Mr GAFFNEY (Mersey) - Mr President, I rise to speak to the TasTAFE (Skills and Training Business) Bill 2021 - a bill, that whilst sitting in the shadow of the gaming bill, has attracted a significant level of interest. It has brought both strong opposition and strong support to the need and reasonableness of its suggested changes to the future structure and employment arrangements of TasTAFE.

As an initial context we have to acknowledge that there have been past initiatives such as Tasmania Tomorrow - considered by some as a debacle - one that was initiated with good intent by the previous Labor government and one that has rightly made both educators and industry nervous of sudden and considered by some as unjustifiable change. I would like to think that the report on its failings was closely studied by the architects of this bill so similar mistakes will not be repeated, given the nature of the correspondence from stakeholders that I am sure we have all received.

Improvements in this space, however, are still in doubt. There have been other issues surrounding the conduct and actions of previous TasTAFE staff and structures that have led to a loss of confidence in its governance safeguards. I would like to think that has now been put right, but not without leaving a residue of concern that such a situation occurred in the first place. I have to consider that this residual concern may all be part of the Government's desire to review the governance arrangements of TasTAFE.

As I will highlight later, it has been raised by some contributions that there appears to be a certain amount of haste in the public consultation and gestation of this bill, notwithstanding the period of time that may have gone into developing this legislation before it was released for public scrutiny. It may have led to a level of wariness among staff and other stakeholders that may yet lead to a certain weariness at yet more change in TasTAFE.

I have heard anecdotal comment of up to five significant changes in the last 15 years, of which this is the latest and, they have said, probably not the last. In a more recent context, namely, within the last year, there seems to be some debate about whether the problems with TasTAFE that this bill is said to address actually exist, or are somewhat spurious.

I bring members' attention to a glowing statement made in Estimates less than a year ago by the Deputy Premier and the Minister for Education at the time, Jeremy Rockliff. He said:

I am very proud of what TasTAFE has achieved over the past 12 months. The reality, when it comes to TAFE, is that it is the strongest that it has been for many years. Last week, TAFE was just one of three training providers shortlisted for the large training provider of the year, for the 2020 Australian Training Awards. Three TasTAFE students were shortlisted as national finalists, and two won their category.

He goes on to say:

I earlier mentioned Caitlan Radford, from the north-west, Australia's Apprentice of the Year, and Heetham Hekmat from Hobart, who is Australia's best Vocational Student of the Year. We are very proud of all three individuals who were nominated as finalists.

This is a sign of an organisation competing with the nation's best. The student satisfaction rates at TasTAFE are some of the highest across Australia and businesses are equally happy with the training.

Despite COVID-19, TasTAFE has seen steady demand in training, with 4898 active apprentices at 30 September, compared to 4995 at the same time last year.

I am also pleased to have been able to invest in TAFE's Facilities Master Plan with major developments and facility upgrades right across Tasmania.

He goes on to say:

A clear highlight, of course, has been TAFE's seven years re-registration from the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA), and the maximum available renewable period, so well done to Jenny and her team.

Finally, thank our outgoing CEO, Jenny Dodd, who is leaving us shortly after three years at the helm. You would well remember Jenny came in at quite a challenging time for TasTAFE and has shown remarkable leadership. The reaccreditation for the maximum period available for seven years is one of the many legacies Jenny can leave behind. TasTAFE is a much stronger public training provider as a result of Ms Dodd's leadership and I wish her very well for future endeavours.

What is the problem? Like all of us in this place, I have met with a number of stakeholders with different views and a concerted effort to unpack and deepen my understanding of the issues at play. I thank everyone who has contacted me with their considered thoughts. I am sure all of us have received a substantial amount of email and comment from across our community.

I thank those who have taken the time to meet with me personally, to share their thoughts and answer my many questions on what we are engaging with. Their arguments are well put and there is merit and deep conviction in what is being raised from all angles. With no single and definitive view that could be said to meet the hopes of all parties in this other than wishing to see a thriving TasTAFE.
What does come to the fore is how deeply all sides feel about the value of TasTAFE and its key role in the future of Tasmania. It is industry, our businesses and the people that drive their success, be they industry stakeholders, board members, senior management, teachers, employees and or trainees. At the same time in this debate, there is the opportunity to more closely question the detail behind the legislation so we may deepen our understanding. There may be no single right or wrong answer, maybe just better or worse outcomes. What levers might we, as a Legislative Council review, need to pull in order to improve the legislation on the governance and structural policy that underpins the success of TasTAFE?

