TasTAFE (Skills and Training Business) Bill 2021

Ms WEBB (Nelson) – At the outset I place on the record my thanks to the Leader for organising the series of briefings that were made available to the Council on this matter before us.

I also acknowledge and thank the leader of Opposition business who also circulated stakeholder information at times to members as well.  Particularly, I extend my thanks to stakeholders who gave up time and energy to contact and appraise me of all manner of relevant facts and feedback and fears and information and views, from their respective perspectives.

All of us have made mention of the sheer volume of correspondence that has come through and the value of that in helping us understand different perspectives on this matter.  My thanks for that and I appreciate a phone call on Monday this week from the minister to reach out and offer any additional information required.  That was much appreciated.

I will try not to go into too much detail that covers similar areas.  I will probably come at things a little bit differently, and we will see if we can make something interesting of that.

Many members here will recall I first raised in this place matters relating to this proposed reform during my response to the Premier’s Address.  At that time, I raised queries regarding the proposal to reform TasTAFE which had abruptly appeared in the PESRAC final report released in March.  Without repeating too much of that previous speech, suffice to say I noted at the time the apparent disconnect between the submissions to PESRAC and the summaries provided of the stakeholder workshops conducted and then that ultimate proposal that appeared in the report.  I noted the material available from those PRESRAC mechanisms of consultation that had occurred, did not appear to raise the specific and deep concerns or dissatisfaction with TasTAFE which may have warranted what appeared to be quite a blunt fait accompli announcement that TasTAFE was fatally floored and required major restructuring, which we then saw in that recommendation in the PESRAC report.  Since then this PESRAC recommendation has served as both the basis and justification for the Government pursuing this reform, culminating in the bill before us.

I am going to venture onto a limb and say something a little risky here and say PESRAC is not a sacred cow.  I have said it and no lightening has emerged to strike me down.

Having said that, we will wait and see, PESRAC consisted of a coalition and what has been described as captain’s call picks of people who are credible people in our community who undertook a huge research task across a whole range of sectors and issues.  Despite their hard work in doing that, it was unavoidable the final report that came out contained a whole range of recommendations.  Some were more fully fleshed out and developed than others and that is certainly not a criticism, it is an observation of reality and much value came of that process and was delivered through it.  The important point here is that PESRAC in that process, was not a specialised or comprehensive public policy development entity and it was not an elected body.  There was essentially no public accountability or scrutiny mechanism we could apply to that because it was Executive-constructed and Executive-answering as an entity.  Again, it is not casting aspersions in any way upon the individuals involved in PESRAC but it is there in its name, the Premier’s Economic and Social Recovery Advisory Council.  It was a creature of the Executive and the Premier, not a creature of state parliament or necessarily another representative mechanism.

Further, the Tasmanian community were not consulted on the terms of reference for PESRAC or its makeup, another statement of fact.  While the parliament which does consist of elected representatives to the community, is bound to that community and answerable to it, PESRAC is not bound and nor are its recommendations.  Interestingly, while parliament is not bound to those recommendations, neither is the Government.  We have seen that demonstrated recently with an announcement the Government has dropped pursuing one of PESRAC’s proposed reforms, the local government reform process which, despite being one of the accepted PESRAC recommendations, taken to the May state election as a commitment, has now shifted somewhat.

To provide a quick reminder on that because it is going to reflect into this process.  These were specific PESRAC local government recommendations contained in that report in March prior to the election.  They were no. 47, 48, 49 and 59 and they said –

The Tasmanian parliament should sponsor a process to drive structural reform of the local government sector.  Parliament should own the reform process, including setting the terms of reference, the time frame, committing to implementing recommendations.  The process should be undertaken by an expert panel supported by a secretariat and the process should be designed to deliver reform outcomes capable of being implemented, including detailed recommendations on implementation and transition arrangements.

That was quite an explicit recommendation accepted by the Government at the time and then what occurred was time passed and on 23 September we saw a media release come out from the president of LGAT and that media release said:

Today the Minister for Local Government and Planning indicated that the process suggested by the Premier’s Economic and Social Recovery Advisory Council (PESRAC) for local government reform would not be progressing.  Instead, the government is now proposing to engage directly with local government and their communities on opportunities for reform.

