❓ A WA parliamentary question addresses the state government's rejection of federal VET funding in 2003 due to imposed conditions and lack of growth funding, and the absence of HECS-style arrangements for TAFE students.
AnsweredQoN 127Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(1) In December 2003, why did the state government reject an offer from the Australian government of $325 million over three years for vocational education and training - including $21.8 million above the 2003 funding levels - which, according to the federal Minister for Education, Science and Training, resulted in the loss of an additional 7 141 training places being created in Western Australia over three years? (2) What is the state government doing to establish higher education contribution scheme arrangements, similar to those provided for university students, for TAFE students who currently have no option but to pay TAFE course and tuition fees up-front? Mr A.J. CARPENTER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of the question. I received notice last week and was ready with an answer, but the member for Alfred Cove did not get the nod. I will use my memory to answer the question. First of all, I am delighted to have been asked the question. I seem to get more questions about education and training now than I did during the four years that I was minister, which is befuddling. (1) As I recall, in relation to the assertion from the federal minister, please, please, please - I say this from experience - do not take anything that the federal minister says at face value. He is a very nice and amiable fellow; however, members should not accept anything he says about commonwealth contributions to the states and what the states are not doing because, invariably, they will not be given the complete picture. In December 2003, I was the Minister for Education and Training. What the commonwealth did then - as I understand it, it is still trying to do so now - was to impose conditions on states for accepting funding for training. The situation related to the building industry, as I recall. The commonwealth wanted all the states, as I recall it, to place all workers on building projects on Australian workplace agreements, or something along those lines. That was totally unacceptable to the states. In fact, for that very reason, Victoria had earlier refused to accept something like $90 million of commonwealth contributions for the redevelopment of the Melbourne Cricket Ground. Ideological impositions were put on funding for training because of issues that the commonwealth government wanted to take up in the building industry - they had nothing to do with training. The second point is that there was no growth funding in the commonwealth’s offer. As I recall it, we would have been worse off under that offer than if we rolled the funding over. That is what happened - the funding model was rolled over. All states universally said that, first, they would not accept those conditions and, second, they would not accept a funding package for the next three to four years that allowed for no growth in training. (2) The second question asked why the state government had not established a higher education contribution scheme for TAFE. HECS is administered by and run through the Australian Taxation Office. The state government does not have the capacity to unilaterally put in place a higher education contribution scheme, no matter what people think of the desirability of doing so. That cannot be done.
(2) What is the state government doing to establish higher education contribution scheme arrangements, similar to those provided for university students, for TAFE students who currently have no option but to pay TAFE course and tuition fees up-front? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. I received notice last week and was ready with an answer, but the member for Alfred Cove did not get the nod. I will use my memory to answer the question. First of all, I am delighted to have been asked the question. I seem to get more questions about education and training now than I did during the four years that I was minister, which is befuddling. (1) As I recall, in relation to the assertion from the federal minister, please, please, please - I say this from experience - do not take anything that the federal minister says at face value. He is a very nice and amiable fellow; however, members should not accept anything he says about commonwealth contributions to the states and what the states are not doing because, invariably, they will not be given the complete picture. In December 2003, I was the Minister for Education and Training. What the commonwealth did then - as I understand it, it is still trying to do so now - was to impose conditions on states for accepting funding for training. The situation related to the building industry, as I recall. The commonwealth wanted all the states, as I recall it, to place all workers on building projects on Australian workplace agreements, or something along those lines. That was totally unacceptable to the states. In fact, for that very reason, Victoria had earlier refused to accept something like $90 million of commonwealth contributions for the redevelopment of the Melbourne Cricket Ground. Ideological impositions were put on funding for training because of issues that the commonwealth government wanted to take up in the building industry - they had nothing to do with training. The second point is that there was no growth funding in the commonwealth’s offer. As I recall it, we would have been worse off under that offer than if we rolled the funding over. That is what happened - the funding model was rolled over. All states universally said that, first, they would not accept those conditions and, second, they would not accept a funding package for the next three to four years that allowed for no growth in training. (2) The second question asked why the state government had not established a higher education contribution scheme for TAFE. HECS is administered by and run through the Australian Taxation Office. The state government does not have the capacity to unilaterally put in place a higher education contribution scheme, no matter what people think of the desirability of doing so. That cannot be done.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. I received notice last week and was ready with an answer, but the member for Alfred Cove did not get the nod. I will use my memory to answer the question. First of all, I am delighted to have been asked the question. I seem to get more questions about education and training now than I did during the four years that I was minister, which is befuddling. (1) As I recall, in relation to the assertion from the federal minister, please, please, please - I say this from experience - do not take anything that the federal minister says at face value. He is a very nice and amiable fellow; however, members should not accept anything he says about commonwealth contributions to the states and what the states are not doing because, invariably, they will not be given the complete picture. In December 2003, I was the Minister for Education and Training. What the commonwealth did then - as I understand it, it is still trying to do so now - was to impose conditions on states for accepting funding for training. The situation related to the building industry, as I recall. The commonwealth wanted all the states, as I recall it, to place all workers on building projects on Australian workplace agreements, or something along those lines. That was totally unacceptable to the states. In fact, for that very reason, Victoria had earlier refused to accept something like $90 million of commonwealth contributions for the redevelopment of the Melbourne Cricket Ground. Ideological impositions were put on funding for training because of issues that the commonwealth government wanted to take up in the building industry - they had nothing to do with training. The second point is that there was no growth funding in the commonwealth’s offer. As I recall it, we would have been worse off under that offer than if we rolled the funding over. That is what happened - the funding model was rolled over. All states universally said that, first, they would not accept those conditions and, second, they would not accept a funding package for the next three to four years that allowed for no growth in training. (2) The second question asked why the state government had not established a higher education contribution scheme for TAFE. HECS is administered by and run through the Australian Taxation Office. The state government does not have the capacity to unilaterally put in place a higher education contribution scheme, no matter what people think of the desirability of doing so. That cannot be done.
I thank the member for some notice of the question. I received notice last week and was ready with an answer, but the member for Alfred Cove did not get the nod. I will use my memory to answer the question. First of all, I am delighted to have been asked the question. I seem to get more questions about education and training now than I did during the four years that I was minister, which is befuddling. (1) As I recall, in relation to the assertion from the federal minister, please, please, please - I say this from experience - do not take anything that the federal minister says at face value. He is a very nice and amiable fellow; however, members should not accept anything he says about commonwealth contributions to the states and what the states are not doing because, invariably, they will not be given the complete picture. In December 2003, I was the Minister for Education and Training. What the commonwealth did then - as I understand it, it is still trying to do so now - was to impose conditions on states for accepting funding for training. The situation related to the building industry, as I recall. The commonwealth wanted all the states, as I recall it, to place all workers on building projects on Australian workplace agreements, or something along those lines. That was totally unacceptable to the states. In fact, for that very reason, Victoria had earlier refused to accept something like $90 million of commonwealth contributions for the redevelopment of the Melbourne Cricket Ground. Ideological impositions were put on funding for training because of issues that the commonwealth government wanted to take up in the building industry - they had nothing to do with training. The second point is that there was no growth funding in the commonwealth’s offer. As I recall it, we would have been worse off under that offer than if we rolled the funding over. That is what happened - the funding model was rolled over. All states universally said that, first, they would not accept those conditions and, second, they would not accept a funding package for the next three to four years that allowed for no growth in training. (2) The second question asked why the state government had not established a higher education contribution scheme for TAFE. HECS is administered by and run through the Australian Taxation Office. The state government does not have the capacity to unilaterally put in place a higher education contribution scheme, no matter what people think of the desirability of doing so. That cannot be done.
