Matter of Interest - TAFE Institute Incorporation

Extract from Hansard

Legislative Council
11 April 2001

Mike Elliott
Leader Australian Democrats
Member of the Legislative Council

Parliament Index
2001 Autumn Sitting Index
Browse by Subject
Search all Democrats material
About the SA Parliament
Hansard on line

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I wish to address some issues in relation to TAFE institutes. Between 1997 and 1999, commonwealth funding to vocational education and training fell from $947.2 million to $828.2 million. Much of this was due to an agreement between state and federal governments to freeze commonwealth funding to further education until the end of last year. Despite enrolment demands increasing, when TAFE funding arrangements came up for review Minister Brindal agreed to a $6 million increase to TAFE funding in South Australia over the next three years.

This is far less than our share of the $ 155 million which was being called for jointly by the state education ministers. This real term funding cut has occurred while at the same time the state government has also been cutting spending on TAFE by about $53 million over the past 10 years. It is in this context of real term funding cuts that the state government has proposed the incorporation of individual TAFE institutes to provide what it calls a `better business management basis for TAFE institutes'. However, I am concerned about the process being used and the agenda behind it.

On 23 June 1999, Minister Buckby was asked in parliament if there was an intention to review the TAFE Act and if there was a timetable for what issues would be addressed. Minister Buckby replied:

Yes, it will be, but we will be looking to incorporate TAFE into the Education Act. We will not be coming up with another TAFE Act. We will be incorporating TAFE into the current Education Act, recognising the department's role of children's services, education and training, and further education.

Yet Minister Buckby announced changes to the TAFE Act in a press release on 4 April this year and that these proposed changes see institute councils replaced with governance boards directly appointed by the education minister.

It was a surprising revelation, given the minister's previous comment that we would see a full review of the act and the great deal of fuss about the community consultation with the review of the Education Act in 1999. Yet we still see no review of the act. Instead we see bits pulled out that fit the state government's agenda to devolve financial responsibility for education. Recently, it was legislation for governing councils and school fees, now it is the incorporation of TAFE. Perhaps the public consultation on the Education Act did not support the state government's agenda and it has had to use other means rather than the review of the Education Act itself.

If one looks at the issue of consultation, it leads one to consider the consultation used for changes to the TAFE Act. I am informed that responsibility for community consultation has been entrusted to three bodies; first, the TAFE Institutes Governance Reform Steering Committee is to consult relevant government authorities, departments, unions and other professional associations. However, I am informed that the Heads of TAFE Councils, some unions and other professional associations were first met with on 3 April and given only until 20 April to consult those they represent and then to respond. Secondly, individual institutes are responsible for discussions with staff, students and key stakeholders within the institute's sphere of influence. However, it would seem that, despite the significance of TAFE to a wide range of employers and employees across the state, public consultation will only occur between 3 April and 30 April and will not extend beyond those specifically within the TAFE institutes' sphere of influence. Thirdly, Minister Buckby's office is responsible for consultation with members of parliament. Concerned that I had not been made aware of any proposed changes, I wrote to Minister Brindal on 21 March requesting information. At this time the only response I have received is an acknowledgment that my letter has been received by the minister's office. Given that I am informed that I, like other government bodies or education associations, have only until 20 April to respond, this leaves very little time should Minister Buckby get around to consulting with the Democrats or any other member of parliament on this legislation. Subsequently, I have been informed that the deadline for the legislation is said to have been now extended to June.

I wish to express my concern that it would seem that the changes have been formulated already and that consultation is being rushed to allow the swift introduction of changes that would shift the responsibility of years of real term funding cuts to TAFE from the state government to individual institutes. In fact, this government is in a rush to implement these quite radical changes in the dying days of its government.