The Minister for Local Government and Planning then stated in his subsequent media release on 4 November, and I quote a couple of excerpts from that release.  One of those is:

Today I met with Mayors and General Managers of the local government sector to outline the Government’s proposed collaborative approach to local government reform.

It also said:

The Tasmanian Government has proposed a three‑stage, 18‑month review program, including direct engagement with local government, communities, and users of local government services to identify specific needs and opportunities for reform in the sector.

Then it further went on to say:

It is important to note that the government has no preconceived outcomes and nothing has been ruled in or out.

And, further:

We recognise that local government will play a critical role in our State’s economic and social recovery effort, and the performance of the sector is vital to the future of our Tasmanian economy and wellbeing of Tasmanian communities. 

I thank LGAT and its member councils for their constructive approach to our discussion so far and look forward to working collaboratively with them to deliver meaningful reforms that will deliver genuine, positive outcomes.

That is of interest to me, Mr President, because there were also no bolts of lightning when Minister Jaensch announced that the Government was abandoning that specific PESRAC recommendation.

Mrs Hiscutt – I wonder whether the member might like to say why it was abandoned.

Ms WEBB – No, it is actually the fact it was and then the pivots made that is relevant to this debate and where I am heading with my comments.

Mrs Hiscutt – Yes but it was abandoned because the members could not work it out but, anyway, move on.

Ms WEBB – Yes, well, it will fit right in.  The Government is welcome to confirm why it was abandoned; that is not the point I am making.  The point I am making is if a good reason arose to abandon it and pivot to a different process – in fact, one that was a constructive approach working collaboratively with all those stakeholders listed to deliver meaningful reforms and positive outcomes, this is, in fact, the point I am making.

Mr Jaensch announced the Government would abandon that specific recommendation on the best process that came through PESRAC and pivot to a collaborative process with all the stakeholders involved and no preconceived outcomes.  To me, that sounds like an appropriate process and a good starting point for any major reform.

What is important to note here and why I raise it, and what makes the fate of a PESRAC local government recommendation relevant to this debate today on the fate of TAFE, is that clearly the Government does not mind adapting, altering, and even abandoning specific PESRAC recommendations.  Clearly, the Government can identify the benefit of a reform process undertaken respectfully, collaboratively, with no preconceived outcomes and with a positive approach.

Even after telling the Tasmanian electorate at the last election they intended to deliver fully on those very same recommendations, the Government has been prepared to change tack on the approach to local government reform.  Clearly, we do not have to worry about it being heresy to move away from a PESRAC recommendation to some extent and pivot in how we approach it.

What I am interested in is the Government has chosen to do that on the one hand but on this matter, we are dealing with today, has chosen not to do it.  That has presented some problems and some of the difficulties we have all then been grappling with the different contested views and the very strong feelings and fears amongst stakeholders.

Certainly, one of the things it does not assist with is dispelling a perception these reforms we are speaking about with TasTAFE are somehow ideologically driven, that they are not necessarily about rigorously developed good public policy but about pursuing an outcome that is a particular ideological one.  A process is a really good way to dispel those sorts of perceptions.

A key component of a good public policy test is not just the desirability or practicality of the target result or the target destination, but the process, the pathway to getting there.  From here to there is just as important.  It is not just the ‘what’; it is also the ‘how’ and the ‘why’.  They all need to be clearly and transparently evaluated.  I intend to spend some time in my contribution today reviewing the bill and its policy reform intent against those broad, public interest tests.

I will start with the ‘what’ – the policy target.  TasTAFE is first and foremost a public vocational education and training institution.  It is also the state’s largest vocational education and training provider.  It is currently a state agency under the State Service Act 2000.

The target objective which this bill intends to deliver is a fit for purpose framework which will provide TasTAFE with:

 … the agility and flexibility to deliver training that can respond to the needs of industry, students and the Tasmanian community.

The Government’s second reading speech is an important document when it comes to understanding the intent of a piece of proposed legislation.  It details how this bill seeks to deliver on the needs of industry and employers and align with their perspective of what a fit for purpose framework looks like.  However, the policy target of a new TasTAFE is articulated via this bill and in the second reading speech in a way that is silent on the detail when it comes to whether, and how, it is fit for purpose to meet the needs of all students.

There is passing mention that students were consulted, but that is hardly reassuring.

TasCOSS states in their submission:

Everyone has the right to an education.  A quality public education system is fundamental to guaranteeing this basic right to all.

TasTAFE supports this right by providing public, affordable, accessible, education and training.  It is the lynchpin of the vocational education and training (VET) system, with dedicated teachers and trainers committed to ensuring all Tasmanians have the opportunity to gain the skills and confidence they need.

TasCOSS was reiterating the importance of providing public education in its own right as well as providing industry, tailor-made training.

In preparing for the debate on this bill, I went back to TasTAFE’s current legislative framework, its Corporate Plan 2020-23 and some recent annual reports.  The current Training and Workforce Development Act 2013, section 57(2)(b), states that a function of TasTAFE is to deliver foundation skills to those facing barriers to participation in education where it may lead to persons obtaining a qualification.

Section 57(2)(e) of the Act establishes a further function of TasTAFE as the provision of VET services in rural and regional areas and other disadvantaged student cohorts where other VET providers cannot or are not effectively meeting demand.

I will focus on that foundational skills aspect.  The TasTAFE 2020-21 Annual Report summarises the Foundation Skills Delivery Programs provided by TasTAFE as including this list:

• Skills for Education and Employment (SEE) Program
• Vocational Preparation Teams
• Work Pathways Programs
• Literacy and Numeracy Support
• Adult Migrant English Program

Additionally, support programs are delivered targeting the following identified student cohorts, including:

• Support for Aboriginal students
• Disability Support Officers
• English Language Services Teams
• Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP)
• Young Migrant Education Program (YMEP), and
• English Language Intensive Courses for Overseas Students (ELICOS)

In 2020, from the Annual Report, a total of 15 891 enrolled students were identified across those combined disadvantaged student cohorts.  Some may have fitted into more than one category and I am happy to have those figures broken down more.

Enrolments in these identified categories are slightly down from 2019 – a decrease attributed to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In addition to those cohorts, there is also the TasTAFE Risdon Prison Education Delivery Model which had over 300 students enrolled during the period of 1 October 2020 to 30 June 2021, with almost 200 apparently completing a qualification or skill set. That is very pleasing to see.

This is thousands of students who fit into categories that are recognised to potentially be disadvantaged, accessing these important education and training programs which will contribute to their personal growth and wellbeing, as well as contributing to the broader social and economic robustness of the Tasmanian economy by equipping them for the workforce.

In 2020, as we heard before, in the vicinity of 5349 students were enrolled in apprenticeships and trainees.  It is hard to tell from the data about cross‑overs that apprentice category and those disadvantaged student categories.  I  am not sure where they marry up.   The 2020‑21 Annual Report states, and I  quote –

TasTAFE does not only measure its success by training statistics.  TasTAFE also acknowledges the importance of vocational education and training to disadvantaged student cohorts and is proud to have a suite of support services to help students who may have various barriers to accessing and participating in education.

That was page 15 of the annual report.  I  cannot put faces on or provide names to those grouped together under the terminology of disadvantaged cohorts or other students who have been assisted by TasTAFE to overcome a range of barriers to further their education.  However, I  can provide a useful insight into the number of those who have relied upon TasTAFE’s focus and delivery on those barrier-breaking foundation skills.  In response to questions that I  asked in June this year, the following breakdown of 2020 enrolments was provided:

There were 1290 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students; 2451 students with a disability; 387 new migrants and humanitarian visa holders; 863 school leavers under 19 years of age without a TCE or equivalent; 9629 students in low SES categories; 454 students in remote areas. 

When we looked at the gender breakdown of students, there were 8077 females – equating to 38.1 per cent of enrolments – and 13 113 male students, equating to 61.8 per cent of enrolments.

I  do not have a specific figure to put to students who did not identify a gender or fitted in a non‑binary gender category.  My apologies.  The only groups that did not predominantly rely upon the free and subsidised courses were the new migrant and humanitarian visa holder groups and the male students.  The rest of those categories were often the ones that predominantly relied on free and subsidised courses in TAFE and those foundational skills that we are talking about.

There may have been overlaps between categories, but it is clear is that TasTAFE provides a crucial education and training lifeline for more than only those industry connected apprentices and trainees, or some of the very industry focused courses.  There is a lot going on in the foundation space and for students who are in disadvantaged cohorts.

