Home | Top Stories | TAFE warns government: ‘Don’t fund uni diplomas’

TAFE warns government: ‘Don’t fund uni diplomas’

Following a brief budget uplift, it’s been a tumultuous time for the vocational education sector. TAFE enrolment numbers have plummeted in NSW and Victoria, causing TAFE NSW to announce plans to self-accredit. To make matters worse, the government’s National Innovation and Science Agenda neglected to even mention vocational education.

Now, the TAFE sector fears it will be further diminished, due to the government’s plan to fund sub-bachelor university qualifications, like certificates and diplomas.

The government outlined its rationale in the explanatory memorandum to the bill:

[It] contains measures that will rebalance the costs of higher education between taxpayers and students, expand student choice and opportunity, increase quality and transparency, and improve the sustainability of the Higher Education Loan Program.

In a submission to the Senate Education and Employment Committee, TAFE Directors Australia (TDA) wrote:

Such expansion would accelerate the shift of students, who normally would have attended TAFEs, to universities, which appears to have been the case with demand-driven CSP (Commonwealth supported places) for bachelor enrolments in universities.

The chief executive of TDA, Craig Robertson, further explained why he thinks the government’s move will imperil TAFEs, nationwide.

CR: What impact would the government’s proposal to fund CSP places for sub-bachelor degrees have on the TAFE sector?

Craig Robertson: We acknowledge that it would be difficult to estimate that at this point in time, but if we look at the trend that has occurred for demand-driven bachelor level courses, we would expect there would continue to be a direct throng of students into the university sector who would normally go to a TAFE .

Is there any evidence to suggest that would lead to funding cuts to the TAFE sector?

Well, the TAFE sector is primarily funded by students, and so as students move away [from TAFE] there is less funding that is available to the TAFEs, and this is what fundamentally would start to compromise their viability.

Has the government provided a rationale for the proposal?

The way that we interpret the policy is that it is seeking to provide universities with a more structured pathway for an individual who may not be prepared for a bachelor-level university course, to be prepared for what they call an associate degree. However, this doesn’t align with their second expectation out of this measure: that the university course needs to be industry aligned. So it seems that there are two conflicting objectives.

Can you tell me about the current TAFE landscape in terms of enrolment numbers and funding?

What we know out of work that Peter Noonan has published is that the majority of TAFEs around Australia have had a decline in their funding, not only on per student terms but in global terms, and that’s what is impacting their long-term viability.

Given that some universities are offering TAFE-style courses in association with industry partners, do you see universities as a possible threat to TAFE?

We wouldn’t see universities as a threat. The comment that we’re making to the government is you are duplicating investment for the same outcome.

As the CEO of TAFE Directors Australia, what would you like to see for the future of TAFE?

I would like to see that TAFEs are a key component of an integrated tertiary education sector, where those students who want more of an applied learning approach can get this through the TAFE network, and that these options are just as attractive as university places.

Another thing is that we have a strong interest in the government’s announcement about reviewing the Australian Quality Framework (AQF), and we strongly support the review and we would look forward to working closely with the government on that. We think a review of the AQF would allow some of these funding inequities to be addressed.

Craig Robertson. Photo: TDA

Do you have an idea for a story?
Email [email protected]

Get the news delivered straight to your inbox

Receive the top stories in our weekly newsletter Sign up now


  1. Professor John Canning

    This reflects a potentially very serious development for the Australian education sector – the possible awarding of diplomas and other materials as a literal substitute for what was done at TAFEs risks effectively pushing Universities, who increasingly also rely on student fees, to fight with TAFE for an increasingly non-distinguishable market and in the process devaluing University degrees in Australia. What this will mean is academics are now further diluted away from their primary purpose to take on these diplomas and other revenue generating methods immediately and in deleterious fashion impacting quality research and quality research level training. This will feed a vicious cycle that affirms the growing perception of reduced standards at our Universities and the increased “blue collarisation” of University staff and graduates – the emergence of more universities from the TAFE system in the first places risks being reversed. Is this what is being sought? It follows on the growing concerns of business influence in shaping our school education system at its core, too broad spectrum to be accidental.

  2. While not wishing to disagree with the philosophical views expressed above, as a registered nurse I can see immense benefits if enrolled nurses are educated in the same system as registered nurses.
    Registered and enrolled nurses work very closely together, enrolled nurses’ roles have expanded in recent year, enrolled nurses are given credit when enrolling in bachelor of nursing programs. However the TAFE system does not teach the reasoning skills now required even at EN level, or prepare students for academic study.
    When both EN’s and RN’s are regulated by the same bodies, it makes no sense that their education is offered by separate sectors, with very different aims and objectives. This is an anomally that needs to be removed.

    • Thank you Roma for these comments. It seems that some university programs are designed with this understanding in mind. I was involved in a purpose-designed curriculum which aimed at developing health professionals with both reasoning skills and the skills to complete the job roles which industry require. The program was developed as a result of industry feedback regarding the needs for university graduates to gain job-ready skills in addition to reasoning or critical thinking skills. Details of the University of New England’s Bachelor of Health Practice here: http://www.une.edu.au/study/study-options/landing/health-practice-and-community-services .

      This is an important debate in an era when an ever-increasing number of people complete their university studies and subsequently enrol in VET qualifications to develop the required job-ready skills needed in industry. The most effective practitioner in these fields surely combine both attributes.

  3. Collaboration and renewal of pathways across the Tertiary Sector would be a reasonable strategy in response to the latest Government proposals.

    Professor Canning reminds us that universities are primarily in the business of research and so, rather than pursuing a rivalry that will undermine the foundational education provided by TAFEs in our regions and communities, universities should be partnering with TAFEs (TEQSA – third party contracts) to deliver their new diplomas and sub-degrees (ie first year of bachelor degrees).

    This would be a win-win across the Sector and offer tremendous outcomes for our students – think Swinburne and RMIT without the overlay of dual sector reporting. Benefits for students include simplified admission process, regional access to quality post-school education, clear career pathways, practical skills development, transparency in fees, access to HECS, low attrition rates and good job outcomes.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *