Campus Review Volume 28 - Issue 9 | September 2018 | Page 27

VET & TAFE campusreview.com.au steadily. The Australian government treasury bought into (perhaps until recently) the principle of demand- driven funding, but S&T treasuries never bought into demand-driven ‘VET entitlements’ (the language of training post the Global Financial Crisis). The flow-on consequences are profound. It has tilted student demand to universities, institutions that carry the prestige, marketing and funding capacity to enrol students, subject to entry standards, at bachelor level and fed by sub-bachelor entries. Universities have ‘self-accreditation’ status and curriculum agility when working with industry, whereas registered training organisations (RTOs) are anchored on training packages, qualifications and accredited courses approved by regulators. Policy to extend the higher education demand-driven system to higher education sub-bachelor programs while not pursued, was endorsed by Universities Australia. In response to the Business Council of Australia’s Future Proof proposals, UA proposed universities partner with industry to (inter alia) ‘jointly develop higher-end vocational programs in higher education; co-invest with universities in quality work placements, including internships; and increase the number of apprenticeships offered by business and industry’. This is mostly traditional VET terrain. State and regional economic development increasingly values local universities as being central to supply of skilled graduates. In fast-evolving labour markets, employers have equally high expectations of discipline knowledge and technical skills in employees, as well as wanting enterprise capabilities in graduates. Besides ministers of training, S&T cabinets may also include ministers for higher/international education, science and innovation and the like. This helps reinforce arguments that future labour market demand will be increasingly met by university graduate supply. Some universities are unambiguous in promoting both their educational and vocational credentials in aligning courses to future jobs. Universities have not yet entered into the core VET domain of trades and apprentices, other than on a small trial basis. All this risks eroding and Figure 1: ‘Revenues from government’ funding source State & Territory Funding 2016 Fee for service government agencies 2015 National Agreement Funding 2014 National Partnership Funding 2013 Commonwealth Portfolio Funding 2012 VET FEE-HELP payments – to students training at non-government providers 0 2000 4000 6000 (Reporting in nominal terms) $m Note: Reporting does not include capital revenue. underselling the role and value of VET. Nevertheless, S&Ts are also well aware that increased university places are funded by the Commonwealth, and that these graduates increasingly encompass vocational credentials. 5. The knowledge gained from the full VET market capture of all VET activities regardless of fund source (with now four years of Total VET Activity data) highlights that Commonwealth or state-funded VET subject enrolments represent ~46.3 per cent of all subject enrolments in 2017, with fee-for-service 53.7 per cent. Governments have been keen to know what they might not need to fund, or fund less. In summary, cost shifting may not be formal treasury language, but given S&T priorities like health, schools, policing and welfare, and that VET is funded under a federated system, there is a big chance VET will be pushed lower in priority given the above. So while S&T governments may make new funded VET policy announcements, in the end treasuries extract efficiency dividends. S&T training ministers of all colours face unenviable circumstances in managing the politics and quality of VET provision by best balancing TAFE versus private RTO contribution. Training is ‘demand managed’ with scarce public funds best aligned to current and future job openings. Governments have modest intelligence tools to do this, so shooting ‘time-delayed arrows’ at fast moving ‘job market targets’ means they don’t always get it right, based on the view of one state auditor-general. The NPSR was intended to encourage contestability and improve efficiency in quality VET provision. Efficiency improved for a while, but recent recurrent expenditure per annual hour has now risen in 2015 and 2016. While it is predicted that S&T VET funding will marginally increase in 2017, all trend data for government-funded student 8000 activity is down. In 2017, it shows a 5.9 per cent decrease in student numbers from 2016. Costs in delivering quality training must over time go up and government- funded training output is falling. The ‘do more with less’ arguments have now run thin. So, circling back to Recommendation 1 in the KPMG report, any dialogue between governments on these matters would be pivotal to change. The bulk of VET training funds are presently split about ~2/3s S&T revenue to 1/3 NASWD (Figure 1). Lesser but other significant resources include VET Student Loans for diplomas (~$200 million in provider payments 2017), income from visas to part cover the Skilling Australians Fund (total budget ~$300 million 2017/18, and for which S&Ts must invest matching funds in agreed projects); plus, quite separately, the Commonwealth invests in the apprentice support network and incentives programs (~$580 million in 2017/18). Finally, KPMG’s suggestion to allow access to income contingent loans for all levels of the AQF is to be cautioned. There are outright social equity concerns as Certificate III is not much higher than school level. This certificate is the lowest ‘safe-ledge’ for early job-seekers in any qualification ‘climb’, so loans only above this level might be justified. The second reason is the overall numbers. There are about 4.2 million participants in the national VET system, the bulk (53 per cent) are studying at Certificate III and below. The nation’s HELP debt is already stretched with growing concerns about its sustainability, even though new lower threshold repayment measures have just been legislated. ■ Dr Craig Fowler is an analyst and observer of national policies impacting tertiary education, science and innovation, after decades of experience in private, public and university sectors. 25