealing about 1 000, 2 000 or 7 000 per cent price rise for these registration and audit requirements. It will be a full cost-recovery model that ASQA are pursuing and that in itself is nothing to be altogether objected to. I would invite you, Minister, not to just respond on advice but to carefully reflect on the consistency of that feedback and not to dismiss it as grandstanding or RTOs making up a story. The ones that have responded have gone into the fee structure on the ASQA website and they have carefully itemised what their new cost base will be for registration and audit.

One RTO posed this question and it might be one worth you considering overnight as well and that is, if a complaint is made by a learner to ASQA and ASQA decide to act on that, who will bear the cost of that investigation and/or audit? The current information implies that it will be the RTO themselves but what if that complaint is dismissed or found not to have been a valid complaint? Who will carry that cost? I am not sure that these issues have been at all thought through with the interests in mind of Tasmanian RTOs.

Let us bear in mind that Tasmania has only about 100 RTOs of the 4 500 in Australia, they are quite vulnerable, Minister, if the policy settings are not right, if they are too heavy handed, we will get squished.

That is my challenge to you, Minister. I will continue my remarks when I next have an opportunity where I want to talk about some of the quality implications and the surrender of State powers where I would say that that is the wrong direction to be going. I am going to wind up there.

Mr McKim – You cannot wind up there, Mr Ferguson, you will have to talk it out until 6 p.m. or your contribution will be over.

Mr FERGUSON – I thank the minister for his help and I will do another RTO feedback. The former RTO that I was dealing with said:

‘When we identified the likely registration fees, our RTO could have expected to pay we realised we probably could not afford these amounts within our existing budgets.’

Debate adjourned.

Resumed on 17 November 2011.

[7.17 p.m.]
Mr FERGUSON – It is time for me to close my remarks. I have seven minutes remaining in which I wish to summarise where we left off this time yesterday. I had just finished outlining a number of very serious concerns that have been raised with the Opposition by members of the VET community, in particular RTOs across Tasmania. It is apparent that RTOs have not had an opportunity to give this sort of feedback to their political representatives prior to this because it is manifestly clear that the minister, in putting forward this bill, has not consulted and that is a matter of regret. I think it is very unfortunate because we could have had quite a different set of comments if that minister had done his stakeholder engagement more correctly.

There can be no doubt that Tasmania, like the rest of Australia, but more urgently, needs to build stronger VET and tertiary education sectors and to improve interoperability between them. I note that the Australian Government has set targets for higher-level qualification attainment. For example, to have 40 per cent of 25-34 year olds with a degree by 2025, and 20 per cent of higher education enrolments from people of low SES backgrounds by 2020. COAG has set other targets to double the number of people with diploma and advanced diploma qualifications by 2020 and to halve the proportion of 20-64 year olds without any qualifications at Certificate III level by 2020. However, achieving any of these training outcomes seems to bear little relationship to the initiative represented by this bill in particular. What is needed is a robust training agenda by this Government, which has a deep relationship with industry, efficient and flexible training providers and a willingness to ensure that precious taxpayers’ funds are maximised for the greatest number of quality and relevant training outcomes. However, sadly, the Labor-Greens Government have failed to make a case for the need for this very dramatic legislative move to exit the regulation and management of the VET sector in this State and to hand those longstanding State responsibilities to another level of government which has no experience in regulating VET.

In my contribution I have raised many areas of individual concern, validated and backed up by our consultations with the sector in Tasmania. I hope that my fears are not realised but if there is an adverse outcome and if the national regulation is not a success then our relatively small VET sector will suffer disproportionately given its small size. But again nothing the minister has said in his second reading speech, together with the minister’s absence from the grassroots level of this important policy area, brings me confidence and of course the Parliament requires a vote today.

Therefore, Madam Deputy Speaker, for all the reasons that I have outlined the Opposition will not be supporting this bill. We are unable to support this bill and we will vote against it. I do point out that I have circulated an amendment, in fact two amendments -

Mr McKim – No, you’ve only circulated one to me.

Mr FERGUSON – I will fix that but I have circulated two amendments, which achieve one goal, but two amendments were needed in two clauses of the bill.

Mr McKim – I think it’s a bit rich trying to amend a bill that you don’t support, though.

Mr FERGUSON – We are doing our job.

Mr McKim – I think you’re trying to have it both ways.

Mr FERGUSON – The two amendments amend two clauses, which limit the period of referral to 10 years as a safety measure to ensure that tension is built into the system and that there is a requirement therefore for accountability to the Tasmanian people.

I will continue to follow this debate but I say to this Minister for Education and Skills and to the Labor-Greens Government, you have been warned.

Mr McKIM (Franklin – Minister for Education and Skills) – I thank Mr Ferguson for his contribution to this debate. I agree with some of what he said on the second reading debate and there is a lot that I disagree with, and that is fine and there are no problems about that.

He has placed a number of matters on the record in terms of assertions and comments about this bill and the way vocational and educational training is currently regulated and will be regulated once the COAG reforms have been implemented. I will seek to address his issues in the order in which he raised them.

He first gave us a bit of history and said that in 2005 the Howard Government, which he, from memory, was then a part of, led a process which resulted in a set of model clauses being developed and implemented across Australian States and Territories. It is interesting that at the time that that was done by the Howard Government Mr Ferguson presumably supported that occurring and now he comes into this place and indicates that he will not be supporting this very important reform.

Madam Deputy Speaker, just in relation to the model clauses, I can inform the House that adoption of model clauses for regulation by States and Territories was a significant step forward from the former system that consisted of eight separate regulatory regimes each with its own rules and way of doing business. However, under the model clauses approach we still have eight separate State and Territory authorities plus a national regulator established by the Commonwealth several years ago, which led to a new set of different approaches to applying the national registration standards, applying sanctions, different fee structures and so on.

Industry, which is certainly a key client of the VET system and RTOs operating in more than one State and Territory, has been calling for change for some time. We need to keep in mind that we do have in Australia a national VET system, not a confederation of State and Territory systems. While the matters contained in this bill are different from those model clauses developed in 2005 by the Howard Government, presumably we can take it that Mr Ferguson supports in principle the national regulation of Australia’s VET system.

Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Ferguson has then quoted from my second reading speech claiming that we have quality problems in Tasmania. It is no surprise to anyone that nationally there are quality problems and it should not be a surprise to Mr Ferguson. We have had national strategic audits of provision in the hospitality and security industries and provision of the Cert IV in training and assessment, together with serious issues in the international education market and those have identified the need for a national strategic response to those problems. All of those issues are on the public record. While these problems are significantly less evident in Tasmania, as part of the national system we feel the pain of negative publicity, particularly in international markets, as much as does New South Wales or Victoria. The establishment of a single national regulator will provide the regulatory clout, focus and consistency needed to deal with quality issues, but of course the Liberals in Tasmania clearly now do not support national regulation of vocational education and training.

Mr Bacon – Shame.

Mr McKIM – It is a shame, Mr Bacon.

Mr Ferguson – You weren’t here to listen to what I had to say.

Mr McKIM – Well, I was here and I think it is a shame that you do not support it. You don’t support it, do you?

Mr Ferguson – You are giving your speech.

Mr McKIM – Well, you are going to vote against Tasmania becoming part of the national system of regulating vocational education and training.

The member then talks about matters that he asserts are being used to override States who are not cooperating, and that is Victoria and Western Australia. He mentions the Victorian Government’s submission to the Senate inquiry and quotes from that submission saying inter alia that Victoria does not accept a convincing case has been made that it is impossible to establish an effective national system of State-based regulation.

My advice, Mr Ferguson, is that the Commonwealth will use its constitutional powers to regulate Victorian and Western Australian-based providers that operate in the international student market or in other States and Territories. Those are very much matters for Western Australia and Victoria to resolve with the Commonwealth. I also understand that ASQA is engaged with Western Australia and Victoria to establish a three-party MOU to ensure a consistent regulatory approach. This is also a very good reason to support the establishment of a single national regulator. The Commonwealth has legal constitutional powers around corporations, interstate trade, international affairs and territories to regulate a significant proportion of providers and has indicated it will use those powers if necessary. It would be highly detrimental to have separate Commonwealth and State regulators operating across the country.

The member then went on to quote from the Skills Tasmania website, and I am not going to refer to all of the points that he made but I will simply say that there is nothing inconsistent between the Skills Tasmania website statement, most of which is simply factual, and the proposals before the House. The national system does indeed provide high-quality work-based training with qualifications that meet national standards, but the exceptions are significant enough to warrant a new national approach. While quality is an important driver of the establishment of a national regulator, the need for a single national approach has been advocated by industry associations for a number of years.

Mr Ferguson then goes on to say that regulatory responsibility should sit aside funding responsibility. The proposed approach encapsulated in this bill has nothing to do with funding. It is about consumer protection and ensuring we have a high-quality VET system in which the public can have full confidence. Governments do provide a significant proportion of VET funding, as the member would know. However, while there are no formal statistics, some estimates place private investment in VET as approximately equal to government investment. On this basis, my advice is that the Tasmanian Government would fund about one third of VET provided in Tasmania.

Mr Ferguson then goes on to talk about the sovereignty of the Tasmanian Parliament, saying there is no compelling case that the move to a national regulator will deliver outcomes that could not have been achieved by further collaboration between States and Territories. All I have to say to Mr Ferguson is that has been something that has been attempted for some time and if we keep doing the same old thing we are just going to get the same old outcome here. What we want to do is regulate the part of the national system that ensures we do have a high-quality VET system in which the public can have full confidence.

He then questions the capacity of ASQA to deliver, and what I would say in response is that the newly-appointed chief commissioner and commissioner are both highly experienced in VET and VET regulation. Arrangements are in hand to establish the Tasmanian office and recruit staff. A senior officer will be appointed to head the Tasmanian office. ASQA is planning to commence operations in Tasmania as soon as the act commences and I am informed that there are at least two and possibly three TQA staff members who are expected to transfer to ASQA. The TQA has indicated it will fully cooperate with ASQA in managing the transition.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the member then says that by ceding powers and supporting the establishment of the national regulator the TQA will lose the capacity to regulate Tasmanian VET in the future should the national regulator model fail. Well, of course, this is pure speculation that the national regulator model might fail and, as I have said in my second reading speech, we have convincingly made the argument that some of the ways that VET has been regulated right around the country and here in Tasmania are such that it is of benefit to the way we regulate VET in Tasmania to become part of the national approach.

Mr Ferguson then quoted a number of communications he has had from RTOs and he was very dismissive of the consultation around this process but there has been extensive consultation on this matter and I will go to those details shortly. I did note one communication that Mr Ferguson suggests an industry-specific RTO wrote, and I quote, ‘If Mr McKim believes there is absolutely no case for price increases’. Well, I have not said that. What I have said is there is no case for significant price increases. No one has ever said there is no case for price increases. If you want quality sometimes you have to pay a little bit more for it and we do want quality in the way we regulate our VET system.

Now on fees, as I said, there is no case for significant or substantial price increases but there are important fundamental issues involved in the setting of fees. The main principle involved is that RTOs are operating in a national market and reaping the commercial benefits of doing so. Regulation is required to protect the public and those who benefit from operating in the market should meet the costs of the regulation. The Commonwealth and several States have full cost-recovery models for regulation. There is no good reason why VET regulation costs should be subsidised by the taxpayer.

Whilst Tasmanian-based RTOs will experience a significant increase in fees in percentage terms, as will RTOs in most other jurisdictions, they have been paying peppercorn-level fees for many years – $210 per annum plus a once-off application fee of $140 – with the Tasmanian Government significantly subsidising regulation costs through the TQA. This encouraged the development of a competitive training market which is now mature and, importantly, should be able to stand on its own two feet. In absolute terms, the new fees are modest. They reflect the cost of providing regulatory services and enable providers to access all the commercial benefits of operating in the national training system. This will help make Tasmania much more attractive in international markets, Mr Ferguson, which I think you would agree is a good thing.

Examples of fees under the new regime, modelled by Skills Tasmania: a small RTO, up to 10 qualifications on scope with one delivery site, an average annual fee of $1 388; a medium RTO, 50 qualifications on scope with three delivery sites, an average annual fee of $4 268; and a large RTO, 60 qualifications on scope with 12 delivery sites, an average annual fee of $9 188. To put these fees in perspective, in most cases they are a fraction of the subsidy RTOs would receive from Skills Tasmania for delivering a qualification to one student.

Mr Ferguson – Are you quoting registration costs of the RTO only or audit as well?

Mr McKIM – I am very happy to take questions on the fly, Mr Ferguson. My advice is that audit fees are included in the registration fee, except in the event that a complaint is taken and found to be substantiated, in which case an extra audit fee will be charged.

To put these fees in perspective, in most cases they are a fraction of the subsidy RTOs will receive from Skills Tasmania for delivering a qualification for one student. Examples of the amounts paid by Skills Tasmania under ‘User choice, funding for apprentices and trainee training’ are Certificate III in retail, $1 623; Certificate II in business, $1 868; Certificate III in beauty services, $3 580; Certificate III in seafood aquaculture, $4 340; Certificate IV in veterinary nursing, $6 260; and Certificate III in cable jointing, $10 580. For the RTO cited by the member with 1 500 enrolments per annum, the average annual registration fee would be $2.67 per student.

It is important that we understand that being registered as an RTO conveys very significant commercial benefits. It enables the RTO to offer nationally recognised qualifications and charge fees for doing so. It enables an RTO to access and use nationally endorsed qualifications and resources developed at significant cost to government and to access government training funds. No other organisation is able to do any of that. By the way, I look forward in the Liberals’ alternative budget next year to the TQA being an expenditure item, even though it will not be in the State Budget. Because you are voting against this means that you want the State Government to continue to pay to regulate VET in Tasmania.

Mr Ferguson – I do not know if Hansard picks up sarcasm but you never know.

Ms Archer – They will now.

Mr McKIM – What I can tell you, Mr Ferguson is that the TCCI has not made any formal representations to Skills Tasmania or to my office about the establishment of ASQA or the fees regime. There have been, however, a few approaches by RTOs. If you ask any organisation, do you want to pay increased fees, I think all of us can imagine what the answer would usually be. However, the Commonwealth consulted publicly and widely on a proposed fees schedule in April including directly contacting all RTOs and key peak bodies. As a result of submissions made, a number of changes were made to the schedule.

Mr Ferguson – It was that consultation the TCCI was involved with, that is the submission that they put into that process from which I quoted.

Mr McKIM – I do not know if the TCCI was involved or not.

Mr Ferguson – I am telling you.

Mr McKIM – I am happy to take you at face value on that. But there has been extensive consultation and communication on this matter. As I said, general consultation has involved discussions with peak bodies including those representing RTOs, public meetings in all jurisdictions, publication of COAG communicas and regular updates via national and State and Territory VET newsletters and websites.

In April-May this year, the Commonwealth undertook extensive stakeholder consultations on a draft fees schedule. Consultations included meetings with all State and Territory senior officers, meetings with peak RTO associations, industry associations and key employee associations and unions, publication of the draft schedule of fees on the ASQA website and provision of opportunity to comment, an e mail to all RTOs and other contacts with a link to the material on the website and inviting comment, publication of a newsletter with a link to the website and invitation to comment. More than 140 written submissions were received and the level and structure of the proposed fees was significantly revised as a result of the consultations.

Tasmanian RTOs have been kept informed via Skills Tasmania and TQA newsletters. While there is a desire for more information about transition arrangements, there is a limit to what information can be provided until the legislation before the House is agreed by the Parliament.

ACPET, the private providers’ national peak body, fully supports the establishment of ASQA. They report that while they had concerns about the draft fees published in April, their concerns were addressed by the Commonwealth and they have no issues, Mr Ferguson, about the fees. They also advise that there have been very few complaints about fees from RTOs in jurisdictions that have transitioned to ASQA.

Skills Tasmania’s main engagement channel with RTOs is its service provider committee. The committee’s main concern has been communication with RTOs about the changes. But there is a catch 22 situation in that there is little that can be communicated about transition until the legislation has been approved by Parliament. As I said in response to your question, by interjection, a little while ago, no fee or charge is payable to investigate a complaint unless the complaint is sustained.

I trust that I have addressed at least the majority of the points raised by Mr Ferguson, but the Government stands firmly behind this bill. This will deliver better outcomes in terms of the way we regulate VET and, importantly, it will help all jurisdictions in Australia to offer a better product and therefore market us, that is, Australia, as a VET destination much better into national markets, which as the member would know are very important for all Australian jurisdictions, including Tasmania.

The member has flagged two amendments. You have given me both of your amendments and I will be seeking some advice on them. As I said by interjection previously that I think it is a bit cheeky to amend a bill that you are not supporting.

Mr Ferguson – Do you really?

Mr McKIM – Yes, I really do.

Mr Ferguson – Do you think maybe when the second reading is read we should just walk away?

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER – Order.

Mr McKIM – No, I do not think that at all. Your intent should be to wait and see what the bill looks like once it has been through Committee and then reserve your right to support or oppose it on the third reading, which is the way a parliament is designed to work. If you had indicated that that was your position then I would not be making these comments but you have indicated that it does not matter whether Parliament accepts your recommendation, you are going to vote against the bill no matter what we do in terms of your amendments. As I said, I will seek some advice on the amendments and we can discuss them in Committee.

The House divided -

AYES 13               NOES 9

Mr Bacon            Ms Archer
Mr Best                Mr Ferguson
Mr Booth            Mr Groom
Ms Giddings      Mr Gutwein
Mr Green            Mr Hidding
Mr McKim         Mr Hodgman
Mr Morris           Ms Petrusma (Teller)
Mr O’Byrne        Mr Rockliff
Ms O’Byrne        Mr Shelton
Ms O’Connor
Mr O’Halloran
Mr Sturges (Teller)
Mr Polley

Bill so read the second time.

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) BILL 2011 (No. 64)

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 -
(Adoption of national VET legislation)

Mr FERGUSON – Mr Chairman, I have a series of generalised questions and would like to move an amendment. My first question is: what is the anticipated date of proclamation of this act and on what factors does that decision depend?

Mr McKIM – The intended day of proclamation is 31 January and that relies essentially on readiness to begin, so as long as ASQA is ready down here we will proclaim on 31 January. If they are not quite ready it maybe slightly after that.

Mr FERGUSON – Minister, I would like you to elaborate on what sort of factors that depends on. When you say that ASQA would need to be ready; they have been operating since July.

Mr McKIM – It is just the normal sort of thing you would associate with readiness, Mr Ferguson. We have acquired premises already. As I indicated, two or perhaps three TQA staff will be transferred to ASQA, and of course having records fully imported from TQA to ASQA. We are likely to be ready to proclaim on 31 January. We do not anticipate any delays, but you never know.

