Senator CARR (8:07 PM) —In his reply to the second reading debate, the minister failed to mention the Senate inquiry which is being launched into the issue of the quality of vocational education and training operating in this country. I might take this opportunity to say a few words on that matter while information is being sought. I ask whether the minister is able to respond to the following propositions: that the Senate inquiry provides an opportunity for the entire education community to express their views about the performance of the vocational education and training system in this country; that the TAFE sector, despite having experienced huge growth, despite the arduous circumstances and given the extraordinary pressures placed upon the system as a result of the ideological agenda that is driving this government, does an extremely good job in meeting the needs of a range of Australians; but that it requires an opportunity to take stock of the changes that have occurred in recent years and to examine the means by which the quality of provision might be improved.

The reform agenda in VET has enjoyed considerable support across the country, it has to be acknowledged. Certainly, when initiated by this side of politics, it enjoyed considerable support at a range of levels within the community. That is not to say that there is a golden era to which one could return. Nonetheless, considerable concern is now being expressed about the current administrative arrangements. I think the Senate inquiry will provide an opportunity for all persons interested in vocational education to evaluate some of the unintended consequences which have arisen from these changes.

The terms of reference are particularly broad, deliberately so, to allow a wide range of views to be put forward as to the current practice and future directions of vocational education in this country. This provides a unique opportunity to strengthen the system. There is a chance here for all players to participate and to place pressure upon departmental officials at a state and national level as to some of the profound structural flaws that are emerging within the system at the moment. It provides us with an opportunity to evaluate the priorities, especially in relation to the appropriateness of the present resource allocations that are occurring.

I am particularly interested in some comments that have been made about whether or not the objectives of the New Apprenticeships system are being met. I would ask the minister whether or not he would be in agreement that the drive for efficiencies has resulted in a compromise in terms of quality, and whether or not the government has now acknowledged that the lowest cost is not necessarily the most efficient. While recent documentation presented is, in the minister's view, not demonstrating fraud—and what constitutes fraud is an issue in itself within a system which is sufficiently wide open so that you could fly a jumbo jet through it, as we are demonstrating with some of these RTOs in the overseas student market—I ask the minister whether or not the appropriate administrative audit and assessment procedures are in place to protect the quality of vocational education and training in this country.

It is important for us to identify some of the concerns that have been voiced. For instance, I note the letter which I tabled in the Senate estimates from Bob Marshman to the secretary to the department where he indicated that the New Apprenticeships system's objectives were not being met. He said that in his experience training outcomes, on the evidence available to the officers in Queensland, were of diminished quality, that people already in the work force were the main beneficiaries rather than young people seeking to enter the work force, that the system was now more complicated rather than simpler, and that the system was being driven by financial incentives and targets rather than by industry needs.

Further advice has been tendered to the Senate, through reports by Dr Larry Smith, which has shown that there was a poor standard of provider training, that there was a widespread assessment of malpractice, that there were ineffective learning resources, that there was a perceived policy and funding focus on numbers not on quality, that there were widespread allegations of rorting in the user choice contracts and that there were inappropriate and ineffective auditing arrangements. It is not surprising that Minister Kemp has said that this was just a problem in Queensland. I ask the minister: is he now aware that these sorts of concerns are being expressed in other states? Is he aware that inquiries in Tasmania, South Australia and other places have demonstrated that there are considerable concerns being expressed about the number of RTOs currently operating and the registration processes which are operating and that some RTOs clearly are not able to fulfil the functions of quality provision? The operation of RTOs in the back of Volvos is all too common. I ask the minister whether or not it is possible within existing bills to improve those situations, because I cannot see any mechanisms to do it. I am sure he will enlighten me if I am wrong.

I also ask the minister whether he appreciates that the current inquiry that is before the Senate will give an opportunity for people to examine the effect of the principles of growth through efficiencies, which of course is the cornerstone of this present agreement; whether it is possible for participants in the industry to examine whether or not the funding models that are being pursued are having an adverse effect, especially in regional Australia; and whether or not they are having an adverse effect on the quality of structured training, on the quality of teaching, on the appropriateness of curriculum and learning resources and on the level of charges and fees that are operating within TAFE institutions. These are all opportunities that present themselves for this Senate inquiry, opportunities which, while the terms of reference are extremely broad, will provide people with the chance to comment on those aspects of the terms of reference that are of direct relevance to them.

These are all opportunities that do present themselves for this Senate inquiry, opportunities which, while the terms of reference are so extremely broad, will provide people with the chance to comment on those aspects of the terms of reference that are of direct relevance to them.

Has the minister been contacted by various state governments seeking support for the sorts of submissions that they are likely to put, given the robust nature of the dialogue between Minister Kemp and the various training and education ministers across this country?

Finally, would there not be an opportunity, through this inquiry, to allow the VET sector, in all its diversity, to provide some discussions about its objectives? The VET sector is more than just New Apprenticeships, more than industrial training; it provides a range of skills and opportunities for Australians which, in my judgment, and I ask the minister to comment, are too little valued by this government. I ask whether there will be opportunity in this bill to improve the level of assistance to so-called targeted equity groups, to particularly the more regional and the more remote parts of this country, and whether the obsession with unit costs and lowest common denominator economics has had an adverse effect on the social equity demands which have traditionally been placed upon the VET system.

These are all issues which I trust the minister will be able to respond to, and I expect that by now he will have had some answers to some of the other issues I have pursued.