In my view, this other significant role and responsibility of TasTAFE is rather dismissively mentioned in the second reading speech in one sentence which said

TasTAFE will always play a role in providing services in regional areas and foundational skills including literacy, numeracy and digital literacy.

I  do not find that passing statement in the speech very reassuring.  We are not told that a key role for the new entity will be to maintain current levels of foundational skill development courses.  I  put on the record a request for the Government  to provide that commitment that the current focus, range and delivery of all free, subsidised and full-fee foundation skill courses will at least be maintained, if  not increased, by the new TasTAFE entity during the flagged five year transition period and beyond that.

These important social and equity contributions made by the current functions of TasTAFE need to be emphasised, given the articulation of the proposed new framework does not appear to emphasise them as being integral to the new entity.  I  am happy to have that concern assuaged.  It is a serious consideration, when we are evaluating this against the public interest test and the stated policy outcomes and the means proposed to get us there.

The TasCOSS submission of 18 October 2021 makes the important point, and I quote:

While the changes have arisen from the PESRAC consultations and had allowances for input from industry and TasTAFE stakeholders, it is not clear whether students and young people have been closely involved in the transition consultations.  VET plays an essential role for young people, particularly in the transition from school to further education and employment.  Young people and students should be at the centre of focus for TAFE reform, and their views and voices on the draft bill and its implementation are vital.  It is their learning and their future which will be impacted by the flow-on effects of any change to the structure and offerings of TasTAFE.

It is difficult to design a fit for purpose framework without consulting all stakeholders or client groups affected.  In his recent media release, the Minister for Local Government emphasised the importance of stakeholder inclusion and cooperation in the local government reimagined process.  It is an important factor here and I am not convinced it has been adequately delivered.

There was a discrepancy about the number of enrolled TasTAFE students we are talking about, but it is some thousands of students.  Whether or not they are fee paying, they are key stakeholders.  It is important for the Government to clarify whether, how and when TasTAFE student cohorts were consulted on their vocational education and training needs during the development of this proposed framework; as well as information on the outcomes of any such student consultation in shaping what has been brought forward.  I am particularly interested to understand how interactive those consultations were, rather than presentations on what was going to happen.

On 17 June this year I asked a question about consultation on the proposed reforms.  The minister’s response included the following:

As these recommendations are implemented there will be engagement with staff, students, unions and industry and the Tasmanian community as we work towards a TasTAFE with more flexibility and choice for learners and training delivered in ways that meets their needs.

Given that recent response, I am confident the Leader will be able to provide that detail around the breakdown of that engagement with students and learners about these proposed reforms.  I look forward to hearing it.  It would be reassuring to have that detail.

When I run the public interest test filter over the ‘what’ goal for this reform, the Government’s desired destination does not score too well.  It may measure up well against the expressed industry and employer derived wish list.  However, I am concerned about the omission of any reference to consultation with those students and young people about their needs, or to a more comprehensive consultation at the development stage of this bill.  In my view, this bill and the proposed new structure is the culmination of a process in which the perceived interests of some client groups have either superseded the interests of others or perhaps received more attention.  That concerns me.

I have no problem with the goal of delivering a more modern, responsive and flexible TasTAFE.  It is an excellent aspiration and goal for us to have.  I do have significant concerns about the apparently reduced focus on the provision of those foundational skills and the supports that go along with them; and the coverage of that for our state – particularly taking into consideration that range of disadvantaged groups.  I note in that any matters of gender disparity, not only in enrolment numbers but also in relation to those who can and cannot afford to pay full paying courses.  That is another area we have not been given a lot of information about either.  I will speak more about that in relation to another aspect of the bill. 

I will move on to speak about the how, the praxis, the transitional pathway, the how we get from here to there that is necessary for us to navigate to achieve the specified policy target.  This ‘how’ is the proposed new framework contained in the bill before us, a bill which the Government argues is required in order to enable TasTAFE to become more modern, agile, flexible and, thus, more effective.

I note that the Government assures us that this proposed new framework is not one predicated on privatisation and nor will it, from their quoted second reading speech, transition TAFE to a government business enterprise under the Government Business Enterprise Act.  That is not on the cards.  However, the proposed new TasTAFE structure does resemble some form of hybrid semi‑agency, semi‑GBE or state‑owned company model.  Other members have spoken about this too and I will touch on it.

