by CLAIRE FIELD

With all jurisdictions having signed on to the Heads of Agreement for the next Commonwealth-State VET funding agreement I have been reflecting on how the final four submissions to the Productivity Commission’s inquiry into VET funding crystallise a number of the challenges facing policymakers.

 How do they reconcile the following?

Firstly, the Western Australia government, like other jurisdictions, argued forcefully against national consistency in VET funding, instead making the case for funding flexibility so that jurisdictions can meet their “unique” needs. Despite this, they have all since signed on to more national consistency in the heads of agreement.

Navitas’ submission was interesting in two ways. First, it was only recently that they divested a large part of their VET operations – does this submission signal a move back into VET off the back of increased government funding? Second, they argue for fully contestable funding and competitive neutrality – despite most of their business being built on cooperative partnership arrangements instead of competition.

FYI Training, a small Victorian provider, focussed on their students in their submission. They educate learners from low SES backgrounds who face upfront fees of up to $600 because the cost of applying for and administering the VET Student Loan scheme for their one diploma qualification is prohibitive. Their submission includes a copy of their latest performance report (compiled by the Victorian government) showing their excellent student experience and student outcome results.

Finally, the dual-sector universities (CDU, CQU, FedU, VU, RMIT and Swinburne U) support national consistency in VET funding, while TAFE Institutes through TAFE Directors Australia do not.  The dual-sector universities also identified issues with state government funding, argued that the Commonwealth should fund all qualifications at AQF levels Five and Six, and that no post-secondary student should face upfront fees.

It is enough to make your head spin!