Mr FERGUSON – Recognising that the date of proclamation is obviously the date upon which the referral is made and the legislative changes take effect, will there be some form of parallel process to ensure that the information migration occurs seamlessly?

Mr McKIM – From TQA?

Mr FERGUSON – Yes, from TQA to ASQA?

Mr McKIM – Yes, there will.

Mr FERGUSON – Over what sort of period might that be and which of the two processes is likely to be the non-legislative one at the time?

Mr McKIM – TQA are already gearing up to transfer their records over. Some records will not be required to be transferred but for those that are the transfer will occur immediately on proclamation.

Mr FERGUSON – Minister, are you aware of Queensland having decided to defer their commencement date and their reasons?

Mr McKIM – No, I am not.

Mr FERGUSON – I understand that Queensland has recently announced that they are deferring their commencement. They are a fully fledged cheerleader for the process, as you are, and they will be joining, I believe, on 30 June 2012 but there is not a lot of information as to why. The public statement was that they did not believe ASQA was ready. I should not say that because I might potentially be misrepresenting them but there clearly was a view that the date they had committed to earlier was going to be premature. You do not have anything to offer on that point?

Mr McKIM – No, we do not.

Mr FERGUSON – All right. This is a question on behalf of an RTO. When will a more equitable quality auditing system be implemented, one that audits based on student numbers and staff numbers rather than on RTO status alone, that is to say overturning the onerous impact on small RTOs that currently exist within the TQA State-based auditing system?

Mr McKIM – My advice is that the National Standards Council, which sets the standards within which ASQA operates, have implemented a risk-based audit process, which means that a high risk RTO is likely to receive more audits than an RTO that is identified as low risk.

Mr FERGUSON – Thanks, Minister. I am not sure that answers my question but it goes some of the way.

Mr McKIM – Perhaps if you want to put your question again I will see if I can take some further advice.

Mr FERGUSON – It was a fuzzy question and I got a fuzzy answer, and I think that is fair enough. Minister, are you aware of any moves or policy intent to merge ASQA with TEQSA – Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency?

Mr McKIM – I will take some advice on that. I may be able to offer you some assurance here, Mr Ferguson. TEQSA, which, as you would know, regulates higher education in Australia, is intended to commence on 1 January. It is the Commonwealth’s objective to merge ASQA and TEQSA in 2013 but there is no agreement from the States, including Tasmania, that this occur.

Mr FERGUSON – Sorry, Minister, did you just say that the Commonwealth want to see that merged and they are seeking the States’ support for that?

Mr McKIM – Yes, but the States have not agreed.

Mr FERGUSON – What would be the Tasmanian Government’s view on this, accepting that you have already told me that you have not agreed? What is the view?

Mr McKIM – Do you mean what is the rationale behind our not agreeing?

Mr FERGUSON – I wondered if you might not have agreed because you are not ready to agree or if you are opposed to it. What would be the position of the Government? Perhaps you have not formed one yet, but that is the question.

Mr McKIM – It is simply a current policy position of the Tasmanian Government and that has come about because we are simply not convinced as yet by the arguments that are put forward by the Commonwealth Government that the two organisations should be merged. If they can put forward a convincing argument, we would consider it into the future but as yet, in our view, they are yet to do so and on that basis we have not agreed.

Mr FERGUSON – Would it be fair to say, Minister, that you are open-minded on that point, that you are not ruling it in or out?

Mr McKIM – I am not ruling it out completely but I want to be very clear here that nothing I am saying should be taken to mean that we have made a decision to support the move.

Mr FERGUSON – I understand what you are saying. I would put it to you that it would be a good thing to keep your mind open on that.

Mr McKIM – We are in agreement, Mr Ferguson, a few times today.

Mr FERGUSON – Potentially, though, I am sure you would agree with me that the articulation between VET and tertiary is going to be a critical issue for our country -

Mr McKIM – No doubt.

Mr FERGUSON – and Tasmania will want to be at least interested in that, but having now signed away our sovereignty on higher education and tonight signing away our sovereignty on VET, you have given the Commonwealth a fair bit of scope to run away with that agenda anyway.

Mr McKIM – I am not sure I would put it quite like that, Mr Ferguson.

Mr FERGUSON – No, you probably would not. Minister, do you at all share the concern as expressed by Victoria and Western Australia that States ought to at least be able to properly and fully regulate their own, that is, State-owned VET providers?

Mr McKIM – I would respond to you, Mr Ferguson, by making what is quite an obvious point, that the States still have the capacities to establish, for example, a TAFE; to disestablish a TAFE, as we know here in Tasmania.

Mr Ferguson – Maybe even merge them.

Mr McKIM – Yes, maybe even merge two public VET providers. We also have the authority to manage public VET providers, as I know you understand. This is simply a matter of regulation. The Government is in favour of a national regulatory system for VET and we think it should cover things such as TAFEs and public VET providers.

Mr FERGUSON – Minister, you have talked about ASQA’s approach to charging for audit fees and thereby providing an audit.

Mr McKIM – Audit fees are included in registration fees.

Mr FERGUSON – I thought you said they were separate.

Mr McKIM – I think we have a semantic issue here, Mr Ferguson. Audits are included in the registration fees unless there is something substantiated, in which case a separate audit fee will be charged.

Mr FERGUSON – In relation to audits and risk profiles, are you able to give an indication to the committee about what the current understanding or knowledge is about RTOs around Tasmania?

Mr McKim – In terms of risk? I’m not sure I will go to that in relation to specific RTOs.

Mr FERGUSON – No, not specific ones, but I would press you on the State ones.

Mr McKIM – The information you seek is privy to the TQA only. It is confidential information; they do not share it with me and therefore I am unable to share it with you.

Mr FERGUSON – That is interesting. So even if I were to ask you, for example, what is the current quality status of the Tasmanian Skills Institute, you would not have that information because that is part of the process that protects the privacy of an RTO?

Mr McKim – Yes.

Mr FERGUSON – Unless it got to a situation where sanctions needed to be taken, I guess at that point you might find out? A licence might be withdrawn.

Mr McKIM – You are well into the realms of the hypothetical. I do not have that information. We are not going to publish the risk status of RTOs. We would like RTOs to take more responsibility for getting information such as that out there and we would encourage them to do so, but ultimately it is not something that is known to me in terms of the risk status of any particular RTO and therefore something that I am unable to share with you.

Mr FERGUSON – I will just go more broadly then, Minister. Can you give the Committee some advice about what the risk profile taken as a whole might look like for the Tasmanian VET sector?

Mr McKIM – I do not have advice on that so I am unable to share it with you.

Mr FERGUSON – Minister, in relation to RTOs within our State, which are instrumentalities of secondary colleges, I think it is called the secondary schools RTO – I might not quite have that right.

Mr McKim – You are talking about colleges though.

Mr Ferguson – No, no.

Mr McKim – Are you asking about colleges?

Mr FERGUSON – Well, a number of high schools and colleges have their own RTOs and at least one of those RTOs is actually owned I think by four colleges, or three, and so I would like to ask you about where they sit in all of this. What is the Government’s policy or intent for those RTOs and what will their continuing status be in relation to the Polytechnic and the Skills Institute.

Mr McKIM – There is a secondary colleges RTO, as I think Mr Ferguson stated. To the best of my knowledge that will continue to operate this year. However, whether or not it operates into next year is a management decision for those colleges to make and I would also remind you that I indicated during this debate yesterday that we will be conducting a review of public VET providers in Tasmania and I hope I will be announcing details of that review very soon. That might help inform you.

Mr FERGUSON – That does answer that question. So can I ask you then in a similar vein about the trade training centres? We have a few in the north and there are a few popping up around other parts of the State as well. What RTO is currently and will in the future provide the VET training in those centres?

Mr McKIM – We have three trade and training centres currently operating and another three will commence operation very soon. Currently the Polytechnic is the main RTO provider in the trade and training centres, although on a case-by-case basis there may be a private sector RTO that comes in and delivers one particular course where it is identified that the Polytechnic is not in the best position to deliver that course. Just by way of an example, that may be around aquaculture down in the Huon Valley and there may be a private sector specialised training provider that comes in and delivers training in that situation.

Mr FERGUSON – Thanks Minister. Can you just enlighten the Committee on this point – and I will raise this sensitively. There is an arm wrestle happening between a number of those schools that have a trade training centre as part of their campus and the Polytechnic. Can you give some advice to the Committee about how your department will resolve those challenges? It is a big issue.

Mr McKIM – My advice is that there were some issues identified around the matters you have raised, however there have been steps taken to resolve those issues and we believe we are in a reasonably good place now in relation to relationships between schools and trade training centres. I also remind you of the review that we will be announcing details of shortly.

Mr Ferguson – That will all be part of the review?

Mr McKIM – I am not going to say right now what the terms of reference of the review will be but it is a review into the public provision of VET in Tasmania.

Mr Ferguson – It is an innocent question though, if Polytechnic is caught up in the review -

Mr McKIM – Ask for an answer.

Mr FERGUSON – If Polytechnic is part of the review and Polytechnic you have told me is the RTO at those trade training centres, by corollary does that not mean you would be seeking to resolve that through that review?

Mr McKim – Well what I will say to you is you will just have to be patient; it should not be too much longer.

Mr FERGUSON – I am pretty patient but I sense that you think I am being sneaky then -

Mr McKim – No, I do not.

Mr FERGUSON – and I do not know what I am missing there.

Mr McKim – Heaven forbid.

Mr FERGUSON – Well, maybe I ought to be.

Mr McKim – Maybe you are.

Mr FERGUSON – Minister, I listened to what you had to say in your summing up during the second reading stage. There is evidence for problems with quality delivery among training providers interstate and you did touch in particular on some of the ones that have damaged Australia’s brand with overseas education, so I would like to -

Mr McKIM – I am not sure I mentioned brand damage; I just said I think the national regulatory system would enhance our reputation.

Mr FERGUSON – So what evidence is there, if any, of that sort of problem with and I am specifically saying -

Mr McKIM – Are you asking about Tasmania?

Mr FERGUSON – Yes, in our own State in the two categories of RTO one is Tasmanian-based RTOs and the other is interstate-based RTOs which operate in Tasmania?

Mr McKIM – The best I can really do, Mr Ferguson, is refer you to my previous answer around some of the audits that have taken place in things like the security industry for example, obviously based on national audits but Tasmania was included in those national audits. I do not have any further assistance I can provide you with there.

Mr FERGUSON – Minister, in my contribution earlier I talked about a significant step that this bill takes in referring powers to the Commonwealth. What level of ongoing review of the success of the new arrangements is planned to be undertaken and when will that occur?

Mr McKIM – Did you ask when do we intend to review the new regulatory model? Is that your question?

Mr FERGUSON – The question is about once the new arrangements are in place, what plans do you have to measure, assess and review the success of those new arrangements and when would that occur?

Mr McKIM – This agreement is that the ministerial council will be responsible for monitoring compliance of the national VET regulator and other VET regulators with standards for operations of VET regulators. The short answer is that it is a matter for the ministerial council to decide. There is an intention that it be reviewed on an ongoing basis.

Mr FERGUSON – Minister, I guess that is a national and interstate process. I think the minco has been abandoned for the COAG standing committee?

Mr McKIM – Yes.

Mr FERGUSON – That is a national collaborative approach but my question is more about protecting Tasmania’s interests as a participant of that now national scheme.

Mr McKIM – Tasmania will participate in the national review.

Mr FERGUSON – Will you and your department here ensure that somehow Tasmania has its own measuring, monitoring and oversight of how we are tracking in comparison to the system that we are abandoning?

Mr McKIM – There is provision in the legislation for a dispute resolution process. In effect, if a matter arises that needs to be taken to the ministerial council then that can occur and the Tasmanian minister can take it to the ministerial council. If the processes of the ministerial council are not sufficient, we can then go to COAG to resolve any issues. In effect, it is not necessarily an intent to review in a certain period of time but we do have provision in the act for a dispute resolution process.

Mr FERGUSON – Minister, can I respectfully suggest that you give careful consideration to ensuring we have a Tasmanian-based review at some point serving only the interests of our State. I could suggest three or five years but you would have your own view on that. I suggest you consider that because everything you have said so far on this point relates to a cooperative model, which is quite appropriate, and that the measurements and review mechanisms and dispute resolution are already locked in. I am suggesting, though, that we have some review process which is only concerned with how Tasmania is faring and whether the great promise that you have talked about, that we are hoping to arrive at for Tasmania’s interest and that is proposed in your arrangements, is being met.