It is a not‑for‑profit but also a non‑agency entity.  This, in itself, is an interesting deviation from the exact wording of the PESRAC final report.  Others have spoken about language which, although it stops short of proposing a government business enterprise, it does use the language of this and I quote from that report:

A government business under the control and accountability of its board of directors with authority and power to employ its workforce under the Fair Work Act 2009. 

As we have seen in the public debate since the release of that PESRAC final report in March, rightly or wrongly, there was a considerable expectation that the eventual model would be a GBE.  I am not going to stand here and advocate for a GBE necessarily.  However, I do think it is instructive to highlight that once again it seems that when it suited the Government clearly there is a bit of flexibility when it comes to interpreting and implementing the PESRAC recommendations. 

Getting back to the proposed new structure of the TasTAFE bill as provided for – the TasTAFE model as provided for in the bill – the Government’s contention is that in order to reach its desired policy target this bill is the necessary vehicle by which to make eight key elements of change.  These eight areas are summarised in the fact sheet provided in the bill’s supporting materials package.  Yet we have heard and been advised that much of what the proposed new framework seeks to achieve can already be undertaken under the provisions of the current legislation. 

Such a fundamental structural change, which the dismantling of TasTAFE as an agency under the State Service Act 2000 is, may not be required, some have told us, to achieve all of these identified areas requiring reform.  According to a joint submission by Unions Tasmania, the AEU, the CPSU and United Workers Union – which was submitted on the draft bill in October this year – mechanisms to address the following:  ministerial oversight, financial powers, functions and powers, board arrangements, financial capacity, regulatory environment and savings and transitional provisions.  Those seven are all currently available under legislation in place. 

So we have it on the record, I would like the Government to clarify whether this is the case – that there are currently mechanisms available to the Government right now to effect change across seven of those eight elements identified in the bill’s fact sheet while TasTAFE is an agency under the State Service Act 2000. 

Further, I also seek clarification from the Government that, in fact, the only element listed in that fact sheet that requires new legislation is the move to shift current TasTAFE staff from the State Service Act to the Fair Work Act 2009.  My reading of the bill is that its fundamental purpose is to remove the current 1886 TasTAFE teaching and other employees as per the Workforce Report of 30 June this year from the State Service Act 2000.  This is possibly in relation to the purported policy goal of making it more responsive and agile, a key new attribute that the bill does provide TasTAFE which it currently apparently does not have the capacity to undertake. 

The bill also provides TasTAFE with another capability it does not currently have which is the capacity to borrow from the Tasmanian Public Finance Corporation.  We have been told that that structural reform is needed to make TasTAFE fit for purpose.  However, the bill does not present either a GBE or a state-owned company.  The main thing the new structure has in common with those established structures is the capacity to hire staff through the Commonwealth Fair Work Act, or under that.

It is a new and odd amalgam, this structure, which potentially presents some serious ramifications in terms of governance, or at least, it raises serious questions regarding governance.  It has been raised with me by those who have relevant experience in that area that at least a GBE or a state‑owned company entity would provide clear, transparent and accountable governance frameworks.  In contrast we are presented with this new model, this new entity, which provides the minister considerable say, still, and involvement throughout the entity’s operations but does not give the minister responsibility for the TasTAFE staff.  I am unsure about the governance stickiness and where we have landed with it.

We know there was an expectation from the sector after the PESRAC announcement and the commitment from the Government, that we would see a proposal that was a GBE-style model.  That did not eventuate.  The Government’s second reading speech is really clear that this bill is not transitioning TasTAFE to a GBE.

We have not been told why.  Why this particular model and structure and the governance mechanisms rather than any other.  Why not a GBE?  Why not a state‑owned company?  How does this model of governance ensure that TasTAFE will be more agile and flexible than, say, a GBE model or a state‑owned company model?  What evidence is there to justify prioritising this one over those others, or maybe others that could have been contemplated?

In terms of the current status as an agency under the State Service Act, we have not necessarily been provided, I do not think, with a good comprehensive package of evidence and modelling to make the case about the distinction, about why this model.

We have heard opinions particularly regarding the need for change but I do not know that we have actually seen the compelling evidence that I would quite like to see.

So, with some further questions I am hoping it may have some more light shed on it.  If not an agency, as it currently is, why not a GBE or a state‑owned company, or a different model?  Why this model specifically?

