Many professions with skills shortages require a VET qualification gained from TAFE or another registered training organisation (RTO), such as builders and other trade apprenticeships.

A $1.3bn scheme to get more people into apprenticeships will also be reviewed after data revealed half of apprentices that undertook the scheme's offer dropped out.

The Interim report also says only half of NSW TAFE students complete their training.

The NSW VET Review Interim Report has seven recommendations that aim to boost vocational education enrolments to address the state's worsening skills shortage.

1. The NSW government should clarify TAFE's role and purpose through a TAFE NSW Charter
2. TAFE should develop and implement a revised operating model that aligns educational delivery with industry needs, prioritises local engagement and enhances support for teachers
3. TAFE should work with the NSW Department of Education to pilot self-accreditation processes across selected qualifications
4. The government should streamline and increase funding
5. The government should review the TAFE advisory board, advisory bodies and the NSW Skills Board Act 2013
6. The government should prioritise expanding the VET trainer workforce and converting casual staff to permanent roles
7. The government should audit existing TAFE infrastructure and assess whether its age, condition and location are suitable

The Interim report recommended changes to be immediately implemented, with the final report, to be released mid-year, to recommend longer term reforms.

The TAFE NSW Charter

The most immediate recommendation is the proposed TAFE NSW Charter, which NSW Minister for Skills, TAFE and Tertiary Education Steve Whan said the government has already begun working on.

The Charter would clearly outline outcome expectations of TAFE through clarifying its role, purpose, agreed measures of success, ways of working, governance and values – all of which is currently undefined.

No clear overarching reason for existing, the report says, has left TAFEs operating in a less effective way, with no medium to long term enrolment or growth goals.

The Charter would also clearly communicate that TAFEs should be industry aligned to meet workforce needs – and local, to serve the needs of regional and remote communities particularly.

Funding overhaul

A lack of funding certainty has prevented medium and long term goal making efforts for TAFEs, the review found.

The current Smart and Skilled program, which subsidises in-demand qualifications for students up to a Certificate III, has actual costs that are significantly higher than its predicted costs.

The review found since the implementation of that program in 2015, TAFE pushed itself into a market competing with private RTOs and other skills institutions, whilst still attempting to meet its equity and access goals.

Trying to "play every role" has left the skills trainer falling short in most areas, the report says, on top of the burden of funding 70 per cent of courses under the Smart and Skilled scheme.

Private RTOs can opt-out of offering qualifications that cost more than their actual cost, whereas the public TAFE is a 'last resort', and has to offer that skill course for free.

'TAFE NSW estimates losses on several high-enrolment qualifications due to the mismatch between Smart and Skilled prices and its actual costs of delivery,' the report said.

“It cost us $28,000 at a minimum to put a trainee through over two years and the only funding we’re eligible for is $5,000 through Smart and Skilled. So every time we sign up a trainee, it’s a financial loss to our company," a primary industries roundtable member said.

TAFE also has to negotiate funding agreements with the state's education department every year, preventing the skills provider from planning long term or creating goals.

The review recommends TAFE be removed from the contestable funding market, and Smart and Skilled program costs are reviewed and managed through the proposed charter.

The report also says both TAFE NSW and the NSW government should up their funding commitments in the 2024-25 budget, and adopt a 'direct appropriation' funding model, where a lump sum of money is set aside to take care of TAFE costs.

Better trainer conditions

The NSW Teachers Federation said funding certainty is key to improving TAFE outcomes, and called for changes to appear in the 2024/25 budget so trainers can reap its benefits from 2025, not mid-way through 2026.

"Our students can’t wait and nor can our communities. The skill shortage is getting worse and threatening critical national priorities such as in construction, nursing and the clean energy transition," deputy president Amber Flohm said.

"The NSW economy needs a revamped, revitalised TAFE."

The federation also called for an end to significant administrative burdens – currently a full-time TAFE trainer spends one hour on admin for every hour spent in the classroom.

VET trainers and teachers should also be put on permanent full-time contracts more often than not, the review says.

Although NSW TAFE offers above average wages compared to other states, part-time contracts and admin burden have dulled the appeal of the profession.

The review found between 20-50 hours of NSW Education and Authority Standards (NESA) accreditation admin per week is deterring teacher applicants, along with too much of a focus on compliance training instead of valuing current and competent industry knowledge.

Declining infrastructure

Stakeholders that wrote to the review said even if they wanted to offer TAFE's full suite of qualifications, they don't have the facilities to.

Old equipment, a lack of digital learning resources (despite the Covid-19 pandemic) and low digital literacy in students have undermined student experience and lowered staff morale, the review found.

Most TAFEs are still using digital infrastructure that has not been upgraded since its implementation in 2009, the report says, reflecting the gap between VET infrastructure and industry needs, especially in regional and rural areas.

"The issues currently faced by TAFE around its infrastructure and assets are also reflected in NSW public high schools that offer VET to their students," the review said.

"Participants noted that this limits the ability of schools to offer VET to their students, even if they have the workforce to deliver it."

A lack of long-term vision stemming from funding uncertainty has allowed infrastructure to continue to decline, with no upgrade plans in sight.

The review recommended the NSW government conduct an audit of existing public school and TAFE VET facilities, and increase the quality of those facilities to deliver learning needs.

It also said the government should consider aligning tertiary education infrastructure announcements, such as Regional University Study Hubs, with VET needs.

Indigenous participation missing

The Independent Tertiary Education Council Australia (ITECA), that represents independent RTOs, said the final report should place a greater emphasis on Indigenous participation in VET studies.

“ITECA looks forward to working with the New South Wales Government to enhance the role of skills training in supporting Indigenous Australians not just into a job, but into a career,” ITECA chief executive Troy Williams said.

"ITECA is also committed to ensuring that the final report includes robust recommendations on improving access to skills training for students from remote, rural, and regional News South Wales."

The review mentioned the importance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participation in TAFE, because it acts as a pathway for learners who face general barriers to education.

The review acknowledged funding is not the only reason Indigenous students don't sign up for VET studies, and recommended the appointment of specialist support staff for Indigenous students.

It also said Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations should be consulted on Indigenous issues.

Minister Whan said the report offers the changes required for TAFE to flourish.

“The NSW Labor Government knows that to address the critical shortage of skilled workers, NSW needs a strong and sustainable vocational training system," he said.

“Over the next decade, NSW will need thousands of skilled professionals across healthcare, hospitality, construction, and burgeoning sectors like renewable energy.

“This report underscores the pivotal role of TAFE NSW in helping meet the skills needs of the NSW economy.”

Australia has a new national government. All participants in the higher education (HE) and research sectors and the vocational education and training (VET) sector will build fresh relations with the new government, including all state and territory (S&T) governments. 

The new Australian Government (AG) has proffered a largely blank HE policy sheet in its election platform, other than an extra 20,000 new university places and an as yet unspecified University Accord to drive lasting reform.

Closer reconsideration of the funding specifics of the Job Ready Graduates policy, better support of HE research funding and commercialisation including Australia’s Economic Accelerator with links to the new $15bn National Reconstruction Fund, and initiatives to rebuild a quality and diverse international student market, supporting skilled migration, may be headline initiatives the vice chancellors would look for in any new Accord.

The policy canvas for the VET sector is more explicit. It proposes 465,000 fee free TAFE places, including 45,000 new TAFE places, a $50m TAFE Technology Fund, $100m for New Energy Apprenticeships to train 10,000 apprentices in new energy jobs, ensuring at least 70 per cent of Commonwealth vocational education funding is for public TAFE, and, working closely with S&T Governments, industry and unions (to) allow workers to transfer and build on their accredited micro-credential training (the last item pertinent to this narrative).

Any new government has to deal with the incomplete or failed initiatives of the old. A legitimate option is to simply junk whatever went before, especially if it’s not relevant to policy commitments. But in this case two issues just won’t and should not go away.

The first issue is the long term failure to get jurisdictional sign off of a renewed National Agreement (NA) for Skills and Workforce Development between the AG and S&T Governments. This will need a new approach. The second is zero (public) progress on implementation of reforms proposed in the 2019 review of the AQF. Abandoning this thought leadership work and the report’s recommendations would be a major strategic mistake.

Why so? The failure to effectively resolve these two issues creates crippling and connected consequences. First, a blocked NA undermines jurisdictional cooperation and the flow of any additional AG funding for VET skills. 

Second, a revised contemporary AQF would provide practical modernisation of national qualifications and shorter credentials, thereby far better accommodating current and future realities of employee ‘life-long’ learning, so supporting ‘up-and-re skilling’ needs.

Third, and most crucially, the AQF de facto defines HE/VET sectoral boundaries. In our Federated system, this then also defines which government(s’) fund VET (alone or shared). So any revision of the AQF risks an ugly ‘who pays for what and has control’ debate.

It would also provoke debate on the policies and quantum of public funding of HE vs. VET and relativities (e.g. disparate costs to students and different access to loans). All speculative reasons for zero progress on AQF reform.

The ex-AG did not get its way on a revised NA, being resisted by the States in a ‘tug-a-war’ on old Federation rope. If the thesis above is correct, then the ex-AG also left AQF reform in the ‘too complex and hard basket’ because it risked being similarly tied up.

This article is an exhortation to all Governments to now collaboratively undo these ‘old-knots’ in the nation’s best interest. Find new constructive ways of working together, or risk ongoing competitive stagnation of Australian’s skilled workforce and labour productivity.

The ideal outcome should be an ‘all-jurisdictions’ agreed and revised AQF and a nationally operating tertiary funding framework and system that ensures funding and financing of both high quality full qualifications and shorter credentials. Inaction only stymies a better integrated tertiary education system and opportunity for improved university/industry collaboration, all of which is argued as being vital to lifting skills-related national productivity.

Knot 1: Failure to Negotiate and Sign Off a Renewed National Agreement for VET

As explained elsewhere, unlike the HE sector, the VET sector operates by ‘cooperative federalism’. This is reaffirmed by the latest VET Heads of Agreement for Skills Reform between jurisdictions where VET is stated as a ‘shared responsibility’ across all jurisdictions. 

It was last legally evidenced in the terms of the agreed referral of Constitutional Power (Vic and WA excepted) for the creation of the ASQA in 2011, the national VET regulator, where other VET activities were explicitly carved out to remain in State control.  

Australia’s Federation has a relatively high ‘vertical fiscal imbalance’ (compared with, say, Germany and Canada) requiring the AG to transfer funding under the Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations so S&T can deliver various services, including VET. 

Jurisdictional dispute is about any controls and conditions the AG places on this transfer, or whether it is ‘untied’ and without condition (other than the NA funding is used for VET training).

The AG commissioned and received a comprehensive review of the national VET sector in early 2019. The Strengthening Skills: Expert Review of Australia’s VET System (Joyce Review) made sweeping recommendations, some now implemented. It was underpinned by strong centralisation of VET policy and funding control in the AG. 

Detailed critique was made as to why some key aspects of the Review were flawed and needed a re-work. Not only did the Review’s ‘simpler funding’ proposal fail to recognise nor accommodate the basis of cooperative federalism in VET, it also failed to consider the adequacy of VET funding, nor offer solutions on how to increase investment in VET (public, private or employer), nor offer solutions to fund part qualifications and micro credentials/subjects, nor did it cover the merits for wider access to loans for VET students. 

The critique predicted that the ‘simpler funding’ recommendations represented a major and unacceptable repositioning for S&T Governments in their constitutional and Ministerial responsibilities, given their co-funding and control of their own S&T VET sectors.  

The ex-AG Treasurer then sought the Productivity Commission’s (PC) review of the NA. The jurisdictional submissions to the PC were uniform in politely (some obliquely) rejecting the basis of ‘simpler funding’, most plainly expressed by the Qld submission:

“It is critical that the role of the state, as the majority funder of VET, is not encroached upon, particularly in relation to pricing and subsidy setting… States and territories fundamentally require flexibility in their funding efforts and should not be exposed to onerous conditions and input controls that are contrary to the principles of the Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations” Ministerial letter as Qld. Government Submission Jan. 2020.

The final report of the Productivity Commission was an extensive tour de force of many of VET’s high priority “acknowledged weaknesses” with a headline being the PC recommended any transfer of NA funding should remain “largely untied for base funding but subject to much greater accountability and transparency” (pg.2) based on a revision of the NA’s principles and sharpened accountability under the Intergovernmental Agreement.

The PC’s proposals included that the National Skills Commission (NSC) estimate VET course prices, efficient costs and loadings for setting and simplifying course subsidies, having State and Territory governments adopt these as a “common basis for setting their subsidy rates” (p.2) (and) leaving jurisdictions the “flexibility to determine their subsidy rates according to their own priorities for courses and student cohorts” (p.21). 

This approach was a significant wind back of the Joyce Review’s proposals. The PC was advising all Governments to find a better balance – supporting subsidiarity but with sharper accountability – that best accommodated cooperative federalism and its inherent stresses. 

More recently, the NA for Skills was highly featured in the ex-AG 2022/23 Budget and later election commitments. It referred to the National Skills Agreement as follows.

“Government has committed up to $12 billion over five years from 2022–23 for a National Skills Agreement (NSA) with state and territory governments. In addition to the $8.3 billion National Skills and Workforce Development Specific Purpose Payment, the Budget includes provision for a further $3.7 billion to support the NSA. The NSA will transform the way the states and territories support vocational education and training (VET), ensuring investment decisions are evidence-based and linked to skills need, funding is transparent, and greater consistency applies across jurisdictions. The NSA has the capacity to deliver around 800,000 additional training places over five years. It will reduce the number of students facing unreasonably high fees and improve access to free and low-fee training for priority students…” pg 12 2022/23 Portfolio Budget Statement May 2022

It is history now that three futile years went by from the Joyce Review and two since the First Ministers’ signed off a VET Heads of Agreement, plus the slog of the PC – and still no renewed NA. The speculative conclusion is that S&T Governments, emboldened and scarred by relations during the COVID crisis, preferred the status quo NA without extra funding, than agree to the terms being offered.  

An inkling of what was on offer, if correct, is this recent scathing Ministerial Statement from the Queensland Minister including that “The States and territories are united in their condemnation of the draft agreement”. It seems they all just sat out time awaiting another AG.

The calculus for the “around 800,000 additional training places” (above) is not known, but speculatively seems to partly rest on what the ex-AG calculated as its desired mix of public and (increased) student fees, if examples raised by the Qld Minister are correct.

It would also seem that transfer of the entire NA funds, existing and extra, would be AG-conditional and not ‘untied’. The calculus for the new AG election policy of “465,000 Fee Free TAFE places, including 45,000 new TAFE places” is notably far less places than the now defunct alternate. 

How in detail ‘free-places’ fit, or add, to overall funding for VET per the released policy costings will emerge. It is probable S&T Government’s will be provided a redrafted NA more in accord with present arrangements.

Despite the failure to successfully negotiate terms on the NA, the ex-AG must be well lauded for the extra interim financial support for the national VET sector over the COVID-crisis, especially in employment support by Boosting and Completing Apprentices Commencements and also Job Trainer. The Australian Government provided for example some $3.8bn in 2020, an increase of $1.2 billion (up 45% from 2019). This extra support was needed and was exceptional.

‘National’ Reforms in VET have differing requirements in authorisation and agreement

Consider three further examples of graded control: full AG autonomy; AG decisions following S&T consultation; and genuine national reforms needing all of AG/S&T Governments agreement. 

Example 1: The AG can design, fund and operate the National Skills Commission and the National Careers Institute. It can without apparent public consultation majorly adjust the design and funding of apprentice/employer support as detailed in its 2022/23 Budget and decide what are priority apprenticeships and their funding. This is despite S&T Governments having powers to declare occupations undertaken as apprenticeships and traineeships.

Example 2: New VET skills industry advisory arrangements starting in 2023 see Industry Clusters (ICs) replacing Industry Reference Committees (IRCs) and Skills Service Organisations (SSOs). Change was widely consulted and agreed by the Skills National Cabinet Reform Committee. 

That said, the new ICs will be the fourth iteration of different national skills/industry advisory arrangements since 2003. Throughout this time the performance of all such bodies has been subject of confidential AG contract management without public performance metrics or account.

Example 3: This example includes the slowly evolving VET Qualifications Reform program where Skills Organisations Pilots have been pursuing new evidence-led approaches to qualifications development with  schematic alternate models considered. Given that the VET Training Package Standards were formally agreed in 2012 by all VET Ministers and the ‘carve out’ of retained State powers includes “the qualifications required for various occupations”, any comprehensive reforms to VET Training Products will certainly need full and formal agreement by all jurisdictions. 

And all such VET qualifications, like those of the HE sector, then connect across Levels 1-10 of the present AQF, or in future translate into the matrixed ‘bands’ as outlined in the AQF Review. This then defines the complex terrain of the second major knot bound up on ‘old Federation rope’.

Knot 2: No Progress (Publically) in Implementing the AQF Review

The Review of the AQF was completed back in 2019. Then Ministers Cash and Tehan headlined the release: “a New Future for VET and Higher Education” and stated it would ‘make it easier for Australians to move between vocational training and higher education and to earn micro-credential qualifications that will improve their productivity’.

The AG accepted all the ‘recommendations of the review in relation to HE and accepted the aims of recommendations in relation to VET contingent on further discussions with S&T Governments’ (NB caveat). The only break from ‘radio-silence’ since was the insertion of the Undergraduate Certificate into the AQF to legitimise Commonwealth expenditure as part of its COVID-driven response to support short courses. This is not AQF reform.

The speculative reasons why implementation of the AQF Review’s recommendations never proceeded are set out above. The reforms have stagnated in the ‘too complex and hard basket’ not only because it re-shapes the tertiary system and has flow on implications in rebuilding any consensus on a revised national tertiary funding/financing system; but also because reform has other far reaching, rumbling reverberations. This includes qualification/credential re-design, flow on quality and regulatory changes plus disturbing a multitude of legislative, industrial awards and professional standards all anchored to the AQF. How can such a huge reform job get done?

The AQF Review was a far reaching thought leadership proposal, being an imaginatively crafted modernisation of the AQF. It was not prescriptive but rather gave options for translation of the present AQF 10 levels to new composite ‘knowledge, skills and application’ bandings. 

It envisaged extensive consultation to technically stress test best options and to tease out details. Since 2019, the most valuable complementary policy contribution has been the national micro-credentials framework (2022) that sets out a lucid and practical statement, prepared by a 16 Member expert working group, without overt sign of government or ministerial endorsement.

There is no shortage in the stock of ideas for betterment of Australia’s tertiary education system.  Commissioned by the ex-AG, the most recent report focused on University/Industry collaboration. Its advice on the AQF was: “Implement AQF Reform – To assist in the design of qualifications that will meet the needs of industry, expedite reform of the AQF, in order to facilitate better collaboration between higher education providers, VET providers and industry and…enable the alignment of micro-credentials to the AQF”. The plain message was – get on with it.

