From a system to a market – impact on the public good provider – comment by CEO Jenny Dodd

Last Wednesday’s TAFETalks with guest speak Simon Walker, Managing Director NCVER supported by Mary Faraone, CEO Holmesglen Institute and Craig Robertson, CEO Victorian Skills Authority, set out the  policy directions that have impacted TAFE over the last two decades. Thank you to our knowledgeable and engaging speakers.

Simon outlined that it all began with national competition policy. At the same time as national competition policy, the following changes occurred: a national approach to skills including the establishment of Australian National Training Authority (ANTA), portability of credentials, the need to transition to a demand driven system, the first AQF, and development of national standards which ultimately led to training packages. What developed was “a national training system made up of a network of providers delivering nationally recognised programs” (Simon).

It was at that time that the subtle language change occurred “from a national training system to a national training market” (Simon). One of the first strategies of ANTA was a strategy called ‘greater responsiveness’ which delivered competitive funding opportunities.

Simon highlighted how the expansion of competition policy has negatively impacted TAFE as a “public good provider”, especially with the loss of market share. Simon also outlined the enormous decline for community education providers – much more significant than for TAFE.

However, reflecting on this discussion, what also was lost through this change was the focus on education. The national training market changed the language to be about training. The role of education was diminished. TDA has written about this before, identifying the importance for TAFE of being educational entities.

Don Zoellner, University Fellow from CDU wrote to me on Thursday reflecting on this TAFETalks webinar and on our original TDA Convention 2024 debate topic, “Fifty years since Kangan, is TAFE still at the heart?”. Don wrote, “The Kangan review did not try to address the direct status comparison between TAFEs and Universities – they saw the two as equal but different based upon the occupations they prepared citizens for. Universities had one group of occupations while TAFE looked after a different group … . In order to introduce the national VET market, the role of the public provider required redefinition (following Kangan) that TAFEs were educational institutions that were equal with but different from universities”.

TAFE had been developed under Kangan as an equal and alternative education pathway to university. One of the changes that we will now tackle is what is meant by the aspiration for a harmonised VET and higher education system.

We live in interesting times as we address the current major tertiary education policy agenda.