Why does the proposed model contained in the bill not at least mirror the governance structures and mechanisms that are provided under those more clearly defined GBE and well understood state‑owned company models?

Further, how were the options assessed and tested, and what evidence basis was this decision made on?

As I stated at the outset of my contribution, the ‘how’ is just as important as the outcome in so much as it helps to inform decision-making processes, from which the outcome will emerge.  For me, that is a critical point of contention and conflict, when considering this bill.  In essence, the process has been fundamentally flawed, and that has compromised how we have arrived where we are today.

Although the work of PESRAC had much value and provided many insights.  It was established within that context of a state‑wide recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.  It was not a dedicated vocational education and skills expert panel charged with a specific brief to engage with all stakeholders involved in that sector while undertaking a comprehensive review of it.

I feel that certainly potentially a more respectful and non‑inflammatory way could have been found.  Either for PESRAC to respond to the things that it was hearing in its consultation processes, or for the Government to pick up on what came through those processes and then look to establish a dedicated consultation assessment and policy development process to actually determine where to next.

It is interesting to me, that in the PESRAC recommendations there were some areas where PESRAC spoke about a general direction for reform, like that local government one we spoke about earlier.  However, in that instance it did not provide details about what that should ultimately look like.  PESRAC did not then tell us how many councils there should be or how they should be configured around the state.

On this TasTAFE one there was very explicit specificity about where we should end up with the TasTAFE reform and that came through that process.  That has not necessarily served us well in arriving where we are today because potentially it curtailed a comprehensive well‑consulted process in the meantime when you have already got quite a definite outcome at the starting point.

In my response to the Premier’s Address back in March in discussing this – and I will just quote briefly from that speech.  I did say:

Despite the effort made by the Premier’s Address to present the proposal to transform TAFE into a GBE as the solution, it remains unclear to me at least what exactly the problem is.  Undoubtedly there is always room for improvement.  However, unless we are clear on the exact nature of any problem or identified areas for change, how are we meant to evaluate whether the proposed solution is a good fit?

In that speech I then spoke about other sorts of options that could be really robust and transparent and accountable ways to comprehensively identify the issues and problems and test proposed solutions.  There are many of those options, whether they be parliamentary mechanisms, whether they be solid policy development mechanisms undertaken either by experts or by departmental folk, either way there is a range of measures that were roads not taken.  So here we are, eight months on, and nothing in the bill before me encourages me to change my mind of that earlier assessment I made, the concern that I had about where we started and how we might have leap‑frogged past good process to a destination that is now quite contested.

Mrs Hiscutt – Through you, Mr President, while the member has a lull, can I remind the member of the CPA dinner between 7 p.m. and half past 8.  If the member is not going to wrap up in the next five minutes you might wish to adjourn the debate.

Ms WEBB – I may be a little longer than five minutes, not a great deal but I may be a little longer.

Mrs Hiscutt – You may wish to adjourn the debate when you are ready.

Ms WEBB – Mr President, I move – That the debate be adjourned.

Ms WEBB (Nelson) – Mr President, I have just been speaking about process and what would have been furnished to us through a comprehensive, respectful, inclusive policy development process.  Importantly, it may have garnered some sense of a social licence by treating affected staff, students and their representatives with respect more than what seems to have been felt so far by some of those stakeholders, without immediately making our teachers and ancillary staff in the TAFE system feel, as I have heard, blamed, put upon and disenfranchised by this process. 

Ultimately, it may have provided us with the opportunity to secure a coherent narrative detailing exactly what has been identified as the problematic matters to be solved, the options canvassed and the rationale behind preferred ones prioritised for action.  Then, as legislators in this place, we may have been, as we should be, in possession of a greater understanding of why the reforms are necessary and why these particular reforms are the best identified options. 

Instead, many of us here have been the recipient of many pieces of communication.  Certainly, even these last few days a real escalation in receiving information and entreaties, claims and counter-claims from various stakeholders.  A proper, comprehensive independent and accountable process should have provided that forum by which these claims and counter-claims that were concerns and issues are placed on the public record and seem to be comprehensively tested, assessed and addressed in a rigorous and transparent manner.

