Book 8 - Parliament of Victoria

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
1620 COUNCIL Wednesday, 1 June 2011
Hon. P. R. HALL (Minister for Higher Education
and Skills) — Like every other member of this
chamber, I am keen to make sure that public authorities
and bodies, such as Holmesglen TAFE and others, are
fully accountable in terms of their financial dealings.
That is why we require such bodies to publish annual
reports which are tabled in the Parliament and which
contain a detailed analysis of the financial statements
relating to them.
Yesterday the annual report of Holmesglen TAFE was
tabled in this Parliament. If members want to look at
that report, at page 84 they will see explanatory note 22
regarding the financial statements, which clearly
outlines a financial arrangement that was undertaken
between Holmesglen TAFE and Carrick Australia. That
is detailed in the report. That report has been signed by
the Auditor-General. It is public information. That is
the level of disclosure I require and the Parliament of
Victoria requires by way of statute.
Supplementary question
Mr LENDERS (Southern Metropolitan) — I thank
Mr Hall for his answer. My supplementary question
regards, firstly, the $6.5 million loan. At the Public
Accounts and Estimates Committee hearing the
minister did not answer a question that asked him if he
had received legal advice on the probity of the
$6.5 million loan from the publicly-funded Holmesglen
TAFE to a private provider, so I ask: can the minister
now advise the house if he has received legal advice on
this transaction, the nature of that advice and whether
he will make it available to the Parliament and the
public?
Hon. P. R. HALL (Minister for Higher Education
and Skills) — As minister I have a responsibility to be
accountable to the people of Victoria and ensure that
money expended by those organisations under my
responsibility has been spent wisely. When this matter
was drawn to my attention by the Victorian
Registration and Qualifications Authority of course I
made it my business to inquire about it. As to the advice
we have received regarding the circumstances of that
particular loan, I am more than happy to make that
advice available under the normal provisions by which
such information is made available to the public.
Mr Lenders well knows that he has lodged a freedom of
information request for that information, and if that
request complies with all the provisions relating to FOI,
then it will be released to Mr Lenders, who I am sure
will make it more broadly available to the public.
Vocational education and training: national
regulator
Mrs PEULICH (South Eastern Metropolitan) —
My question without notice is directed to the Minister
for Higher Education and Skills, who is also the
Minister responsible for the Teaching Profession, and I
ask: can the minister explain to the house the coalition
government’s concerns about the commonwealth
government’s new national vocational education and
training regulator and what the implications are for
Victorian training providers?
Hon. P. R. HALL (Minister for Higher Education
and Skills) — I thank Mrs Peulich for her question and
her interest in this matter, which is one of concern for
us all in Victoria. It relates to the establishment of a
new national vocational education and training (VET)
regulator. Most members would be well aware that the
federal Parliament has now passed legislation to
establish a national regulator to be called the Australian
Skills Quality Authority, which will commence its
operations on 1 July this year. At that time all training
providers based in Victoria who operate interstate or
internationally, or provide services in Victoria for
international students, will be required to be registered
with the Australian Skills Quality Authority. That
means about half the providers of VET in Victoria, of
the order of some 500 providers, will be required to be
registered and then regulated by the new national
authority.
Victoria is one of two states to resist referral to the new
national VET regulator, and I might add that was a
position the previous government also adopted. I think
there are very sound reasons both the previous and
current governments have maintained that position. To
elaborate on those reasons would take me far in excess
of the 4 minutes allowed for me to answer this question.
Essentially, to summarise our joint concerns, we
believe the system proposed under the federal
legislation is not as rigorous and robust as the one we
currently have in Victoria.
It is of interest to note that as a result of the 2010
amendments to the Education and Training Reform Act
2006, which had bipartisan support and which
strengthened some of the regulatory requirements under
the act, 109 vocational education providers either
voluntarily closed their doors because they were
unwilling to meet the new quality standards that the act
required of them, or put in place measures for
improvement, particularly in relation to protection
schemes for student fees.