While governments collectively dither, the post schooling education/training and skilling landscape, especially kicked on by COVID, accelerates away. It includes both accredited HE and VET short courses/micro-credentials. There is a growing non-accredited skills market available on education-as-a-service platforms. There are examples of VET registered providers, wanting to work with high-tech industry, offering their ‘own-branded’ micro-credentials, being unable to self-accredit courses (unlike universities) and impatient at the ‘snails-pace’ of training product reform.

All this may be innovative, or set up concerning reputation and quality risks. So for consumers it’s ‘buyer-beware’ at any ‘e-fast-learn outlets’ that are beyond the reach of regulators. And more employers and leaners are, and will be active, in accessing this non-accredited and non-regulated space.

The reason is that increasingly employers just want skilled staff – domestic or skilled migrants. They care less for any institutional brand or formal qualification. They want staff with contemporary job-task specific skills. For example, the Tech Council of Australia seeks by 2030 to grow its contribution to the economy to $250bn and increase employees in tech-related jobs by 340,000 to 1.2 million, a target endorsed by the new Prime Minister.  

The present graduate output of domestic ICT VET and HE graduates is insufficient. In any case, employers want foremost that all their new and current staff have the right ‘job task-related digital skills’, not necessarily formal credentials.

So we need to think differently. The AQF is not some arcane, academic ‘policy-wonk’ artefact – it could alternately be seen as a hot house zone of engagement between students, institutions and industry that supports existing conventional qualifications as well as new innovative shorter course constructs.  

This should be underpinned by an equitable public funding and private financing (loans) schema. Ideally VET would sit in such a schema better integrated with the HE sector, allowing students fair access and opportunity to move across sectors based on merit and equity, so eliminating funding as a major determinant of student choice (see also PC report  pg. 22).  

National reforms need trusted and effective political and bureaucratic leadership

Lest readers think VET is an aberrant example of a ‘knotted problem’, consider the insights of Robert French the ex-Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia in his 2008 essay "The future of federalism: The incredible shrinking federation voyage to a singular state?" 

“The recent history of cooperative federalism in Australia demonstrates a tendency to treat as national a whole range of issues which, not so long ago, would have been regarded as local. The concentration of central power to which this trend contributes began many years ago….Cooperative federalism today is in part extra-constitutional. Driven by political imperatives it yields results on a consensual basis which go well beyond those achievable by the exercise of Commonwealth legislative power and the separate exercise by the States of their powers...

"For every topic which is treated as national becomes potentially a matter which, somewhere along the line, it can be argued is best dealt with by a national government… there is a ratchet effect. Once a topic has been designated as one of national significance and requiring a cooperative approach, it is difficult to imagine circumstances in which it becomes politically acceptable to the parties to go backwards and fragment responsibility for it. The pressure seems to be in one direction only."

Cooperative Federalism is guided by three principles. The most critical is ‘subsidiarity’, that is proximity of government to the community it serves, or as Dr Ron Ben-David the ex-Chair Essential Services Commission (Vic) wrote in his essay “Federalism, Subsidiarity & Economics: In search of a unifying theory”. “Federalism is based upon the principle of subsidiarity whereby responsibility, in theory should be held at the most decentralised level that is competent to undertake the role.” 

He states his most illuminating career insight was a realisation that his Canberra colleagues saw subsidiarity as: “all authority and responsibility resides with the centre and policy only becomes the responsibility of another level of government if that level of government can administer its implementation more efficiently” (i.e. as decided by the centre).

If such reflections are valid, herein sits a crucial relationship issue that at worst provokes tug-a-war tactics, power-creep, posturing, and logjams. The needed alternate and positive approach is to tackle reforms (as above) with all players having national interest best outcomes, foremost in mind.

Conclusion

It is a galaxy-bridge way too far to expect Federal reform that limits ‘vertical fiscal imbalance’, eroding Canberra-centric authority and funding power. Short of an alternate ‘grand bargain’ of funding reforms, unless and until there is constitutional change, the VET sector is governed, funded and operates by cooperative federalism.

This frustrates many who want VET to operate like the HE sector. For now, State Skills Ministers on behalf of their Parliaments, economies and communities exercise operational control of their VET sector, seeking best effective relations with the AG. The model is for now balanced subsidiarity with rational and reasonable accountability.

Tellingly, the new Prime Minister has opened his term by saying at the outset “I want to have a cooperative relationship. I want to bring people together, including the states and territories….on how we work together”. 

A new cooperatively negotiated VET NA is now likely and a reframed and modernised AQF a next possibility (needing cooperation across new AG Ministerial, portfolio and departmental arrangements).

Now get going and untie the ‘knots of old Federation rope’.

Dr Craig Fowler is an analyst and observer of national policies impacting tertiary education, science and innovation after decades of experience in private, public and university sectors.

But of course, that future is not assured. It must be won. Properly done, increasing the nature, latitude and intensity of our skills and workforce capability will win that future.

Major reform to vocational education and training is being contemplated. The current environment is coloured by social and economic upheavals; to list a few, the COVID-19 pandemic, a climate emergency, re-emerging and potentially crippling skills shortages, the challenge of digital, and the lack of availability of a temporary skilled migrant workforce. Australia has become increasingly dependent on the latter. All of these issues by themselves could be described as a crisis. However, such thinking does not absolve us from addressing the fundamental weaknesses evident in our workforce development architecture.

There is a risk that, rather than genuine nation-building reform, the reforms being contemplated now will go the way of so many others and degenerate into a debate about the mechanics of training, how we regulate it and fund it, rather than building a shared national understanding about what the purpose of vocational education and training is.

The complexity of the current social and economic environment means that we must get VET right. It is as important as any decision on infrastructure, tax reform and the environment; it will affect people and the economy for many years to come. The social and economic case for reform that has as its aim the restoration of national confidence in VET is accelerating rapidly. It becomes more urgent as we begin to emerge from the pandemic and confront an economy constrained by skills shortages and a lack of employment and skills mobility.

There is also a technological imperative for skills reform, as industry and the community generally are transforming because of rapid digitisation (often referred to as Industry 4.0), new materials and new technologies in medicine, education and many other sectors. These advances are not just the province of professionals with degrees but depend heavily on the vocational skills of Australia’s trades, technician, production and service workers.

This paper deals with the importance of having a clear and unambiguous shared understanding of the primary purpose of the VET system in Australia, and the urgent need to restore certainty and confidence in the system.

Part 2 in the series will deal in more detail with the AMWU’s views on how that certainty and confidence can be rebuilt to take the system forward.

What problem are we trying to solve?

The most succinct description of the problem with VET is illustrated by a Productivity Commission finding that 85.1% of people engage with the VET system ‘for employment related reasons’, yet only 17.8% are employed at a higher skill level after training.¹

This sad fact indicates that our VET system, after almost a decade of ‘reform’ - fiddling with a veritable infestation of solutions ranging from national training entitlements, income contingent loans schemes, flirtations with fully institutionalised delivery, skill sets, ‘micro-credentials - is still not producing higher skilled employment outcomes for most students and workers.

The training system is struggling to produce workers with the skills the economy needs. Whilst this is the major problem it is by no means the only problem:

• The system is trying to serve too many masters. There is a so called ‘national’ training system whose coherence is undermined by eight separate State and Territory VET systems all with their own consultation arrangements, VET funding rules, and apprentice training contract registration arrangements amongst other differences.
• There is a lack of certainty amongst employers, students and the community about what the VET system is producing. The economy depends on a highly skilled, agile and and mobile workforce based on recognition of portable and transferable vocational skills, yet the VET system is under increasing pressure to cater for flexibility and specialisation designed specifically to meet the narrow interests of individual employers rather than the industry.
• We have the conundrum of strong support for the mechanism of Training Contracts while confidence in the outcomes of current traineeships, trade apprenticeships and technical cadetships is diminishing
• The number of people who complete their VET study continues to stagnate.
• Industry and students lack confidence that their engagement with the VET sector will produce the outcomes that they seek. Even if industry succeed in getting appropriate content in national or State qualifications, there is no guarantee that the training delivery market will consider it profitable enough to deliver.
• Employers struggle to understand the capability they can expect from people holding vocational qualifications.
• The long term reduction in VET’s share of education funding means there is a race to the bottom on cost and quality led by for-profit RTOs that is forcing high quality public TAFE and not-for-profit industry providers to join the race.
• Students and employers have little chance of becoming the informed and demanding consumers our VET system desperately needs while the current levels of disconnect and incoherence prevail.

These problems are in no way confined to our vitally important manufacturing and engineering industries. They play out in most if not all industries including aged care, early childhood education, disability care, tourism and hospitality.

Can we learn from the past?

This is not the first time that Australia has had an urgent need for reforms to VET to support structural change and growth in community and in the economy. The National Training Reform Agenda of the late 1980s was a period of equally profound change following the Hawke/Keating economic reforms of the mid 1980s. The National Training Reform Agenda had a clear purpose and a detailed set of objectives e.g:

• industry’s desire to use vocational skills in order to increase flexibility, mobility, productivity and hence competitiveness in the economy
• a need for VET to focus on generic as well as technical skills
• national recognition arrangements for vocational qualifications and skills
• skills development and recognition that crosses occupational boundaries
• recognition of the importance of reforms to management education and training to the success of VET reform
• skills defined through industry ownership of the process and the direct involvement of the workplace
• the need to ensure VET reform includes ‘semi-skilled’ and ‘unskilled’ employees
• openness of the training system to public scrutiny in terms of content, quality and delivery methodology.”²

The union movement, particularly the then Amalgamated Metal Workers Union (AMWU) strongly supported the above changes and set a policy for:

• The establishment of one nationally consistent training system based on competence
• Competence defined by skill standards developed by the industry parties
• Promotion of key skills and not narrow specialisation
• Classifications linked to qualifications and wages
• Recognition of prior learning based on industry skill standards.

The industrial environment in manufacturing and many other industries at the time was one characterised by narrow demarcation, limited opportunities for career progression, and a workforce with a post-school qualification achievement sitting at around 40%.  

Back then, as it is now, something had to give. The industry partners buried their natural animosity and along with Governments drove fundamental change in the industrial relations landscape in the hope that industry would capitalise on the opportunities to retool, and to invest in skills and capability.

The sword was sheathed so we could jointly drive a new era of prosperity, placing skills formation at the centre of industrial relations and industry policy.

We should not get hung up on all the changes that have happened in technology and society since the late 1980s. To do so would be just an excuse to disregard the real lesson of the National Training Reform Agenda: that intense, properly funded national efforts to establish a common strategy and shared understanding of the purpose for VET can deliver many benefits at the individual, industry and economic level.

Our proposition

Defining the purpose of VET

No national reform can effectively address the vocational education and training challenges we face without first articulating a clear and unambiguous statement of purpose for the system. That purpose must unashamedly be truly vocational.

We propose that the purpose of the system be stated as follows.

“The primary purpose of the VET system is the production of skilled and adaptable workers productively employed in the economy in occupations related to their training.”

Achieving this purpose requires industry to properly define the competency required for the occupation (occupational standard) and then linking that competency to the training system. If we want skilled and adaptable workers who can work in mining in one year and manufacturing or another industry the next, and move freely between regions, industry sectors, and large and small employers then we must develop occupational standards and associated training delivery at the level above that designed only to satisfy the needs of the individual employer, worker, or training provider.

This does not mean that training delivery should not be flexible and able to be customised, but that is not the same thing as recognition. Australia is a large, diverse and technologically advanced country and the public interest is best served by its public funding of the national training system being prioritised to produce workers with portable and transferable occupational skills. There is no public interest that is served by limiting training to the narrow needs of individual employers.

Defining skills

Portability of skills plays out in a worker’s occupation and the industry they work in. This should not be seen as a competitive tension but rather recognition that portable skills can be applied in and across industries with some sets of skills being naturally more industry specific (i.e. mostly applied in a specific industry) and other skills that are commonly applied in many industries. The most important issue is that skills and capability must be defined to the standard required in the workplace, not tied to specific workplaces.

If effective skills and capability definitions are to be achieved, then industry must lead the process. However, Australia has a poor history of establishing effective mechanisms for this industry, defined as employer and union, leadership. This is because of two inter-related problems:

• Defining the scope of VET industry leadership too narrowly
• An unwillingness by Governments to truly ‘let go’ and let industry lead

Defining industry leadership

Australia has had Industry Training Committees that were advisory, then Industry Training Advisory Bodies (ITABs) that transitioned from advisory to limited defined functions, to Industry Skill Councils, with the most recent iteration being Skill Service Organisations that support Industry Reference Committees. All these mechanisms for ‘industry leadership’ suffered from the same problem – they were not allowed to advise on and genuinely lead the full VET process.

