Debate on the merits of government reform in the TAFE sector is good. But it needs to move beyond political ideology and focus on what is good for the community as a whole.
Reform always throws up winners and losers, and the training sector is no different. The winners in this case are industry and individual students - and taxpayers who invest billions of dollars in training and skills development. The losers are those with self-interest, and who refuse to reform at the expense of the community.
Some groups suggest training reforms are designed to dismantle the TAFE system. This is simply not true. The reforms have been designed to create training that puts the client in charge of getting the training they need when and where they want it. The providers, including TAFEs, that deliver such a service will attract clients.
Clients, be they an individual or business, have for decades been buying, at their own cost, training that best meets their needs in terms of quality, efficiency and effectiveness.
Most have chosen private training providers. The simple reason is that the service offered has met their needs, while the public TAFE system has not.
Reforms in the training system are now allowing clients who are able to get a government-subsidised place to also choose the training provider that best meets their needs. The message the reforms are delivering to the TAFE sector is, modernise your operation, understand your clients and service their needs, rather than dictating how you will service them.
Training providers that place students and learners at the centre of their delivery model have thrived; with some exceptions, the government-funded TAFEs have not. The fear from the TAFE sector is that clients will choose private providers instead of the government option. Why not be fearful? In nearly every other aspect of the economy, when given a choice, clients will choose a private provider over a government one.
Those opposed to the reforms realise that if TAFEs do not change, the loss of market share will be their death knell.
The community should also expect the training they fund to be of good quality. There is indeed mixed quality training on offer across the full spectrum of public and private delivery. To use a simple dichotomy of private is bad and public is good reeks of desperation.
To ensure public funds are used to deliver quality training, state governments have introduced and continue to refine the requirements that training providers must meet to be able to deliver government-subsidised training.
These requirements are above and beyond existing regulatory requirements. Only a minority of Australia's 5000 training providers deliver government-subsidised training, with most private providers focusing on servicing their fee-for-service clients.
As Australia's economy continues to modernise we need a training sector that can meet the needs of both employers and individuals. This requires a training system that can provide training to meet emerging industries, has the flexibility to meet unique employer needs and trains students who can be valuable member of their workplace from day one.
A role exists for TAFE, but the economy will benefit from an open training system that fosters best practice and responsiveness.
Claire Field is chief executive officer for the Australian Council for Private Education and Training.