(1) As I recall, in relation to the assertion from the federal minister, please, please, please - I say this from experience - do not take anything that the federal minister says at face value. He is a very nice and amiable fellow; however, members should not accept anything he says about commonwealth contributions to the states and what the states are not doing because, invariably, they will not be given the complete picture. In December 2003, I was the Minister for Education and Training. What the commonwealth did then - as I understand it, it is still trying to do so now - was to impose conditions on states for accepting funding for training. The situation related to the building industry, as I recall. The commonwealth wanted all the states, as I recall it, to place all workers on building projects on Australian workplace agreements, or something along those lines. That was totally unacceptable to the states. In fact, for that very reason, Victoria had earlier refused to accept something like $90 million of commonwealth contributions for the redevelopment of the Melbourne Cricket Ground. Ideological impositions were put on funding for training because of issues that the commonwealth government wanted to take up in the building industry - they had nothing to do with training. The second point is that there was no growth funding in the commonwealth’s offer. As I recall it, we would have been worse off under that offer than if we rolled the funding over. That is what happened - the funding model was rolled over. All states universally said that, first, they would not accept those conditions and, second, they would not accept a funding package for the next three to four years that allowed for no growth in training. (2) The second question asked why the state government had not established a higher education contribution scheme for TAFE. HECS is administered by and run through the Australian Taxation Office. The state government does not have the capacity to unilaterally put in place a higher education contribution scheme, no matter what people think of the desirability of doing so. That cannot be done.
(2) The second question asked why the state government had not established a higher education contribution scheme for TAFE. HECS is administered by and run through the Australian Taxation Office. The state government does not have the capacity to unilaterally put in place a higher education contribution scheme, no matter what people think of the desirability of doing so. That cannot be done.
(2) What is the state government doing to establish higher education contribution scheme arrangements, similar to those provided for university students, for TAFE students who currently have no option but to pay TAFE course and tuition fees up-front? Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. I received notice last week and was ready with an answer, but the member for Alfred Cove did not get the nod. I will use my memory to answer the question. First of all, I am delighted to have been asked the question. I seem to get more questions about education and training now than I did during the four years that I was minister, which is befuddling. (1) As I recall, in relation to the assertion from the federal minister, please, please, please - I say this from experience - do not take anything that the federal minister says at face value. He is a very nice and amiable fellow; however, members should not accept anything he says about commonwealth contributions to the states and what the states are not doing because, invariably, they will not be given the complete picture. In December 2003, I was the Minister for Education and Training. What the commonwealth did then - as I understand it, it is still trying to do so now - was to impose conditions on states for accepting funding for training. The situation related to the building industry, as I recall. The commonwealth wanted all the states, as I recall it, to place all workers on building projects on Australian workplace agreements, or something along those lines. That was totally unacceptable to the states. In fact, for that very reason, Victoria had earlier refused to accept something like $90 million of commonwealth contributions for the redevelopment of the Melbourne Cricket Ground. Ideological impositions were put on funding for training because of issues that the commonwealth government wanted to take up in the building industry - they had nothing to do with training. The second point is that there was no growth funding in the commonwealth’s offer. As I recall it, we would have been worse off under that offer than if we rolled the funding over. That is what happened - the funding model was rolled over. All states universally said that, first, they would not accept those conditions and, second, they would not accept a funding package for the next three to four years that allowed for no growth in training. (2) The second question asked why the state government had not established a higher education contribution scheme for TAFE. HECS is administered by and run through the Australian Taxation Office. The state government does not have the capacity to unilaterally put in place a higher education contribution scheme, no matter what people think of the desirability of doing so. That cannot be done.
Mr A.J. CARPENTER replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. I received notice last week and was ready with an answer, but the member for Alfred Cove did not get the nod. I will use my memory to answer the question. First of all, I am delighted to have been asked the question. I seem to get more questions about education and training now than I did during the four years that I was minister, which is befuddling. (1) As I recall, in relation to the assertion from the federal minister, please, please, please - I say this from experience - do not take anything that the federal minister says at face value. He is a very nice and amiable fellow; however, members should not accept anything he says about commonwealth contributions to the states and what the states are not doing because, invariably, they will not be given the complete picture. In December 2003, I was the Minister for Education and Training. What the commonwealth did then - as I understand it, it is still trying to do so now - was to impose conditions on states for accepting funding for training. The situation related to the building industry, as I recall. The commonwealth wanted all the states, as I recall it, to place all workers on building projects on Australian workplace agreements, or something along those lines. That was totally unacceptable to the states. In fact, for that very reason, Victoria had earlier refused to accept something like $90 million of commonwealth contributions for the redevelopment of the Melbourne Cricket Ground. Ideological impositions were put on funding for training because of issues that the commonwealth government wanted to take up in the building industry - they had nothing to do with training. The second point is that there was no growth funding in the commonwealth’s offer. As I recall it, we would have been worse off under that offer than if we rolled the funding over. That is what happened - the funding model was rolled over. All states universally said that, first, they would not accept those conditions and, second, they would not accept a funding package for the next three to four years that allowed for no growth in training. (2) The second question asked why the state government had not established a higher education contribution scheme for TAFE. HECS is administered by and run through the Australian Taxation Office. The state government does not have the capacity to unilaterally put in place a higher education contribution scheme, no matter what people think of the desirability of doing so. That cannot be done.
I thank the member for some notice of the question. I received notice last week and was ready with an answer, but the member for Alfred Cove did not get the nod. I will use my memory to answer the question. First of all, I am delighted to have been asked the question. I seem to get more questions about education and training now than I did during the four years that I was minister, which is befuddling. (1) As I recall, in relation to the assertion from the federal minister, please, please, please - I say this from experience - do not take anything that the federal minister says at face value. He is a very nice and amiable fellow; however, members should not accept anything he says about commonwealth contributions to the states and what the states are not doing because, invariably, they will not be given the complete picture. In December 2003, I was the Minister for Education and Training. What the commonwealth did then - as I understand it, it is still trying to do so now - was to impose conditions on states for accepting funding for training. The situation related to the building industry, as I recall. The commonwealth wanted all the states, as I recall it, to place all workers on building projects on Australian workplace agreements, or something along those lines. That was totally unacceptable to the states. In fact, for that very reason, Victoria had earlier refused to accept something like $90 million of commonwealth contributions for the redevelopment of the Melbourne Cricket Ground. Ideological impositions were put on funding for training because of issues that the commonwealth government wanted to take up in the building industry - they had nothing to do with training. The second point is that there was no growth funding in the commonwealth’s offer. As I recall it, we would have been worse off under that offer than if we rolled the funding over. That is what happened - the funding model was rolled over. All states universally said that, first, they would not accept those conditions and, second, they would not accept a funding package for the next three to four years that allowed for no growth in training. (2) The second question asked why the state government had not established a higher education contribution scheme for TAFE. HECS is administered by and run through the Australian Taxation Office. The state government does not have the capacity to unilaterally put in place a higher education contribution scheme, no matter what people think of the desirability of doing so. That cannot be done.
(1) As I recall, in relation to the assertion from the federal minister, please, please, please - I say this from experience - do not take anything that the federal minister says at face value. He is a very nice and amiable fellow; however, members should not accept anything he says about commonwealth contributions to the states and what the states are not doing because, invariably, they will not be given the complete picture. In December 2003, I was the Minister for Education and Training. What the commonwealth did then - as I understand it, it is still trying to do so now - was to impose conditions on states for accepting funding for training. The situation related to the building industry, as I recall. The commonwealth wanted all the states, as I recall it, to place all workers on building projects on Australian workplace agreements, or something along those lines. That was totally unacceptable to the states. In fact, for that very reason, Victoria had earlier refused to accept something like $90 million of commonwealth contributions for the redevelopment of the Melbourne Cricket Ground. Ideological impositions were put on funding for training because of issues that the commonwealth government wanted to take up in the building industry - they had nothing to do with training. The second point is that there was no growth funding in the commonwealth’s offer. As I recall it, we would have been worse off under that offer than if we rolled the funding over. That is what happened - the funding model was rolled over. All states universally said that, first, they would not accept those conditions and, second, they would not accept a funding package for the next three to four years that allowed for no growth in training. (2) The second question asked why the state government had not established a higher education contribution scheme for TAFE. HECS is administered by and run through the Australian Taxation Office. The state government does not have the capacity to unilaterally put in place a higher education contribution scheme, no matter what people think of the desirability of doing so. That cannot be done.
(2) The second question asked why the state government had not established a higher education contribution scheme for TAFE. HECS is administered by and run through the Australian Taxation Office. The state government does not have the capacity to unilaterally put in place a higher education contribution scheme, no matter what people think of the desirability of doing so. That cannot be done.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.