In addition, the things they have been responsible for, defining the content scope in VET qualifications and the standard of skill to be achieved, have too often been micromanaged and constrained by regulatory and approvals bodies that have shaped and limited the form and nature of the standards industry is charged with developing. It goes without saying that the situation is politically charged as well.

We do not accept the criticism that competency-based training is responsible for narrowing the outcomes of vocational education and training. The AMWU does however acknowledge that regulatory and particularly funding models, combined with the micromanagement of training package development referred to above, have combined to make it almost impossible for training providers to adequately deliver a broader generalist vocational education. This needs to be integrated with competency-based training in order to produce the well-rounded, capable and adaptable worker that industry requires.

It is our view that the funding mechanisms and regulatory rigour are being applied to the wrong component of the system.

The Howard Government’s Training Package reform of the mid-1990s was trumpeted as a new era of industry leadership. It based national qualifications on industry-derived competency standards, yet it formalised a strong split between the activity of industry in setting standards and vocational training delivery.

Under the Howard reforms, industry was denied a say in:

• The development of learning resources (curriculum) to deliver the outcomes found in the industry developed standards. In effect, this aspect of the system was ‘left to the market’.
• Decisions on which qualifications attract public funding and the hours of off-the-job funding that would be supported for training (especially qualifications that support apprenticeships and traineeships)
• Registration and quality auditing of training providers.

Recent arbitrary decisions by ministers to delete qualifications and units of competency that have not been delivered in the last three years off the national register can only again send a strong signal that it is the delivery end of VET, the part with the least involvement of industry that is really driving Australia’s VET system.

Current policy settings in effect pit Training Packages against the delivery of training and assessment by training providers, rather than encouraging their integration. Funding and regulatory arrangements are all focused tightly on whether training and assessment are likely to lead to competency against the requirements of individual units of competency in isolation.

Of course, competency standards were never intended to be delivered individually in isolation, as if they were separate ‘subjects’ to be taught as part of a course. The inter-relationships and interdependencies between various competency standards render that impossible.

They were intended to be packaged into logical groups that reflect the requirements of the job or occupation, with training delivery and assessment intended to be more holistic. Because of many factors however, the system has become transactional to the point that the whole is now less than the sum of its parts.

The future

The AMWU believes that the establishment of occupational profiles and related competency (occupational) standards, and the development and delivery of consistent national industry framework curriculum, must be brought together in a logical way.

Skills play out at the level of the occupation. But it takes more than just skills in a dynamic industry environment. It takes resilience, it takes complex problem solving, it takes critical thinking, it takes creativity, it takes people management, judgement and decision making, and collaboration amongst many other characteristics. Above all it requires the patient accretion of knowledge away from the transactional and often hostile processes which typify bargaining.

The mistake that we as a country made in the late 1990s was the shift to the education-centric view that gave us ‘Training Packages’, and to thereafter assume that all of the broad characteristics required of a ‘skilled and adaptable worker’ could be defined, firstly in competency standards, and secondly within Training Package qualifications.

The tension between Training Packages and industry curriculum should not have been dealt with in binary terms of one or the other. It was an error not to explore more thoroughly how the two should coexist and complement each other.

The recent proposals by the Commonwealth Department of Education, Skills and Employment (DESE) for VET qualification reform at least open up for public discussion the alignment of standards and curriculum. However, the reform process currently underway focuses narrowly on ‘training’ rather than skills and capability to the standard required in the workplace. If this continues it will go the way of the myriad other reform processes carried out by successive governments seemingly more concerned about enrolments and subsidies than in building the capability of the Australian workforce.

The existing qualification reform consultations are premature in the absence of the discussion we need to land about the fundamental purpose of our vocational education & training system and how it should contribute to meeting our skills and workforce development needs going forward.

Like it did in the 1980s, Australia now faces major imperatives that demand deep and coordinated industry involvement in skills development. We desperately need a nationally coordinated skills and workforce development focus capable of driving:

• Growth in sovereign manufacturing capability
• The establishment of the skilled aged care workforce we need to meet future community needs 
• A workforce capable of meeting the needs of the digital challenge, as typified by the naval shipbuilding and other major defence and renewable energy projects over the next thirty years
• A skilled and adaptable disability care workforce, and a skilled and adaptable early childhood education workforce.

The above in no way represents the full list of industries with huge skill challenges. In addition, every industry will face additional major challenges and opportunities from the rapid digitisation of systems and processes (Industry 4.0) to the need for new skills to support climate change mitigation and environmental initiatives.

The AMWU is calling for a true national skills reform process. One that has industry as a true partner in coordinated reforms with Governments, major TAFE systems and other providers. The current DESE reform process must either pivot towards, or make way for, this true national initiative. It must overcome the weaknesses of Federation and be not just a Commonwealth initiative for the part of VET it is responsible for while States and Territories continue with their uncoordinated initiatives – some good – some bad.

Our next policy paper

The AMWU has been engaged in conversations about the need for substantial change to VET architecture, and in particular, the need to differentiate the setting of an occupational standard from the methodologies that used to produce or train a person to meet that occupational standard.

Our second paper sets out our argument for the establishment of Occupational Profiles, Occupational Standards and National Industry Framework Curriculum, and how they should form the basis of a properly functioning VET system, the purpose of which is the production of the skilled and adaptable workforce that Australia needs to build the future we want.

[1] Productivity Commission Report on Government Services 2020 page 5.1 & 5.22

[2] Structures in tertiary education and training: a kaleidoscope or merely fragments? NCVER 2013 (Jenkins/Curry) 2013

Andrew Dettmer is the National President of the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union. 

Ian Curry is the National Coordinator: Skills, Training & Apprenticeships for the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union.

The latest National Student Outcomes Survey revealed that of the 122,536 VET graduates who responded, 88.1 per cent were happy with their course.

Of the 48,369 surveyed subject completers (those who completed at least one subject before leaving without a qualification), 91.4 per cent said they were satisfied with their course.

Employment outcomes for VET graduates were also positive, with 65.8 per cent gaining an improved employment status after their training, while nearly half (46.8 per cent) of those not employed prior to their training found work afterwards.

