Wednesday, 20 March 2024

TAFE funding

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (12:25): (473) My question is to the Minister for Skills and TAFE. Minister, during question time yesterday you failed to divulge the completion rates for Victorian students who have completed a free TAFE course since the introduction of the initiative. However, you did say that we know the completion rates are in line with university retention rates. Given you are aware of what these figures are for university retention rates, why won’t you provide the completion rates for students who have studied for a fee-free TAFE course in Victoria?

The PRESIDENT: I am a bit concerned about the same question rule. I am not going to pretend my memory is excellent, but that sounded very similar to the question Mr McCracken asked yesterday. I am happy for you to ask it again, Mr Mulholland. We might be able to bring up on our magic computer what was asked yesterday. Do you want to?

Evan MULHOLLAND: It was in response to an answer that she had given to a question.

The PRESIDENT: I respect that, but what was the question itself?

Evan MULHOLLAND: I am asking about information she gave in an answer.

The PRESIDENT: The preamble is different, I respect that, but the actual question sounds like exactly the same question Mr McCracken asked yesterday. Just ask it again so we can hear.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Okay. Given you said that we know the completion rates are in line with university retention rates, what is the benchmark for university retention rates, and is the completion rate for fee-free TAFE higher or lower than that?

The PRESIDENT: That is a different question. I take it that you have rephrased it. Minister, do you want the question again?

Gayle TIERNEY (Western Victoria – Minister for Skills and TAFE, Minister for Regional Development) (12:27): No. That is the point, President – all I am getting from those opposite are questions that are repeated. They are repeated here in question time week after week. They are also repeated in questions on notice. They are also repeated in adjournments. I have answered and answered and answered. In terms of the issue of university retention rates versus VET retention rates, I have answered that in PAEC a number of times as well. So all I ask you to do is read the answers you have been provided and read the transcripts in terms of PAEC previously.

Evan Mulholland: On a point of order, President, on relevance, I asked whether the benchmark was higher or lower than university retention rates, which she said she knew of yesterday. Is the benchmark for fee-free TAFE higher or lower than that?

The PRESIDENT: I might be wrong, but that sounded like a different question to the second one. I apologise. My advice is that it was rephrased. As far as the point of order goes, the minister can answer in any terms she likes. Her answer is that she has actually responded to this before and she has given an answer. I cannot force the minister to answer in a way that makes the person asking the question completely happy; that is not my role.

Georgie Crozier: On a point of order, President, Mr Mulholland was asked to rephrase his question, which he did, around the benchmarks. The minister had a minute’s rant complaining about answering questions because we keep asking them. That is our job and we will continue to do it. I would say that she can answer it any way she likes but we will continue to ask this. We are asking her to answer that simple question on the benchmarks.

The PRESIDENT: I think that is more of a statement than a point of order.

Gayle TIERNEY: I will continue to state what I have previously provided answers for, because they are the facts. The other fact is that it is clear to me that those opposite are either lazy or indeed sticking to their agenda of not having one idea to bring to the table in terms of vocational education and training in this state.

David Davis: On a point of order, President, the minister’s responsibility in question time is to answer the question, not to simply attack the opposition, and that was what she was doing. She was moving into a full-on attack on the opposition and actually not answering the question.

The PRESIDENT: I uphold the point of order. There are a number of previous rulings, and one of my favourite ones was from President Smith. He said – I cannot remember his terminology – something like ‘It’s not the minister’s role to goad the opposition in an answer.’ I uphold that point of order. I would have thought the point of order too was that the minister was debating the question, and she was.

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (12:31): Again, on the supplementary, given the closest the minister went to answering the question yesterday was saying that we know the completion rates are in line with university retention rates, I ask the minister: what exactly are the completion and retention rates for Victorian students in our universities?

The PRESIDENT: I do not think that is the responsibility of the minister or her administration.

Evan MULHOLLAND: The minister does have responsibility for universities in Victoria under her portfolio and has referred to it in answers.

The PRESIDENT: I am not too sure if she is responsible for completion rates.

David Davis: On a point of order, President, a minister answers questions on their portfolio area or matters with which they are connected. In the sense that the minister has actually referred to that benchmark, she is entitled to be questioned about it.

The PRESIDENT: I am happy to put the question, and the minister can answer as she sees fit.

Gayle TIERNEY (Western Victoria – Minister for Skills and TAFE, Minister for Regional Development) (12:32): Again I would suggest that those opposite actually do some homework and have a look at what has already been provided and what has been put in Hansard. In terms of being the higher education minister, I have got specific responsibilities in that portfolio. Retention rates of the universities are not my responsibility but are a point of fact that I can refer to.

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (12:33): I move:

That the minister’s response be taken into consideration on the next day of meeting.

Motion agreed to.