Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 4 Hansard (22 April) . . Page.. 1143 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

On the performance of the CIT, the Oliphant report bases its analysis and recommendations on published data from the Australian National Training Authority. This data shows that the ACT has the second highest costs for vocational education and training in Australia. The CIT provides 97 per cent of vocational education and training in the ACT.

The Australian Education Union strongly contested some of that data. In particular, the Australian Education Union claimed that the real costs for the ACT are lower than those reported nationally, adjusting for State differences not addressed by ANTA in the published data; CIT exceeded its annual curriculum hours targets for 1997 by several hundred thousand hours; the non-CIT sector did not achieve its 1997 targets, which is damaging the CIT; the government-funded module completion rates in the ACT are higher than the national average; and some of the review report's basic tenets are not supported by nationally published data and therefore the report's recommendations cannot be sustained.

The 1997 ANTA assessment of vocational education and training unit costs places the ACT as the second most expensive in the country at $15.60 per public annual curriculum hour. The ACT asked ANTA to make some adjustments to the ACT calculations. ANTA noted these adjustments as a footnote. The adjusted ACT unit cost is $14.63. This still leaves the ACT as the second most expensive in the country.

The Minister challenged some of the AEU's assertions and agreed fully with others. This is where the Minister agreed with the AEU. In relation to the real costs for the ACT, the Minister agreed with the AEU on a number of specific matters relating to the ANTA data. These are as follows: The relative ACT performance has been affected by continuing to report on scheduled hours rather than curriculum hours. A more detailed analysis of the nature, extent and accounting for recognition of prior learning is required. The Minister went on to say the fact that the ACT declares three times the national average RPL, that is recognition of prior learning, signifies the pressing need to review the quality of CIT data, and, if sustained, how RPL effort is recognised. The Australian Education Union made reasonable points in relation to participation rates in VET by language spoken at home.

Turning now to where the Minister disagreed with the AEU, in relation to the Australian Education Union's claim that the real costs for the ACT are lower than those published in the ANTA report, while accepting those points already mentioned, the Minister asserted that the AEU's analysis assumed that ANTA benchmarking data could be used selectively. He also pointed out that all of the figures contained in the data analysis were provided by the department in consultation with the CIT, and data from all States and Territories is subject to external audit. The ANTA data clearly shows that while the ACT has reduced its costs by three times the national average, it is still, by comparison with other States, expensive.

In relation to the AEU's claim that private providers are dragging the ACT down through underachievement, the Minister advised the committee that all contracted training providers deliver at least the number of hours specified in the contract. The Minister further advised that how the delivery of those hours is reported depends on when the contracted training is delivered. In fact, according to the Minister, the private providers exceeded the hours planned.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .