VET & TAFE
campusreview.com.au
Federated cooperation
How will state and federal
cooperation play out in
the future of VET?
By Craig Fowler
T
he final report of the national VET review, Strengthening
Skills: Expert Review of Australia’s Vocational Education and
Training System (Joyce Review) was recently published, and
its early‑stage recommendations were comprehensively adopted
within the national budget.
The key recommendations of the review imply a major
repositioning of all governments in their independent and relative
roles, responsibilities and funding of VET. Given this, it is timely to
take stock of Australia’s various legal and operational models for
inter-governmental cooperation.
This article has two interlinked purposes. The first is to summarise
various ‘federated’ governance models that have been devised and
are in operation. These have framed inter-government relations
across many different areas of public policy. The second is to review
models recently deployed in tertiary education, especially in VET,
and consider any future implications in the light of the Joyce Review.
Understanding past landscapes is helpful in grappling with future
terrain. It helps objective sober assessment of the need for change
and possible change options.
PRINCIPLES AND INHERENT TENSIONS
From the inception of the agreed ‘federated architecture’ in 1901 to
present day, participant governments have had to accommodate
cross-border relationships in regards to multiple areas of public
policy and governance. This need has escalated as the nation has
evolved and modernised, along with contemporary interpretation of
the Constitution’s ground rules.
Intergovernmental arrangements boil down to finding acceptable
common ground in matters that typically are contested: control of
policy, decision making, funding and regulation. VET in particular has
been terrain for prolonged cooperation/tussle by all governments
on their relative roles in all facets of VET’s ownership, control
and funding.
22
Cooperative federalism is guided by three principles. One is
‘subsidiarity’, proximity of government to the community. Subsidiarity
is also argued as a subtle driver of productivity, promoting
competitive tension between states. There is strong evidence of
state-initiated policy innovation flowing to national benefit.
The second is ‘alignment of responsibilities and allocation of roles
to the level of government with the corresponding geographical
scale’. Big issues like defence or immigration are the realm of
national government. But think here of differing views as to whether
state training entitlement systems and apprentice/trainee systems
operate best within a jurisdiction’s boundaries or not; and the
fresh propositions made by Joyce to move key aspects of VET
governance to national frameworks yet still wanting to well preserve
state decision making.
Three is effective cooperation and constructive engagement
between the levels of government as shown by actions and
behaviour in accord with the ‘comity principle.’ 1
So except where the Commonwealth’s powers are undisputed,
our ‘federation’ requires us to ‘get the mob round the table’ and find
solutions. Any player can ‘gather a willing mob’, either ‘horizontally’
between states, or ‘vertically’ between states and Commonwealth.
Such conversations ideally start by agreeing on a collective
purpose. Parties have to first work out what collective outcomes they
seek and what practical betterments they want. The Joyce Review
advocates six headline ‘betterments’ with a roadmap for change.
AGREEMENTS AND LEGAL MODELS
A range of models have been adopted over decades in widely
differing areas of public policy supporting ‘federated governance’.
History shows there is no ‘one solution for all cases’. Indeed as a
federation, we have been modestly innovative in finding solutions.
As with most innovations, different models have enjoyed temporary
popularity, and also occasionally been disturbed by decisions of
the High Court. A good example is the long history of Australia’s
Corporations law and ultimate states’ referral of power.
Viewed at full wingspan, federated cooperation at its ‘loosest’
is done in non-legally binding agreements for ‘harmonisation’
practices (such as policy and regulations), at its ‘tightest’ it is an
agreed cooperative hand over (or perhaps take over) of powers
and control at one level of government. One step higher than
non‑binding ‘harmonisation’ is commitment to amend jurisdictional
Acts to achieve legislative conformity. States agree to pass ‘mirror’
legislation to give effect to ‘one national law’ but over time uniformity
may drift apart.
‘Federated cooperation’ has a long and complex history. Past
cases illustrate whether either tinkering or major reform, there is a
need for deep understanding of complexity and respect for case-
specific context before amending extant systems and their legal and
regulatory structures. This is absolutely true for VET given its history
and desired future.
How then does all this relate to Australia’s ‘post schooling’ tertiary
education system?
GOVERNANCE OF THE TERTIARY EDUCATION SYSTEM
HE SECTOR
The circumstances of the HE sector are relatively settled. By way
of their historic establishment, public universities are institutions of
state legislation to which universities owe small residual governance
and accountability.