VET & TAFE
campusreview.com.au
The Overton window
What VET policies will the
Morrison government accept?
By Hans Tilstra
A
surge of reports on the future of Australia’s VET sector
were published in the lead-up to the federal election,
many tabled by Craig Fowler in a recent article published
in Campus Review. Labor’s Tanya Plibersek established the
terms of reference for her party’s proposed National Inquiry into
Post-secondary Education in Australia. In response, the Morrison
government commissioned Steven Joyce to provide his Expert
Review of Australia’s Vocational Education and Training System.
The outcome of the federal election has left questions
unanswered regarding the political appetite for VET reform in
Australia. It may be too early to predict what Senator Michaelia
Cash (the newly appointed minister for small and family business,
skills and vocational education) plans to do, but predictably the
potential role of VET and jobs will be high on the agenda. However,
responsibility for VET is distributed among federal and state
governments, hence COAG negotiations will play a significant role
in the scope of any reforms.
Realistically, what could be the scope of such negotiations? One
way of framing such discussions is to look through an ‘Overton
window’, a political theory that refers to the range of policies
that an electorate or politician will accept. To put such plans in a
historical perspective, this analysis aims to create a bird’s eye view
of Australia’s VET tracing back to 1964.
This Overton window of Australia’s VET is based on a thematic
analysis of two related data sets. The first data set compares the
subject codes of 55 reports relating to Australia’s VET, tracing back
to 1964 sourced from the National Centre for Vocational Education
Research (NCVER). The selection of these publications was guided
by Hugh Guthrie, a veteran researcher in VET who has worked for
the NCVER for many years.
It is hypothesised that the subject codes linked to VET-related
reports indicate the zeitgeist of the time in which they were
published. These subject tags are matched to a second data set
that quantifies the predominant political colour in a given year. This
measure is based on a calculation of where the political pendulum
ranks in individual federal and state governments from 1964 to 2018.
For the purpose of this Overton window, it is estimated that on
average the Australian government provides 25 per cent of VET funding,
NSW 24 per cent, Victoria 18 per cent, Queensland 14 per cent, Western
Australia 7 per cent, South Australia 5 per cent and Tasmania 2 per cent.
22
When that data is compared with the list of subjects of reports
written in that particular year, political pendulum swings can be
revealed that underpin policy decisions in VET. So, the political
zeitgeist starts with predominantly ‘blue’ federal and state
governments from 1964 onwards. Then, red and blue pendulum
swings mark changes in the political zeitgeist influencing VET.
The resulting Overton window shows what report subjects could
be considered more ‘centre forward’ politically speaking. Subjects
leaning to the left of the table are more prevalent in reports published
during times when Labor is in power. Subjects leaning to the right of
the table are dominant themes when the Coalition is in power.
The most prevalent subject (mentioned 28 times in the 55 reports
included in this analysis) is Governance, Planning and Management.
This subject is, politically speaking, in the middle of the Overton
window, hence can be considered a ‘broad spectrum’ theme.
On this political spectrum, subjects listed on the left appear mostly
in more Labor-dominated political years. For example, the subject
of Pathways tends to come with political trade-offs in terms of costs
and benefits. Pathways typically challenge the exclusivity of higher
education, so become part of the democratisation of tertiary education.
During more Liberal dominated years, the subject of Higher
Education is included in reports, but more likely in the sense of
keeping VET and higher education systems separate. To illustrate
these different approaches, Tanya Plibersek proposed a ‘post-
secondary’ inquiry, whereas the Joyce Review kept the scope of
the review within the boundaries of the VET system.
Another political contrast illustrated in the Overton window is
the subject of Skills and Knowledge versus Outcomes. The political
contrast between these two subjects was made evident in the mid-
1990s when the political decision was made to take knowledge largely
out of training packages. While few would argue the importance
of focusing on outcomes, politically this impacts on the focus of
VET. As Pauline James noted in 2010, this positioned the role of VET
in developing procedural, technical workers, rather than reflective
problem-solvers and innovators. A current review of the AQF is
reconsidering the role of knowledge in AQF levels 5 and 6 in particular.
Historically, VET reports that include the subject of
Apprenticeships generally appeared more in Labor contexts. Now
that the Morrison government has clustered VET in the same
portfolio as small and family business, this may reframe political
perspectives on apprenticeships as a means of offering financial
support to small and family business.
Australia’s VET operates in steadily changing political contexts.
One notable illustration of such political pendulum swings happened
in 1997, when the Howard government found itself aligned politically
with every state government except NSW. This political swing saw
the number of private RTOs increase from 900 to 4500.
This was also the time when the controversial BSZ40198
Certificate IV in Workplace Training and Assessment set bold new
thresholds for teacher training.
If funding remains a shared responsibility, COAG negotiations
relating to VET will need to be acceptable to the Australian
government and three Labor and three Liberal state governments.
This time, there will be no shortage of recommendations, but time
will tell what the scope of reform will be on the Overton window. ■
Hans Tilstra is an education professional with 20+ years of
experience in the pedagogical connections between industry,
VET and university.