Unfortunately, we are constrained in the extent to which we can do that in this Chamber during this debate in the midst of this busy and rushed week.  Unfortunately, this leads us to where we are more likely to see a degree of discord and disquiet and, even in some instances, distress amongst some of these key stakeholders, particularly teaching staff who we all know strive to provide the most professional standards possible in their roles.

When assessing the ‘how’ against the public interest test, I have serious concerns regarding this proposed new framework due to these matters that I have been speaking about.  Fundamentally, a flawed process automatically is handicapped when it comes to producing anything but what can also feel like a flawed process automatically be handicapped when it comes to producing anything, but what can also feel like a flawed outcome.  I am not reassured nor completely convinced this proposed transitional pathway will deliver the specified target, that being the provision of a modern vocational education and training provider to deliver services of critical importance to Tasmanian learners, businesses, industry and the broader community.

In fact, we have stakeholders holding deep concerns the proposed framework has the potential to potentially deliver perverse outcomes and do the opposite in some sense of that stated intent.  Particularly, their very real concerns put forward to us that the push to things like a full cost recovery model will be to the detriment of broader and equally critical educational equity and barrier dismantling responsibilities, with the risk of higher fees potentially imposed upon students and employers.

Some of this has been gone over and prosecuted, but I am still feeling a measure of disquiet and I am fully confident we will not end up with some degraded aspects to our TasTAFE that may leave us more bereft than we are now in terms of what we are offering to all the stakeholders involved.

Concerns have been expressed TasTAFE will be reduced to solely those thin markets for expensive‑to‑deliver training courses avoided by private RTOs.  That is yet to be adequately addressed by the Government and so those concerns remain quite real.

Significantly, to reiterate in the absence of evidence‑based and tested information being provided to us from a comprehensive policy development process, this feels as if we are being asked to take a potentially disruptive sledgehammer to a particular public asset.  Instead, this may well require some very long overdue substantial resourcing and some operational fine tuning, and some genuine good faith industrial relations negotiation.  Perhaps, that is the combination that may have led us through this in a different manner.

That brings us to the why.  It really does appear, as has been stated by others, this is because PESRAC said so.  The Government’s second reading speech states the proposed new model is in line with the PESRAC recommendation.  However, as also noted, there is some flexibility exercised when we interpret those recommendations in other circumstances.

It is hard to dispute the key function of the bill before us is essentially to remove TasTAFE staff from the auspices of the State Service Act.  This certainly has been the nub of contention amongst most representations I have received on these flagged reforms.  It needs to be recognised that, unfortunately, TasTAFE, as others have mentioned in their contributions, has been somewhat of a political football over quite some time, not just within this period of government.

We have seen a range of reforms play out, subsequent changes, resourcing constraints applied, a lack of capital investment in a range of ways for many years.  That ongoing destabilising and insecure environment, unsurprisingly, has had a detrimental impact on the organisation.  Probably also on staff morale, which this latest round of projected reforms imposed from on high, as many feel it is, as a preconceived outcome can only exacerbate that detrimental morale.

Others have already gone into some detail and shared some of the communications we have received from a very broad range of staff about their concerns, frustrations and fears in some instances.  We have seen things articulated through union representatives for the teaching staff and the ancillary staff such as the cleaners.  I am not going to revisit the territory others have well covered in their contributions here, but am thankful that has been put on the record as part of the debate.

I certainly do need to acknowledge that despite some attempts at public reassurances by the Government no current TasTAFE employee will suffer reduced working conditions, clearly many of them feel unconvinced and are still fearful of that.  We still need to be looking to resolve that in some distinct way.

I do share some of these concerns expressed, that the result of this reform if not in some instances tied to the intent, will be potentially higher casualisation of TasTAFE workforce in this request for agility and nimbleness.  Many of us would understand the concerns about flow-on impacts from higher rates of casualisation, particularly for people who need the security of ongoing regular work to support their families and to be able to engage in a quality of life is based around the security provided through that.

I have a few questions for the Government on that matter including what benefit to the teaching standards and outcomes does the Government expect to achieve by shifting employees to the Fair Work Act?  How wilI that move to the Fair Work Act be expected to maintain, if not boost the current education training standards and the outcomes for students?  Has the Government had some form of cost benefit modelling done?  Looking at those impacts as opposed to the helpful flexibility it might provide in regard to delivering particular training, what are we expecting around outcomes and impact on education and training standards and outcomes for students?  Can the Government provide any modelling with regard to which individual TAFE courses or fields of TAFE courses would be offered on a continual basis and which perhaps on a more ad hoc basis under the proposed model?  Where are we going to see the shifts in how those things are delivered?