What I am beginning to ponder is this is not just a simple issue of management where a new act can instantly address and resolve a perceived problem from the perspective of a board or the minister. TasTAFE is a people-centric entity with competing demands and expectations and has always been so. In reality, it is actually quite complex with nuances of perception that can only be addressed by asking the right questions, and the answers may allow us to ask pertinent and specific questions so we might be able to begin to unravel and tease out the true nature of these issues.

I found the recent briefings to be especially helpful in clarifying the arguments of all sides and we may well have more questions that could flow yet from this debate. Crucially, and in terms of TasTAFE's core function, we are talking about a people-based activity with the dissemination and acquisition of knowledge, skills and experience from highly skilled staff to expectant trainees and apprentices. TasTAFE is not a widget factory, where the most important thing might be cost per unit and the production rate. TasTAFE is proud of the public and a key partner in delivering lifelong learning for Tasmanians of all ages and abilities together with serving the developing needs of an industry and that of the wider community.

In saying this, I do need to acknowledge the diverse range of courses offered by TasTAFE that includes a section of what could be best described as arts-based education that is equally valuable in growing our cultural appreciation and strengths of our island state and beyond. TasTAFE is far more than just industry and trade skills and this fact should not be lost just because of the Government's pursuit primarily focused perhaps on economic targets and fiscal goals.

Looking at some of the debates surrounding this bill, I will share some excerpts of the concluding thoughts of a comprehensive submission from an experienced TasTAFE teacher in my electorate - one where he expands on his opening observation that TasTAFE has been given the blame for several things not of its own doing.

In the Premier's Economic and Social Recovery Advisory Council (PESRAC) report he stated:

I agree with the report in that a training system must continually adapt to the changing structure of the economy and workforce and that TasTAFE does need to be better at this, however, the main barrier to this is caused by the lack of teaching and support staff and the lack of available funds to update and replace equipment and the funding model.
I fail to see how the current award arrangements prevent adaptation and change.

The report talks about registration requirement for creating inflexibility. This is an Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) requirement and unless the ASQA rules have changed which I find improbable, there is not much that can be done about it.

Reports state that TasTAFE requires financial capacity and flexibility to invest in and manage its own infrastructure. The lack of these things has been instrumental in inhibiting TasTAFE over the last several years and the changes of the magnitude recommended should not be needed to improve financial capacity and flexibility to invest in and manage its own infrastructure.

A lot of employers view TasTAFE as the centre of the training system and as a result, TasTAFE gets the blame from employers for several things not of its own doing.

An example of this is TasTAFE getting the blame for the delay in training plans and enrolments being done for apprentices, when it is an issue caused by either by Skills Tasmania or the apprenticeship network provider (ANP).

It goes on to say:

I have spoken with several trade teachers on my campus and the majority are seriously considering leaving the organisation if all these changes proceed and the remainder are considering their future.
All trades are in short supply now and likely to be so for several years.

Anyone who leaves to go back on the tools will not be out of work, will not have the stresses associated with teaching and working for TasTAFE.

It goes on to say:

If this is indicative across all campuses and most trade teachers leave TasTAFE, years of teaching experience will be lost. Other people might say we can replace them with other tradespeople but a good trades person does not necessarily make a good teacher and it can take several years to become a good teacher.

ASQA are unlikely to change their rules around teacher qualifications so, this adds another complexity and delay in getting new teaching staff.

Without good teachers, TasTAFE will be a shadow of its former self, even if it needed some improvement.

These observations are earnestly made and echo some of the observations leading industry stakeholders shared with me.

The Government speaks of further investment into TasTAFE and that there is the opportunity to develop stronger industry partnerships with TasTAFE, together with the rekindling of past industry initiatives which have led to active investment in new equipment and greater participation.

Concerns have been expressed to me the current structural and governance arrangements are preventing this from happening, together with the crying need for greater government investment into TasTAFE - investment that will give business owners the confidence to return to TasTAFE for their staff training and licensing needs. It has been directly put to me that the passage of this bill will give key industry stakeholders the confidence to re-engage with TasTAFE in terms of active, industry investment and partnerships and maybe there is a real problem in governance, accountability and service delivery if commercial entities see an issue with this in a way that acts as a barrier to their participation. In saying this, however, businesses of a certain scale may have value in developing their own in-house training programs, as you would rightly expect.

TasTAFE has a uniquely complementary role in offering nationally consistent base skills and knowledge that can underpin bespoke business needs. It does necessarily have to jump to every whim of an individual business. Courses have to be viable, there has to be balance and maybe achieving this balance of expectation and actual service delivery is one of the most complex issues for TasTAFE to resolve.

What does come through from the comments of a significant number of TasTAFE employees who have contacted me is a sense of powerlessness in these proposed reforms, almost as if this is being done to them and not in partnership with them. I cannot help thinking that the planned pace of the proposed changes has caught many by surprise, leaving them feeling vulnerable and looking at other options outside of TasTAFE that may offer a greater sense of stability in times of uncertainty. I have to consider how this may have come about because it does seem to be a recurring theme in much of the correspondence I have received on this matter. One has to ask if the sense of haste and urgency surrounding these proposed changes has left the focus on the end result and missed essential consultation and communication opportunities where TasTAFE staff have felt their concerns have been largely ignored. Perhaps the Government might need redouble its efforts in this regard as there seems to be a certain amount of seemingly contradictory information and statements, it appears, that have entered the debate from the different sides.

Another factor in this is the Government's expectation this bill will allow greater flexibility and coverage in the delivery of vocational education and training. This point has been a touchstone for the feedback and comment I have received from many stakeholders as you will observe from the following commentary. This is from a correspondent in the dual role as a business owner and TasTAFE teacher, who I understand has written to all of us with his concerns. His commentary neatly summarised the view of many TasTAFE teachers, some of which I repeat here today:

To comment about the Tasmanian VET sector generally in terms of the legislation in the PESRAC report, much has been made of a lack of flexibility to TasTAFE. My personal experience of my colleagues is generally everyone is willing to be flexible. The continued assertions that we are not is both insulting and untrue. There are two ideas at play here, firstly both the Government and the authors of the PESRAC report do not understand, or are choosing not to acknowledge, that we deliver nationally accredited programs over which we have no flexibility. In fact, we are mandated through our accreditation as an RTO through ASQA to abide by these rules of these training packages. The second issue here is funding. We have been funded to deliver accredited training by the Government. In my experience, attempts and suggestions by TasTAFE staff to drop non-accredited training to meet immediate local industry needs, are always rejected because TasTAFE has not been funded to deliver any other non-accredited training.

So, we are being blamed for not being flexible and the reason for that is the Government's own policy. Earlier in the year the Government provided $1 million in funding towards the establishment of a separate organisation called, Visitor Experience Training: VXT, wholly-owned by the Tasmanian hospitality and tourism industry to deliver non-accredited hospitality training. TasTAFE was not allowed to do this so perhaps this is the agenda. We cannot know because there is no information other than that terribly opaque legislation. Note, in a deeply ironic move, the body tasked with delivering the visitor experience non-accredited training was TasTAFE. No doubt VXT first needed to meet it owns costs before subcontracting TasTAFE to deliver the training. One wonders why TasTAFE could not have just been funded to deliver the training in the first place.

What is striking from this is that there is an unequivocal baseline in training delivery that is defined by the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA). It has to be accredited and delivered to national enforceable standards. That TasTAFE does deliver training of the highest quality with ASQA's endorsement was borne out with the Deputy Premier's observation in last year's Estimates that I will reiterate. He said:

A clear highlight, of course, has been TAFE's seven years re-registration from the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) and the maximum available renewal period, so well done to Jenny and her team.

There is the other point in this where the Government has responded to industry input and funded a brand new training entity that is now subcontracting to TasTAFE for the delivery of its training packages. In one of the briefings we were made aware by a respected leader in the social services sector, they too have been considering founding their own entity to meet their community service training needs. There was an attempt to partner with TasTAFE and apparently this was not possible due to the industrial arrangements of TasTAFE.

Additionally, we have other industries and individual entities developing, or have considered, their own bespoke RTOs and courses to respond to specific strategic concerns. I have to ask if this extra layer of industry-led bureaucracy is working well, or might we be in a situation where this bill might allow TasTAFE to respond on competitive terms to external entities that are seemingly cherrypicking the most lucrative parts of TasTAFE's business for their own strategic interests? An observation I made in my response to the Premier's Address earlier this year.

Our correspondent went on to add the following commentary:

Finally, I need to say something about the needless rush around this legislation. The consultation period began in early October and concluded on 18 October. The legislation was released on 28 October and passed the lower House on 9 November. This narrow window leaves no time to consider feedback meaningfully and, in fact, rushes the legislation through.

Why? If these changes are as important as the Government claims, then surely, they are worth considering in a sober, considered way. After all, this decision will affect a generation of Tasmanians.

To give an example, in the consultation meeting I attended on 13 October here at the TasTAFE, the CEO was made very much aware of the distress, concern and anger around the lack of information. There was much mention of a grandfather clause where the conditions of current employees would be guaranteed by the legislation. This was specifically noted but was this feedback not passed on or was it ignored?

If the Premier and minister were actually sincere in saying that staff would not be worse off, one might have thought some specific guarantees would be made in the legislation.

Again, an indication of further concern and confusion from staff is where clear communication is crucial and misinformation can, and does affect, what must be an open and transparent engagement process. There is an old adage where people will only change when they feel they can cope with the consequences of that change. My feeling is that there are many people who are fearing this change because they believe it will be too disruptive with consequences that will not be to their benefit.

I have to consider that some of the narrative about this may have been taken out of context, especially when it comes to the proposed structure and future employment conditions. We were told by one side that it will be a GBE similar to a number of others that currently exist in Tasmania, and by the Government and department, that it will not be a GBE. It will be a business enterprise, a bespoke not-for-profit model, structured as a body corporate with a guarantee that 80 per cent of skills funding in Tasmania will go to TasTAFE.

The minister, in her second reading speech, in the other place, included the following points that were echoed in the Q&A sheet that was made available to us. I understand the entire TasTAFE staff had access to it as well. She stated:

The Tasmanian Government has committed that TasTAFE will transition to a publicly owned, not-for-profit government business model, in line with the PESRAC recommendation. …

… The Bill does not transition TasTAFE to a Government Business Enterprise under the Government Business Enterprise Act 1995.

The Bill provides TasTAFE with a standalone, and fit for purpose legislative framework separate to the Training and Workforce Development Act 2013, that gives TasTAFE greater autonomy and flexibility that better reflects the environment in which it operates and the industries it serves.

Looking to other jurisdictions, we have all heard about the South Australian model which has been mentioned as a particularly dysfunctional example of a TAFE entity. It is one that is the equivalent of a full blown, for-profit government business enterprise model. I have to note that its core dysfunction may well be that it has been set up to be commercially competitive with non government RTOs and training entities, with no guaranteed share of skills funding whatsoever. That is something that will not apply in this proposed model.

Interestingly, state jurisdictions with strong Labor governments see a commonality with what has been proposed in the new TasTAFE governance structures and maybe there are some points in the various acts that could help improve what is before us today.

The proposed changes to the employment conditions of TasTAFE staff in the act under which staff are to be employed is a particularly sensitive issue, especially the proposed move to Fair Work. It is a move that the various unions are campaigning strongly about, or against, as is their right. We have heard the various arguments both for and against this, with unequivocal assurances from Government, department representatives and senior TasTAFE office holders that staff will be transferred across to the new entity on exactly the same terms and conditions as they are currently awarded. Moving forward, we are told the new enterprise agreements would be negotiated for which there must be a majority of all staff who agree, not just the members of a union. If there is no agreement the negotiation must continue until agreement is made.

We have been advised that as a safeguard under Fair Work, there is the BOOT - better off overall test - which is a complex legislative element with a mandated process. This is one that acts as a self explanatory check to ensure any new agreement in overall terms does not disadvantage employees under a new negotiated agreement agreed to by both sides. Additionally, Mr Tim Gardner who is the new chair of the TasTAFE Board offered this comment in a letter to me. He said:

Not once during my 20 years of leadership and management have I seen cost reduction or erosion of employee entitlements successfully used as tools for improving organisational outcomes and it certainly won't be any different for TasTAFE. Instead, as the state's public provider, TasTAFE needs to focus on making the very best use of the funding we receive, 80 per cent of which is spent on employing our people.

This observation was amplified in his comments to us in recent briefings where we discussed the changing demands from employers, and TasTAFE needs to continue to attract the very best people whilst protecting the employment conditions of the people they have. He went on to strongly reiterate that eroding employment conditions is not part of his beliefs on what makes a successful organisation. By doing this, these comments are now a matter of public record to which he and his board can be held accountable.

The union representatives spoke eloquently of their concerns over what is the actual need in challenging the status quo, together with their fears for future employment conditions, weakening of morale and eroding the good will of staff if these changes go through. There was the additional point, the current CEO of TasTAFE has lived experience of the transition of TAFE Victoria into an almost equivalent structure to what is proposed here together with a transition to the staff being employed under Fair Work.

Victoria is not the only jurisdiction with such arrangements for its TAFE. New South Wales, the ACT, and the Northern Territory are also within the Fair Work Act 2009 industrial framework, with a variety of enterprise agreements within the Fair Work framework that relate to TAFEs. Looking at these examples, we have three state jurisdictions with strong Labor governments with their TAFEs as statutory bodies similar to what is proposed for TasTAFE and under Fair Work, where one would think if this is so objectionable it would never have been considered.

The other factor in this is the desire to ensure that there is a strong and direct link between the board and its CEO. In any normal goverance arrangements the CEO is directly accountable to the board, to ensure the delivery of its function and strategic direction. Currently, the TasTAFE CEO is not directly answerable to the board, but to the state Premier and his Cabinet. We have past history where a CEO has not been held accountable. This was in a way that led to a well documented abuse of the position and brought the reputation of TasTAFE potentially into serious disrepute, a situation that has now, thankfully, been corrected.

I have to ask does this bill, as currently drafted, provide the correct balance between the TasTAFE board's capability for independent, strategic oversight and autonomy with the ability to hold the TasTAFE CEO accountable for their performance? This is also in the context of the minister's ability to direct the board and through it for them to have a direct influence on TasTAFEs activities.

This is a topic we have to explore further as I will be seeking a number of amendments to address this, with the aim of ensuring a better balance of authority and strengthening of safeguards that define the influence of any minister or their government - influence that could, at some point in the future, seek a form of control over the TasTAFE Board and TasTAFE as a whole that might not be in the public interest. For the record, I have been very impressed with the way the minister has been willing to engage and converse and assist with some of the work I have been doing.

I have to question the public scrutiny of TasTAFE's activities if this transition occurs. I do not believe there is a mechanism to scrutinise statutory authorities in the same way there is for state-owned companies and GBEs. The only current avenue other than Estimates is the TasTAFE annual report which must be tabled in parliament. This is something we need to consider further as I would expect some mechanism that would allow greater and periodic scrutiny and then we might have the opportunity to publicly examine the progress and outcomes of any changes if this proposed legislation is successful.

Ms Forrest - There would be no reason why Committee B could not call them in and have a good look at them.

Mr GAFFNEY - Yes, okay, I will go into that when I move the amendment.

Ms Forrest - Okay. Sorry. Is there an amendment?

Mr GAFFNEY - It is more about the perception for everybody to hear what is going on and how the changes have been made if they go ahead. I will come back to that in the amendment period. I propose there is a need to add a new clause that can define such reporting mechanisms to feed back into parliament together with opportunity for external stakeholder input into this process. I have something in mind and will put it to the House at an appropriate time.

There is another element to this we may wish to consider and that is the national context of this proposed transition. Over the last few years, we have seen a series of national reviews and reports that will have influence on VET from a national perspective and the future of TasTAFE's essential role, and this goes to the member of Murchison. These include the:

• 2018 housing report of the Independent Review into Regional, Rural and Remote Education.
• 2019 Joyce Review, which is a strengthening of skills.
• expert reviews of Australia's Vocational Education and Training system.
• 2020 Shergold Report, report of the review of Senior Secondary Pathways into Work, Further Education and Training.
• 2021 Productivity Commission's study report of the review of the National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development.

