2015-12-08
Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — I am very pleased to speak on the Education Legislation Amendment (TAFE and University Governance Reform) Bill 2015. I indicate at the outset that the Greens will be supporting this bill. On 27 November 2012 the then Baillieu government passed the Education Legislation Amendment (Governance) Bill 2012, which abolished staff and student representation on university councils and TAFE boards. The Greens voted against that bill. We did not support those provisions or agree with the arguments that were put forward in support of them, which we are hearing again today.
The Greens believe — and it has been our position all along — that there should be elected staff and student representatives on university councils and TAFE boards. Their removal in Victoria was contrary to the practice in other jurisdictions around the country. It was our policy at the last election that we would like to see this representation restored. We are supportive of the bill that the government has brought before us today, and we would be pleased to see it pass today so that these provisions would be in place for the new academic year.
This bill ensures that there is at least one elected student and one elected staff member on every university council and one elected staff member on every TAFE board, and it reinstates the CEO to TAFE boards. It amends various university and TAFE acts to this effect and makes related technical and consequential amendments. I have had a discussion with the Minister for Training and Skills about the fact that the bill provides for the election of a staff member to every TAFE board but not a student representative. The Australian Education Union has also expressed concern in regard to this. I know TAFEs are different from universities, and different from each other as well, but given the importance of having the voices of staff and students heard, I would like to see this changed. The minister has indicated to me that he will make some comments about this, including that the government will continue to look at this issue, because it is important.
I do not agree with comments by Mr Drum and Mrs Peulich that this is somehow taking us back to the dark ages and will detrimentally affect the running of university councils and TAFE boards. The bill allows for one student and one staff representative on university councils and one staff member on TAFE boards. Other jurisdictions around the country have greater numbers of staff and student representatives on councils and boards. The position we are taking in Victoria is conservative. I would support greater numbers of staff and student representatives. Universities and TAFEs are not primarily businesses; they are educational institutions. They would not exist without students. The role of students, who are affected by what goes on in their educational institutions, is very important. Their voices should be heard at the council and board level. The same can be said for the staff of universities and TAFEs.
The evidence around the country and around the world is that staff and students make a valuable contribution to councils and boards. This bill also contains provisions to broaden the skill base of university councils and TAFE boards to include financial and commercial experience or expertise. The argument that is being run by the opposition is spurious. It is a false argument. It is important to have the voices of staff and students heard on councils and boards. We fully support the major provisions of this bill.
At the time that the Greens voted against the bill brought to the house by the Baillieu government, we raised the issue that the amendments removing staff and students reduced transparency and accountability and that this was completely unnecessary and undemocratic. It was also counterproductive because, as I have said, the voices of staff and students are important in the governance and administration of our public universities and TAFEs.
Sitting suspended 6.30 p.m. until 8.04 p.m.
Ms PENNICUIK — Prior to the dinner break I was talking about the lack of student representation on TAFE boards. I have discussed this with the Minister for Training and Skills and he assures me that he is going to make some comments about how the government responds to this and perhaps makes some changes with regard to that particular issue.
I was happy to speak with representatives of the National Tertiary Education Union and the Australian Education Union about this issue. I have also recently received some very detailed submissions from the National Union of Students. It has put together a summary of the situation around the country. Opposition speakers have been saying that it would somehow be the end of the world as we know it to put staff and students back onto the university councils and TAFE boards, but that is where they always have been. The National Tertiary Education Union made the point that it would prefer to see two staff members and two students elected to university councils, which is not so unusual because it occurs in other states.
In New South Wales most universities have a directly elected undergraduate representative and a graduate student representative on the governing body with regard to students only. Queensland universities directly elect one undergraduate student and one graduate student to their boards, apart from the Central Queensland University and the University of Southern Queensland, which each have a single elected student on their boards. In Tasmania two representatives are appointed to the council of the University of Tasmania following consultation with the university. In Western Australia there are two undergraduate students and one graduate student directly elected to the senate of the University of Western Australia; one undergraduate and one graduate directly elected to the university council at Curtin University; and two students elected to the governing bodies of both the Edith Cowan University and the Murdoch University. In South Australia there are two undergraduate students and one graduate student elected to the council of the University of Adelaide.
As members can see, around the country there is often more than one student elected to the councils of those universities, and that is something that we can perhaps look at in the future. There is nothing to prevent a university council from electing more than one student and one staff member to its council, seeing that the member representation is increasing but the maximum is still staying at 21, and there is no reason why it could not be achieved without the legislation. The legislation of course just ensures that there is at least one staff member and one student elected to university councils, which is a good thing and is in keeping with previous practice in Victoria and current practice around the country.
Amendments in the bill will change the way TAFE board members are appointed, removed or suspended by providing for the board chairperson to be elected by the board; the minister to have the right to object to the appointment of a board chairperson before the appointment is made, the removal of the Governor in Council's power to remove an individual director, including the chairperson; a ministerial and a board power to remove or suspend the board chairperson with the minister's power reserved for exceptional circumstances; the removal of the minister's power to appoint board nominee directors on the recommendation of the chairperson and ministerial nominee directors and providing for directors to be coopted by existing directors; and the removal of the minister's power to suspend or remove board nominee directors and providing the board with power to suspend or remove coopted directors.
Also, with regard to the composition of TAFE boards, the bill provides for an increase in the minimum size of TAFE boards from 9 directors to 10 and provides that at least half of those be appointed by the minister, with a minimum of one director or any greater fixed number of directors to be elected by staff members.