Mr McKIM – Yes, you can respectfully suggest that, Mr Ferguson.

Mr Ferguson – What is your response?

Mr McKIM – I am happy to take that on board but at this stage we believe that the national processes will be satisfactory in terms of the review.

Mr FERGUSON – You are being very evasive. I am not sure, Minister, why you would not see the good sense in that. We are talking about quite a significant change. You are talking about lifting the power out of this Parliament and vesting it with another parliament, and then the management and ongoing amendment of those new processes are going to be managed by a committee with no accountability back to this Parliament. I am inviting you to say that there ought to be and there will be a review in Tasmania.

Mr McKIM – I take that on board, as I said, Mr Ferguson. Perhaps I can offer you some comfort by informing you that Skills Tasmania meets regularly with the TQA. I believe and understand that they will do likewise with ASQA so that, in a way, there is a continual review of how well the TQA and, in the future, ASQA will be doing in Tasmania.

Mr FERGUSON – I accept that you have answered the question but again I challenge you that you are letting VET in Tasmania be run by a committee. That is my point and I hope that is not how things emerge.

Minister, can you provide some guidance on the COAG standing committee and what governance arrangements are in place? I know you have a seat at that table and any future ministers for education and skills would have a seat at that table. What are the governance arrangements in place that protect Tasmania’s interests? Hypothetically, if an issue emerges at that standing committee and you are outnumbered – but you could, if you had an issue today with VET, resolve it as minister and with the permission of this Parliament – but tonight you are vesting that power elsewhere. That is why I am asking the question. What are the governance arrangements in place so that if you are outnumbered Tasmania’s interests are still protected?

Mr McKIM – I might ask you for a specific example, Mr Ferguson, but I remind you that what we are doing is referring a very narrow regulatory power. What we are not doing is referring anything to do with the creation, abolition or management of public VET providers. Those will still be powers held by the State.

Mr FERGUSON – Let me give you a hypothetical. I am thinking of one on the spot so it will not be based on any individual concern. Let us imagine that ASQA determined that they needed to double their registration and audit fees in such a way that has a particularly heavy disadvantage on your State and on your RTOs. How can you stand up for Tasmania in that environment?

Mr McKIM – The specific example you gave are fees set by the ministerial council and ASQA cannot actually override the ministerial council. I accept that I asked you to provide a hypothetical and in good faith you did. If push comes to shove and something happens at the ministerial council where we are outvoted, though I am not sure why other States would decide to do something that was really terrible -

Mr Ferguson – It might suit them.

Mr McKIM – It might, but I struggle to think of an example. Regardless, we still have the provision in the legislation that effectively allows us to pull out of the national reform by proclamation.

Mr FERGUSON – You are right and thank you for your answer. It is a majority that makes a decision at that committee?

Mr McKim – Yes.

Mr FERGUSON – Just a simple majority?

Mr McKim – Yes.

Mr FERGUSON – Does the Commonwealth have one vote?

Mr McKIM – You are testing our memories now, Mr Ferguson.

Mr FERGUSON – Does anybody have a veto?

Mr McKIM – Mr Ferguson, I am not actually going to provide specific advice because I do not want to mislead you or the House, but from the best of our memory – and we do not have specific advice as to that question here – the Commonwealth does not have any increased voting power at the Ministerial Council.

Mr FERGUSON – Minister, can you indicate what the effect on the Tasmanian Budget will be as a result of relieving TQA of this role, given that I think you indicated, and I think I was also told in my briefing, that there is some level of subsidy provided to TQA for that provision of service to RTOs.

Mr McKIM – My advice of savings up to four FTE positions and in terms of the deployment of those cost savings the matter will be considered in the context of budget discussions with TQA.

Mr FERGUSON – So, Minister, just to clarify that approximately,

Mr McKim – Up to.

Mr FERGUSON – Okay. Understanding that you have answered me by saying up to four FTE will be the saving to the Tasmanian Education budget -

Mr McKim – To the State Budget.

Mr FERGUSON – To the State Budget. Would that amount of FTE represent all of what you might call a subsidy that you are currently providing under the current arrangements for RTOs registration and audit fees? I understand that at the moment you could not describe the current arrangements as full cost recovery.

Mr McKIM – The TQA used to be a bit bigger than it is now, so over time there have been some efficiencies generated in the TQA, but currently, yes, we are talking about savings as I said of up to four FTE positions plus some organisational overheads that are incurred by TQA.

Mr FERGUSON – Minister, will you agree to within 12 months of proclamation providing a statement to the Parliament or indeed a public statement that is the result of a genuine review of what RTOs before and after the reforms are paying in terms of these registration and audit fees.

Mr McKIM – Well no, I have indicated to you Mr Ferguson the review processes that occur. That is reviewed at a national level on an ongoing basis as well as interactions currently between Skills Tasmania and the TQA and I understand in the future Skills Tasmania and ASQA. What I think you are asking me to do is commit to an extra review process, which I am not prepared to do at this stage.

Mr FERGUSON – I asked that question because I believe in your summing up you said that RTOs in different States will experience different changes in their fee structures based on what -

Mr McKim – Yes, based on what they currently charge.

Mr FERGUSON – That is right, because States have different arrangements in place. From a purely Tasmanian point of view, would you not want to know what they are experiencing in real time once the new processes are in place?

Mr McKIM – We have done comprehensive modelling on this. Mr Ferguson, as you know, what this bill does is refer regulatory powers of the VET sector to the Commonwealth. I do not see that a review of the type that you are suggesting would be particularly helpful, unless you were considering withdrawing from the Commonwealth regulating the VET sector, which on this side we are not and you may. If you are ever on this side of the House, that will be a matter for you.

Mr FERGUSON – I think, Minister, you are being hypothetical.

Mr McKim – Very hypothetical, I hope.

Mr FERGUSON – I am sitting here with some different figures. In your second reading summing up you provided some figures for anticipated costs to RTOs. You said that an RTO with 50 modules and over three work sites would be paying $4 268 under the new arrangements?

Mr McKim – Are you asking me if that is correct?