The median annual income for VET graduates in full-time work after their training was $59,100, and 85.6 per cent of graduates were either employed or enrolled in further study.

NCVER managing director Simon Walker said the survey results showed “students who completed a qualification at certificate III or higher had better employment outcomes than those who started but didn’t complete a qualification at the same level”.

“The difference was greatest for those enrolled in a diploma or higher level qualification, where 67.8 per cent of graduates had an improved employment status after training compared with 50.8 per cent of students who enrolled in a qualification at this level but didn’t complete it,” Walker said.

Meanwhile, NCVER’s Apprentices and Trainees 2019 — June quarter report revealed that national apprentice and trainee commencements were down by 19.7 per cent to 11,980 when compared with the June quarter 2018.

The biggest decrease was seen in construction trades workers, down 39.8 per cent on June 2018 figures.

However, there was an increase in non-trade commencements of 9.3 per cent to 21,310.

Carers and aides saw the biggest rise of 19.1 per cent, followed by a 16.8 per cent increase for sales assistants and salespersons.

Completions rose by a modest 1.3 per cent in the June quarter in comparison with the same period in 2018.

Published by the National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER), the latest report, Apprentices and trainees 2019 — March quarter, reveals that trade commencements were up 2.9 per cent on March 2018 figures, driven primarily by automotive and engineering trades workers (up 8.4 per cent) and electrotechnology and telecommunications trades workers (up 7.2 per cent).

In the same quarter non-trade commencements rose by 1.3 per cent. The largest increases occurred in carers and aides (up 7.3 per cent) and sports and personal service workers (up 12.2 per cent).

The March quarter increases contrast with commencements for the 12 months to March, where the total of of 157,800 was down 2.7 per cent from March 2018. The non-trade component (84,220) saw the biggest drop of 4.5 per cent.

Apprentice and trainee completions were also up in the March 2019 quarter to 22,885, 4.9 per above the March 2018 results.

Despite the rises in commencements and completions, there was a slight reduction in the number of apprentices and trainees in training at the end of March at 276,250, down 0.9 per cent from 31 March 2018.

NCVER's latest report includes new state and territory comparisons for the first time in addition to the regular quarterly and annual figures.

Australia’s tertiary education sector – both university and vocational education and training (VET) – has delivered many benefits to individuals, industry and the wider community. But these benefits are not enough to respond to the demands of today’s rapidly-changing economy.

Today, leaders from across the university sector are coming together for the Role of Universities in the 2020s Symposium and are looking at what needs to change in the sector.

The need for change is increasingly clear. Major disruption in industry through digitalisation is a natural trigger for major disruption in education and training. The ‘age of urgency’ is changing industry boundaries, changing the skills composition of the workforce, transforming some jobs by introducing new tasks, lessening other jobs and creating totally new ones. The most valuable skills across all occupations are becoming those that complement rather than compete with automation; those with distinctively human traits.

Today’s workers cannot expect their jobs to stand still. All Australians will need to reskill more often throughout their lives, and the tertiary education sector will need to be ready to help them.

The slower the tertiary sector is to change, the more Australia’s productivity is compromised. We can already see misalignment between the pipeline of tertiary education graduates, and the types (and levels) of skills that industry needs. The greatest shortages are among trades workers and technicians, followed by professionals.

This is not a challenge that universities or VET providers can meet alone. The highest projected jobs growth areas call for skill levels that are developed in both the university and VET sectors.

There are some promising signs of action. Many higher education and VET providers are responding with a range of strategies and initiatives that increase the speed of course development, and increase the flexibility in the length of programs, delivery approaches and settings.

Yet tinkering at the edges of existing institutional structures is not enough. The tertiary education system can only be strengthened by moving beyond the traditional divide between university and VET, and changing how students navigate all parts of the tertiary education sector.

Imagine a future where students were not locked into a rigid university or VET course. Imagine if students could shape their own units and modules from both university and VET, study when and where they want, and integrate their institutional learning with experiences in the workplace.

Now imagine industry matching this flexibility and speed, and working with tertiary education providers to radically change the connections between the tertiary sector and employers. Co-locations, co-design, work-integrated and work-based learning, and collaborative research must all become the norm, so we can better link learning with current industry practice and skill needs.

The benefits of workplace learning are well-known, including the link to productivity. Employers value graduates who have a solid base of workplace learning before they enter the labour market. Apprenticeships and traineeships are the most structured kind of workplace learning, but many other models are possible – and necessary. Work placements as part of university courses, or emerging higher apprenticeship-type models across occupational areas (both in university and VET), are obvious ways to bring the worlds of work and study closer together.

Given the urgency, what is standing in the way? One barrier is the difficulty of moving between university and VET, hindered by complex credit transfer arrangements, and inequitable funding.
More equitable funding and loan arrangements are essential, particularly for VET students, most of whom must pay high upfront fees that make study prohibitive. Differences in perception are another barrier. The value of VET is still not widely recognised, despite industry calling for more VET skills.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has recognised that VET is just as good as university. But these will remain empty words unless the imbalances between university and VET are addressed. The current review of the Australian Qualifications Framework has the potential to address many issues in the tertiary education sector, including elevate the value of VET, enabling greater mobility across the sector and through the labour market, and providing a more contemporary suite of qualifications.

The Government’s response to the AQF Review will be critical in determining the future of tertiary education in Australia. This is not just an abstract exercise in redesigning a framework, but a review with significant potential impact on the lives and livelihoods of Australia’s VET and university students, and the employers whose productivity depends on their skills.

Success will depend on viewing tertiary education as one vibrant, diverse sector. Australia cannot afford to bolster either part of the tertiary education system alone, while allowing the other to founder. Until VET and higher education are regarded as two parts of a combined response to Australia’s skills needs, we will lose the opportunity to capably equip learners for Australia’s future.

Megan Lilly is the Head of Workforce Development at the Australian Industry Group and a speaker at Victoria University’s Role of Universities in the 2020s Symposium.

The National Institute of Economic and Social Research published the findings, which showed that earnings of people achieving higher-level vocational qualifications in STEM subjects can exceed those of people who pursued the same subjects at a university level.

The report, published by NIESR researchers affiliated with the Centre for Vocational Education Research, was based on the first comprehensive study comparing the earning outcomes of young people pursuing higher vocational qualifications with those of degree holders.