All of these are indicative of the interest that the Australian government, and what was the Education Council, have in the future of Vocational Education and Training, its capabilities, issues, strategic priorities and future funding and governance arrangements.

Additionally, these reviews are indicative of the Australian government's desire to review the VET funding model with 30 percent of VET funding coming from the Australian government. It naturally has a keen interest in ensuring value and consistency in the delivery of VET across the nation, especially so, given past historical issues with various suggested rorts that have occurred with certain private providers. I have been reliably informed through the Skills National Cabinet Reform Committee, the states and territories are currently negotiating in good faith a new National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development with the Australian government. This, in conjunction with the Productivity Commission's review released early this year does suggest changes are afoot.

It is interesting to note, that particular review's key messages are the National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development should be replaced with a new principles-based agreement, and there is manifest capacity for governments to get a better return from their investment in Vocational Education and Training. Maybe this is playing to our Government's desire for change here in Tasmania? The report goes on to say on its website as a key point among a number of others:

This review has not found evidence of a vocational education and training (VET) system in crisis. Our recommendations address some of the system's acknowledged weaknesses and should build on its strengths to lift participation and improve the quality of training.

In a wider context we have a series of reports and comments from a variety of sources that point to the need for some changes that will probably be driven by the new agreements with the Australian government. I would like to think these could be founded on the existing strengths of TasTAFE, rather than the expectations of the current Australian Government rapidly approaching a general election.

Additionally, from one of the recommendations of the Joyce Review, we now have a National Skills Commission with Adam Boyton as its inaugural Commissioner. Its focus points include, to use its words, 'to improve the quality, accessibility and relevance of VET; to contribute to a labour market that effectively aligns skills needs with education and training'.

If we were to couple this with the work of the Foundation for Young Australians in exploration of the future of work for young people and how they might transition more easily between jobs and career paths, I wonder if we are at a particular interesting phase as education, employment and business naturally evolves into non-traditional models and modes of operation. Especially so, as we come to terms with the impact COVID-19 on the operation of all forms of education, training, employment and business.

We also have our own Department of Education with Years 9 to 12 Project. This is examining the student retention and the role of vocational learning and VET in our schools and colleges. We are in an interesting situation where the expansion of the year 11 and 12 into high schools has led to the delivery of new VET units across these facilities. This is in a way that could be said to be sporadic in its impact and availability.

In my electorate, Latrobe High School is now offering a Certificate II in Community Pharmacy as a shared enrolment with Don College for those students who want to become a pharmacy assistant. Many other high schools across the state are offering similar individual VET courses in their schools although it does mean a certain complexity in logistics. An example of this is students from Ulverstone Secondary College who travel to Latrobe High School for that particular unit.

In essence, we have a complementary opportunity in our schools and colleges that can lead to pathways, apprenticeships and more expansive VET courses with TasTAFE. It may be seen to dilute the broader offerings available in our college system for which we may yet see future issues of concern. We have seen the founding of the UTAS University College that has aligned itself with some of TasTAFE's offerings with an additional pathway to full degrees, starting with diploma level courses and moving through associate degrees and onto fast-tracked, full undergraduate degrees as a gateway into university. Again, an innovation that will suddenly compete with TasTAFE in a crowded Tasmanian market of nearly 140 RTOs.

In closing and in this context, I have to ask myself - do the proposed changes to TasTAFE, in this bill, help or hinder the future prospects of our younger generations? A future with a new normal of lifelong learnings as their income earning opportunities evolve and develop. TasTAFE will always be a benchmark for excellence and skills training and has to evolve with them. As we know, a number of national reforms are at play. Does this bill propose the perfect solution? I am not sure anything can be absolutely right or wrong in this context. Can it be better or worse than what exists today? Possibly so. As a result, I look forward to hearing the views of other members as the debate unfolds. I will forward my amendments to all members as soon as I am able, as we have all been exceptionally busy recently.