Mr FERGUSON – The TCCI said in its submission to the fee review consultation that, for example, an RTO with 30 qualifications on scope currently pays around $900 twice every five years for two audits and registration. Under ASQA these fees would increase to $18 500. If you would not mind putting yourself in my position for a moment, I am trying to reconcile what you are telling the Committee and what the TCCI has provided in evidence. I am trying to reconcile that in a way that does justice to this issue. As I said in my second reading contribution, there are a number of issues involved here. I have already said a number of times that from the Opposition’s point of view we see some merit in what you are doing but we are not persuaded on the basis of the evidence you have presented. We are coming to probably one of the most significant practical issues so far as RTOs are concerned and that is cost, so I am just looking to reconcile that and taking on board that you said that you had had some comprehensive modelling done. Can I invite you to convince me on this point and show we where I have got the numbers wrong.

Mr McKIM – I do not think you have, but my advice is that the figures I quoted before, and as I think you have correctly quoted, for a medium RTO that is 50 qualifications on scope, three delivery sites and an average annual fee of $4 268. That is an average per annum figure and the TCCI is a total over five years.

Mr FERGUSON – Minister, you said you have had detailed modelling done and you kindly provided three figures to me and to the Committee. You said that for an RTO with 10 modules over three sites it was $1 388 per annum -

Mr McKim – That is 10 qualifications on scope, one delivery site, an average annual fee of $1 388.

Mr FERGUSON – Thank you – 50 qualifications over three sites, $4 268 and 600 over 12 sites is $9 188. Can you also provide me with what the figures in your comprehensive modelling that show what those three examples are currently paying?

Mr McKIM – As I previously advised, Mr Ferguson, what you are asking about is what I would describe as the PET core level fees that RTOs have been paying in Tasmania for many years which is $210 per annum and a one-off application fee of $140.

Before you rise, if I might, Mr Ferguson, make the point that currently the Tasmanian Government in effect significantly subsidises regulation through the TQA whereas this would move to a full cost-recovery model.

Mr FERGUSON – Thank you very much, Minister, and I thank the committee for its time. I have finished with those questions and I now move an amendment. I have circulated it as amendment No. 1.

Mr Chairman, I move -

In sub clause (2) paragraph (b) leave out the paragraph and insert -

‘(b) ending at the end of the day fixed under section 8(1)(a) or (c) or at the end of the day occurring 10 years after subsection (1) commences, whichever occurs first, as the day on which the adoption is to terminate.’

The minister seems to think that if the Opposition votes against a government bill, it really is a bit cheeky to then move amendments during the committee stage.

Mr Hidding – That is very foolish indeed; that is precisely what this process is about.

Mr McKIM – No, it is not. I explained but you were not in here but I will respond to you in a minute.

Mr Hidding – No, no you do not need to lecture me on how the Westminster system works.

Mr McKIM – I intend to lecture you shortly.

Mr Hidding – Every time you vote against something, you can then seek to improve it.

Mr McKIM – I intend to lecture you shortly.

Mr CHAIRMAN – Order, Mr Ferguson is on his feet.

Mr Hidding – It is complete nonsense.

Mr McKIM – I do not care what you think. I am going to stand up and give you a lecture in a minute.

Mr Hidding – Do you think we cannot seek to amend to improve a bill?

Mr McKIM – I have not said that you cannot; I have just said it is a bit cheeky.

Mr CHAIRMAN – Order.

Mr McKIM – There is no use harrumphing at me.

Mr Hidding – It is precisely what the process is for.

Mr McKIM – No, it is not. I will explain why shortly.

Mr CHAIRMAN – Order.

Mr Hidding – You would not have a clue.

Mr McKIM – Oh, really. I have only been here a decade but I accept that you have been here longer – and you have done a lot less.

Mr FERGUSON – Mr Chairman, I would seek to continue.

It is entirely appropriate for the Opposition to arrive at a conclusion on a bill and we have done that and that is now old ground. We have trodden on this and we have explained the reasons for our position we do not get to vote in a percentage; we get to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’. On balance we have made a decision that we are not convinced by the minister’s arguments on this bill. We are now at a stage where we have an opportunity to improve the bill. I have only one change that I want to see and it is represented in two individual amendments to two different clauses but they seek to achieve one goal which is just to insert into everything that the minister has presented to the Parliament a time boundary of a 10-year period which to me is very reasonable and proper and prudent step to take. We are, after all, talking about quite an extraordinary step in our State. You do not often see a bill in the Parliament to refer a power of State sovereignty off to another level of government and so I am sure the minister would at least agree with me that is a significant step -

Mr McKim – I would.

Mr FERGUSON – and one that should not be taken lightly -

Mr McKim – I would and I do.

Mr FERGUSON – which is why I said it the way I did and, Minister, I am sure that I could persuade you that a 10-year period is more than adequate in time. I could have suggested five years but 10 years is more than adequate for the new arrangements to prove themselves up as being good for Tasmania; that is what this is about. It is about putting in a time boundary around this process that just protects this State, Tasmania, and that is why we are here tonight. We are not here for Australia tonight we are here for Tasmanians. We have 100 RTOs and this amendment seeks to protect their interest. In eight, nine or nine-and-a-half years this Parliament would then be asked to reconsider the matter and the Government of the day, Liberal, Labor, Greens, coalition, whatever, would have to confront the issue again, afresh and decide if the arrangements which are eight, nine or 10 years old are working well. Then we remove the time boundary that I seek to insert tonight. But it also means and probably this is the crux of the matter, that if everybody is aware that Tasmania has given its full support to the reform, but that there is a time boundary around that, it means that everybody is aware that we had better make sure that this system works and it provides a level of accountability on the Tasmanian Government of the day to seriously consider its place in that national scheme. I put it forward tonight in good faith. I believe it is sensible and reasonable and if anybody feels that it is not, then they probably have to answer on what basis they feel comfortable tonight ceding a State sovereign power to another level of government for all time on the basis that they only have in the current bill an arrangement for allowing six months’ notice.

Mr McKIM – You have answered your own question. No, we will not be supporting this.

Mr FERGUSON – So I will move that amendment.