Earlier in my contribution, I raised some matters around gender impacts and whether there has been modelling done around a gender breakdown regarding staff numbers in relation to who may end up in more casual employment situations as a result of these reforms and whether there are any gender differences we are expecting to see in the workforce?

I do not intend to repeat in detail the information and concerns presented by earlier speakers on these industrial matters, but take the opportunity to stress the degree of contention and concern regarding impacts on current Tasmanians, their workplace and work conditions is very real.  It is representative of a lack of good inclusive public policy development on this matter.  We cannot see past that in that sense, that is what certainly it points to.

TasTAFE is something of a political football and some measure of neglect politically over many years, certainly not only this term of government, has left us in a situation that has exacerbated our capacity to contemplate positive, effective change and is regrettable.

I will briefly acknowledge the high and continual local and interstate national recognition garnered by both TasTAFE staff and students.  We saw five medals for TasTAFE trained tradespeople awarded at World Skills Australia 2021 while TasTAFE was one of three registered training organisations nationally short-listed as a finalist in a large training provider of the year category.

I mention a few quick, recent awards and accolades received and put on the record, my congratulations to all those involved in those achievements and thank them for the high level at which they are operating.  They have a consistent track record there that is acknowledged in regard to achievement by TasTAFEs staff and students.  That serves to highlight for us in no uncertain terms why it is posed here with this policy, bill and this sort of identification of critical problems that must be solved immediately really warrant our thorough inspection to ensure we are not only dealing with ideological matters.  That we are genuinely engaging with problems that have been well identified and then solutions that have been well designed. 

We have seen here a failure to undertake that process well and that has landed us where we are asking ourselves, where has it left us?  Have our student cohort at TAFE been properly involved in this process in the same way or to the extent to which other stakeholders may have been involved and considered?  Have we got the evidence and modelling that has shown us why this particular option is the best solution to well-identified problems?  Are we convinced where this will take us and the full range of impacts it is going to have?  It is such a significant change. 

I encourage the Government to share with us any modelling that they have to underpin this proposed TAFE restructure relating to those impacts and how we expect that to play out.  In particular, the transition to that not-for-profit government business model and something of the opaque elements about the governance. 

I doubt very much whether there is anyone here who does not agree that improving and better resourcing our premier public vocational education and training service provider is a priority for our state.  I am a firm believer that we should always be looking for scope for continual improvement, whether that is us as individuals or across our public and private sectors.  None of our institutions should be considered quarantined from that expectation whatsoever.  But from where I sit, I remain unconvinced that this potentially quite disruptive reform is such a key element of this state’s education training sector, and I remain unconvinced it is warranted in this way. 

We cannot risk losing sight of the fact that TasTAFE has this broad charter and mandate that is not the same as a private RTO operating in the private sector.  I have spoken to many people with an interest in TasTAFE as well as the broader education and vocational education sector, and there is general agreement that there is room for improvement.  I have heard clearly that there is room for improvement in things like the tiers of management, the administration, the teaching, just as there is also room for improvement in government investment and support that is provided for staff and students alike.  I do not think anyone is disputing that.

I fear a hollowed-out TAFE or the potential risk of that, which may no longer be capable of developing and delivering that full range of things that we look to it to provide for our community, particularly in our disadvantaged, our rural and regional students in an equitable manner.  Any potential detriment to the workforce within TasTAFE leaves us with questions about this outcome.  That is where I have landed on this.  We need to carefully consider whether we have enough information. 

I have appreciated listening to the contribution of others and I recognise that there are a range of views and I appreciate that everyone across that range of views has also had some questions to put.  I look forward to hearing some of those answers to assist me with my assessment of this proposed bill.  I am actually still not 100 per cent clear whether I believe strongly enough in my concerns that I would vote against it going into this next stage, or whether I would vote it through to the Committee stage to learn more there.  I thank members very much for that and I look forward to the Leader’s response to help even inform that further.  Thank you, Mr President, and thank you to other members for their contributions.

See Meg’s recent media.