Analysing data from hundreds of thousands of English secondary school leavers the research finds that by age 30, earnings of degree holders in many subject areas are consistently higher than those of people with higher vocational qualifications.

However, people achieving Level 4-5 qualifications in STEM subjects earn more than people with degrees from many universities.

“Our results show that initially higher earnings observed for people achieving higher vocational education disappear when people are in the mid-twenties,” says NIESR’s associate research director and co author of the report, Stefan Speckesser.

“Depending on the type of university attended, male degree holders earn up to 18 per cent more by age 30, while female graduates earn around 40 per cent more.

“However, there is considerable heterogeneity by gender and subject area.

“There are high returns related to higher vocational/technical education in STEM subjects, which remain significantly above those of many degree holders by age 30," he said.

People with higher-level vocational qualifications (i.e. Level 4-5) overall show relatively high earnings early in their working lives because more of them work before or during their studies.

This is very different to degree holders, who are more likely to pursue full-time education up to the end of their studies.

Over time, average earnings converge and eventually are higher for degree holders.

“This study is in line with previous findings, but sheds new light on the topic given the richness of the data and the novel focus on tertiary education in England – higher technical education vis-à-vis academic degrees.

“This paper provides for the first time estimates for higher-level technical qualifications relative to university degrees.”

Mr Speckesser says there is a perception that university garners higher incomes over time, which is generally accurate and has been proven by previous studies.

“The (high) returns to university degrees have been studied before, mainly in contrast with earnings of people without tertiary education.

“Also, the expansion of higher education has responded to some extent to a higher demand for graduates (which translates into higher earnings).

“Furthermore, higher education is associated with other benefits (not only monetary returns, e.g. better health, crime reduction, etc.), which have been successfully exploited by universities and fostered by policymakers.

“In that sense, the perception that university education can lead to positive outcomes is not misleading.”

However, in this context, within tertiary education, higher-level technical qualifications emerge as an alternative.

“When looking into results by subject, we find that earnings of males with Level 4-5 Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics qualifications are comparable or higher than earnings of STEM degree holders by age 30.”

Mr Speckesser says rapid technological change is one of the key contributing factors to why STEM related-careers have emerged as an exception to the rule.

“High demand from employers in the context of rapid technical change, and higher-level technical qualifications focus on skills that target specific jobs.

“University degrees are associated with general and more abstract knowledge, i.e. transferable skills.

“[Another reason is] not enough skilled workers in the labour market. This relates to not enough women taking these subjects and occupations.”

But that doesn’t mean those seeking a career in STEM should shun university education, says Mr Speckesser.

“Higher technical education and academic general education are complements to some extent. They are not perfect substitutes.”

Mr Speckesser says data on earnings outcomes are extremely valuable as young people and their families approach the choice of higher education.

“Higher vocational education offers an important – if massively under-explored – alternative choice of tertiary education, often run by local colleges and resulting in lower debt for students compared to those incurred by degree holders or, if within an apprenticeship, no debt at all because of employer funding.

“Our study shows that for young people interested in specific professional roles, higher vocational education could indeed offer useful, cheaper and ultimately more lucrative alternative to university.

“Further research should identify market failures and influence policy making. This is an ongoing investigation.”

The government's $1.5 billion Skilling Australians Fund, which will deliver 300,000 new apprenticeships over five years, was recently signed on to by five state and territory governments. NSW, the ACT, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory will match the Fund, dollar for dollar, on a pro rata basis.

"In many parts of Australia there are severe shortages of apprentices to take up positions that are going begging," the National Apprentice Employment Network and its relevant state and territory counterparts provided in a statement.

"We will work with stakeholders to bring forward worthwhile projects that will be eligible for funding under the scheme..."

Because states and territories signed the agreement by the Commonwealth government's deadline, it will furnish the Fund with an additional $50 million.

"It has taken time to get the scheme off the ground, but we should be assured that once it is up and running, there will be a renewed interest in projects that help to build skills in critical parts of the economy," TAFE Directors Australia CEO Craig Robertson said.

Currently, skills shortages exist in the healthcare, IT and professional services sectors.

Mitchell Institute Director Megan O'Connell told the inquiry on the future of work that an intense focus on grades has led to other skills, like communication and collaboration, being neglected.

"It's always been there, but it has intensified since the introduction of NAPLAN," she said. "Schools focus on measurable outcomes because that's how they're essentially ranked."

This matters because vast youth unemployment persists despite increasing numbers of young people completing Year 12 and obtaining university qualifications, O'Connell contended at the Melbourne hearing.

Youth unemployment has been in the double digits for almost 10 years, compared with the overall rate of 5.6 per cent, reached yesterday. In some areas, particularly regional ones, the youth rate is above 20 per cent.

While university, which is grade-dependent, can lead to greater employment prospects, this is not universal. "For example, around half of all science graduates are only employed part-time four months after graduating and many of these (40 per cent) are working in fields unrelated to their degree," O'Connell wrote in an op-ed that summarised her inquiry speech.

Employers report that graduates lack requisite 'soft skills', like those relegated in school classrooms, she added.

She used this point to argue for greater VET participation, and incentives, mainly in wage-form, to make this happen, as VET qualifications lead to more secure, in-demand employment. Eighty per cent of VET grads are employed, post-training. This, she said, is because connecting with industry is an integral component of most VET courses.

Low-paid sectors like early childhood education and aged and disability care need more workers, she informed.

Moreover, Mitchell Institute modelling shows that the workforce will soon require half VET-qualified, half university-qualified employees.

"In this light, it is particularly concerning that recent Mitchell Institute modelling warns that we could see a total demise of our important VET sector if recent enrolment trends continue," she wrote.

"It is astonishing that our vocational sector continues to be dragged through the mud despite the vital role it has to play in Australia’s future."

The sector is indeed outraged about the government's recent, Budgetary actions. In a speech to the NSW Business Chamber last week, TAFE NSW managing director­ Jon Black said high student loan costs were a major factor in falling enrollments in the provider. TAFE Directors Australia supported Black's comments.

But O'Connell remains hopeful about children's employment futures. Solutions to increase school leavers' employability include the teaching of 'soft' capabilities, which, although widely prescribed, are often de-prioritised, as well as better and earlier career planning in schools.

Regarding the latter, this "should start in primary school," she advised. "Teachers can learn about students' passions and use that to guide them in terms of subject choice and later career motivation."