Mr McKIM – Thank you and I appreciate you have done this in good faith, Mr Ferguson, but we will not be supporting the amendment. You do not need an amendment like this to generate good efforts to make something work. In our view, it would be in breach of the COAG agreement that Tasmania has signed up to. I remind you, once again, that the referral of powers can be reversed under the mechanism provided for in clause 8 which is a proclamation by the Governor for the adoption of the national law and for the power of Commonwealth to amend the national law to be terminated. We think that that addresses your concern that we are handing over for all time. Just saying that we are handing over for all time, full stop, is not an accurate reflection of what we are doing. We are handing over without time limit with a provision, should we decide to exercise it, that we can reverse the referral by a simple mechanism of proclamation.

Mr FERGUSON – I do not want to labour the point, but I simply point out that I accept your argument on that point, but not on the amendment. – What you have said about the Governor being empowered under this proposed bill – that is a safety net for if and when things go wrong or Tasmania has -

Mr McKIM – Or if the Government changes its policy on the issue.

Mr FERGUSON – Exactly, or if, whatever, any number of hypothetical situations occur. It seems to me that is a get-out clause but it gives the other participants in the process six months notice that Tasmania is exiting. So that is how I read that. But, nonetheless, the purpose for this amendment tonight is quite different from the safety net. The purpose of the amendment tonight is to build a provision into the bill and potentially the act, and then to lock it in as a known accountability check. That is all it is because, of course, there is nothing to stop, as you have just said, a future government or this Parliament in the future changing the act anyway. So that is my argument. I will let it rest there and I thank the committee.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 – (Reference of continuing VET matters)

Mr FERGUSON – Mr Chairman, I have circulated a second amendment which I will no longer proceed with on the basis that the first one lapsed and I thank the committee.

Mr McKIM – I thank you for your constructive approach to the debate, Mr Ferguson and I mean that most sincerely, unlike you colleague, Mr Hidding, whose contribution I thought was not as constructive as yours.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clauses 7-12 agreed to and bill taken through the remaining stages.

In the Legislative Council today, the Government quietly killed off Lara Gidding’s major law reform policy for a Charter of Rights.  Long-time anti-Charter protagonist and Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council, Doug Parkinson, appeared to take great pleasure in all but declaring the Charter of Rights dead.

When Lara Giddings was Attorney-General, one of her flagship reforms was going to be a Charter of Rights. It highlighted just how out of touch she was at the time – when people were losing their jobs and the cost of living was soaring, the soon-to-be Premier was talking about a legislated Charter of Rights that would add a costly new layer of bureaucracy and have very little positive impact on the majority of Tasmanians.

If the current Attorney-General, Brian Wightman, is looking for some practical law reforms that the community actually wants, he should look at appointing a representative of victims of crime to the parole board, stronger penalties for people who assault emergency workers and getting tough on hate crimes.

Vanessa Goodwin is Shadow Attorney General

I have today received a letter from Brenton Best in which he sincerely apologises for his false and baseless claims in Parliament on the 7th July that I had organised or attended so-called “gay hate” rallies on the North West coast.

I accept Mr Best’s apology, and will be taking no further action on this matter.

However, it is appalling that it took Mr Best nearly two weeks to make this apology. I note that the Premier, Ms Giddings, was content to let this breach of her own Code of Conduct remain unresolved for so long. It is a poor reflection on her leadership.

I am also disappointed that the debate on these important issues was allowed to degenerate to such a grubby level.

In a truly tolerant and free society it is right and proper for politicians and organisations who campaign in the interests of our children to have the freedom to express their views without baseless allegations being made against them under the cover of Parliamentary Privilege.

As the letter to me is marked “Private and Confidential”, I will leave it to Mr Best and Ms Giddings to make a public statement regarding this apology, the abuse of Parliamentary Privilege and the Code of Conduct for Government Members.

I’ve today announced that the environment in which to debate marriage has turned toxic; and that I won’t be participating in the scheduled debate on revising the definition of marriage.

UTAS have behaved impeccably in proposing the debate.  However, recent behaviour of some of our  political leaders together with the actions of the same-sex lobby to refer to their opponents as haters has dashed my confidence in the tradition of free speech and geniune debate in this state. 

Personally attacking your opponents with false allegations – together with hate language – to win some points in an argument lacks all integrity and cannot be tolerated. That environment of demonization and intimidation must change.

Lara Giddings should finally show leadership and deal with her Parliamentary Secretary Brenton Best by sacking him and requiring him to apologise to the Tasmanian Paliament for the shameful and cowardly abuse of Parliamentary Privilege.

In 2003 the state labor government’s Judy Jackson introduced a proposal to amend the Adoption Act which would have allowed singles and same sex couples to adopt children.

The Tasmanian Family Institute was formed in response to the failure by the state government’s main adviser, the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute, to properly take account of the views of the many community submissions which expressed concern at the proposal.

The Tasmanian Family Institute could have, but didn’t, ever stage a single public meeting or rally.  It was careful to not involve itself in activities would could in any way be considered “hateful”.  The institute’s main goal was to produce a submission to the State Labor Government which gave an alternative view to the debate.  This scholarly, substantial submission not only provided a sound case for the retention of the current Adoption Act; it also documented with full transparency the names of all members and the research methodology used.  The submission was tabled in the Tasmanian Parliament and distributed to all MHAs and MLCs and has been freely available online ever since that time.

Importantly, it worth noting that the then Bacon government actually accepted the view the Adoption Act should not be amended.  

I am proud of the work of the Institute and the highest standards of conduct and transparency with which it operated.  I left the Institute in 2003/4 to pursue a career in politics.  I have never organized, attended or even know of Mr Best’s fictitious “hate rally” in the North West Coast.  As I told the Parliament, the only rally I have ever attended on the North West Coast was one week ago in Stanley to fight for it’s primary school.

Finally, I am concerned that the recent disgraceful and bungled attempt to link myself to a terrible crime has still not been withdrawn by the cowardly Mr Best who has gone into hiding.  Three days later, not a single shred of evidence has been produced to support a very serious allegation.  While I have always known that the claim was baseless and false, it is very concerning that the Premier has chosen to throw her support behind Mr Best’s fake stories.  In desperately trying to avoid the humiliation of sacking her Parliamentary Secretary, the Premier has appointed herself the judge of my past community work (quite separate to the issue of Mr Best’s fake story) and in her desperation has even added to the fake story herself.

I abhor all violence and am as disturbed as anyone else that a man was attacked in Ulverstone recently.  It is also deeply regrettable that Mr Best has slurred his own community.  It is abundantly obvious that while there are different views on social issues, the overwhelming majority of our community is not hateful or violent to any minority groups.