The chief executive officer of the institute will also be a member of the board, which is an interesting issue. If I remember correctly, I raised in 2012 whether the CEO should be a member of the board, given that the CEO reports to the board and carries out its strategic directions. That is something the minister might wish to comment on. The bill also provides that the remaining directors must be appointed to the board by cooption, replacing the current process where the minister appoints a number of directors. The Greens are pleased to see representation by staff restored to TAFE boards and representation by students and staff restored to university councils.
I would like to take an opportunity to talk briefly about the problems that remain in the vocational education and training sector after seven years of mayhem in that sector. That began with the introduction of market contestability under the previous Labor government. Members who were in Parliament at the time would remember me raising that issue and predicting what was going to happen, and it did happen. The government of the day was warned at the time about the possible problems associated with the unregulated market contestability that was introduced.
Firstly, we saw a long list of TAFE institutes under stress, with staff made redundant or not having their contracts renewed. Thousands of staff lost their jobs during the first couple of years. Lots of courses were discontinued and lost to the training regime in Victoria, and many TAFE institutes got into financial trouble, with some having to close or merge. Added to that and exacerbated by the policies of the previous coalition government was the ripping of money from the TAFE sector. People talk about it being $300 million, but it was probably quite a lot more than that in the long run.
I can remember raising this issue many times in Parliament across the chamber with the responsible minister at the time, Mr Hall. He kept saying and government members kept saying there had been a blowout in TAFE. In fact there had not been a blowout in TAFE; there had been a blowout in money going to private providers. There had been a blowout in vocational education and training (VET), but all the new money was going to private providers, most of which were completely unregulated. The Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority (VRQA) was not resourced enough to deal with that situation. It all happened very quickly.
As a result we saw a long list of collapses by registered training organisations (RTOs), some of which had sprung up like mushrooms. Back in 2012 there was an attempt to have the whole issue of the rorting of the training system by a number of RTOs, reported widely in the media, sent to a committee for an inquiry. The ALP supported that reference, but the government of day voted against it. That was a shame because an inquiry might have got to the bottom of a few things three years ago and perhaps prevented more of it from happening.
We have had a long list of allegations — not allegations, but reality — about poor-quality training where students have been taken advantage of. They have not been able to get qualifications. The training they have received in many cases has been dodgy, to say the least, or totally substandard, and they have found themselves out in the workplace not properly trained, with employers not wanting to employ them because of their lack of training. Victoria's whole vocational education and training system, which was the envy of the world seven years ago, has had its reputation seriously undermined by a lack of action.
We have seen hundreds of millions of dollars going to registered training organisations in the private sector — Victorian taxpayers money — and in other states as well. This was all made worse by the VET FEE-HELP system, which was also completely unregulated. We know about all the problems that have been happening, and the government has put some money back into the system, but it has not addressed the nub of the problem, which is market contestability. The TAFE system has gone from providing at least 70 per cent of the training in Victoria to providing somewhere around 28 per cent or 29 per cent. Mr Herbert, I am sure, knows the exact figure.
Mr Herbert interjected.
Ms PENNICUIK — Mr Herbert says it is 25, so it is less.
That is an absolute tragedy. The government should be looking at the model it put in place. Mrs Peulich certainly referred to it in her speech, saying that the ALP put the market contestability system in place, and I agree with her on that. But the coalition did nothing about that; it exacerbated the problem by ripping money out of TAFE and taking virtually no action on the registered training organisations that were running amok.
As we all know, it continues to this day. Only last month a huge training organisation, Vocation Ltd, collapsed and went into receivership, putting at risk the training of 12 000 students across Australia, 2000 of them in Victoria. It owes the Department of Education and Training $8 million — it owes the taxpayers $8 million. It just rolls on and on with one horror story after another, and it is students in Victoria who suffer as a result. Neither government has taken anywhere near enough action or gone to the nub of the problem.
Mrs Peulich — What action? Tell us.
Ms PENNICUIK — To respond to the interjection, you know what my vision is, Mrs Peulich; it is no secret. First of all, rewind the market contestability model and, second, bring in proper quality training for all vocational education and training teachers, with minimum standards, minimum hours and quality requirements for training courses, and increase the amount of money directed towards the TAFE system. If we put those things in place, we would see things turn around.
Mrs Peulich also referred to the Auditor-General's reports, and I have read and commented on them in the Parliament. The Auditor-General basically just states the facts. I do not think that in any of the reports I have read the Auditor-General has made any comments on the actual system but has stated the fact that under the market contestability model the TAFE sector was struggling. That is basically what I read. Of course it was struggling, because it had to deal with the market contestability model with no regulation of the registered training organisations, which were allowed to proceed pretty much unregulated with unregulated staff and nobody really looking at the courses they were running.
At any opportunity I like to point out that the TAFE system is still struggling and the government has not done enough about it. I do not think the remedies it has in place now will solve the problem, even though I agree that they go some way — and Mr Herbert and I have dealt with this in question time and will continue to do so. There is still a long way to go, and we owe it to the 2000 current students. Mr Herbert says they are going to be accommodated in the TAFE system at no cost to them. That is great, but it will be at a cost to the taxpayer. It could all have been prevented; that is the sadness of this. It should never have happened in the first place.
I digress from the provisions in the bill, but I took my lead from Mrs Peulich, who also went off to talk about related but not directly related issues. I will finish by saying the Greens are very happy to support the bill.