Senator RONALDSON (Victoria—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC and Special Minister of State) (18:01): I present two government responses to committee reports as listed on today's Order of Business. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to incorporate the documents in Hansard. Leave granted. The documents read as follows— AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON SCHOOL FUNDING REPORT EQUITY AND EXCELLENCE IN AUSTRALIAN SCHOOLS OCTOBER 2014 Introduction The Australian Government notes the report by the Senate Select Committee on School Funding, Equity and excellence in Australian schools. To ensure Australia's future prosperity and to remain competitive internationally, the Government is committed to ensuring that all Australian students have access to a high-quality education. The Government is investing a record $64.5 billion in recurrent schools funding over the financial years to 2017-18 and includes the reinstatement of $1.2 billion removed by the previous government. This investment provides funding certainty for all schools. The Senate Select Committee on School Funding has presented a majority report that is flawed, biased and developed with an overriding political agenda. The Government Senators' Dissenting Report provides a much clearer perspective on this important public policy matter, one that is informed by the best available evidence and that reflects the realities of how school funding fits in the context of the Commonwealth's role in school education. The Government does not agree with the majority report's interpretation of the evidence presented during the course of the inquiry. The majority report implies that the amount of funding and how it is allocated is the answer to improved student learning outcomes. The Government agrees that Australia's education system requires adequate funding to ensure a quality education system. Adequate funding, however, must be about more than expenditure levels; it must include the concept of effective and efficient use of funding. The Government does not want to continue the pointless and politicised funding debates. It is time for rational and robust discussion of the principles that should drive Commonwealth school education policy for the future. The focus needs to be on the issues that matter most, namely the policies needed to improve education outcomes for students. The dissenting report to the Senate Select Committee on School Funding sets out the core principles that should guide education policy: quality should be the ultimate driver and goal of all education policy discussion of school funding should be re-anchored in the realities of the Commonwealth Government's constitutional responsibilities and the nation's current financial constraints. This means: - recognising the dominant role of states and territories in their funding and management of schools - acknowledging the problems caused by excessive regulation on schools and school systems - noting the waste that has characterised some previous Commonwealth programmes in school education, which have cost a lot but achieved little parental contributions and a vibrant non-government sector add to the nation's education capacities and should not be seen as undermining the foundations of our democracy needs-based funding, including additional and targeted assistance to the disadvantaged is highly important. Unfortunately, the release of the Gonski Review of Funding for Schooling (the Gonski Review) in 2011 initiated a period of political rather than rational debate. The Senate Select Committee on School Funding's majority report focuses on whether the Gonski Review's recommendations were being implemented rather than exploring its Terms of Reference. The Government agrees that there were legitimate reasons for conducting the Gonski Review and it was an appropriate and well accepted approach to collect information, establish the facts, dispel the myths and provide an evidence base to make recommendations to government on school funding. Unfortunately, the opportunity provided by the Gonski Review was not realised. By focusing solely on government funding, the Gonski Review reignited old debates, created fissures rather than consent and agreement. Since its completion in December 2011, the findings of the Gonski Review have been used by some to further their own political and ideological purpose. Far from there being a consensus, the findings and recommendations for school funding arrangements proposed by the Gonski Review were not unilaterally agreed to. For example, Professor Henry Ergas' submission to the Senate Select Committee on School Funding refutes assumptions made in the Gonski Review that an increase in per student funding is required to improve school performance and that additional expenditure is needed to offset characteristics of educational disadvantage. Professor Ergas' position is based on the evidence presented in the literature regarding the relationship between school funding and student outcomes. In addition, the Independent Schools Council of Australia's (ISCA) submission to the Senate Select Committee on School Funding and the evidence provided at public hearings indicate the Council's criticism of the application of the Gonski Review's recommendations by the previous government. ISCA reiterated the fact that complex arrangements for school funding exist in Australia which means that the notion of a "national' funding model is a misleading and inaccurate term. ISCA recommended that the Commonwealth Government moves quickly to amend the funding arrangements in a way that meets good public policy criteria. The criteria which should form part of an effective and efficient funding models includes: equity, incentive, flexibility, transparency, simplicity, predictability, consistency and be based on reliable, robust data which is fit for purpose. In fact, Queensland's submission to the Senate Select Committee on School Funding stated "The current funding arrangements do not provide a transparent and equitable distribution of funds to jurisdictions." The previous government's response to the Gonski Review was deeply flawed in both policy and administrative terms. Its negotiations with state and territory governments and non-government school authorities were inconsistent and lacked transparency. Similarly, the way in which the Act was rushed through parliament lacked the appropriate recognition of who in Australia is responsible for running schools. There was inadequate consultation on an Act that significantly increased the command and control by the Commonwealth. Funding Context of the Australian Education System School funding issues need be considered and discussed within the Australian context, in which states and territories are primarily responsible for school education, not the Commonwealth. States and territories are directly responsible for the administration of government schools; they develop policy and provide a regulatory framework for the operation of all schools. States and territories are the major funder of government schools and also provide funding to non-government schools. In 2011-12, state and territory governments provided 84 per cent of total government recurrent expenditure on government schools, with the Australian Government providing 16 per cent. For non-government schools, the Australian Government provided 73 per cent of total government funding and states and territories provided 27 per cent. In dollar terms, states and territories provided a total of $27.7 billion to Australian schools in 2011-12 and the Commonwealth provided $12.3 billion. There is no single national funding model for schools. For the majority of schools which are government schools the calculated school entitlement has no bearing on what the school actually receives. Commonwealth funding is made through lump sum payments to the states, territories and to the Catholic and other independent systemic education authorities. The distribution of the funding from that point is decided by each state, territory and system based on their own models. In effect, this means there is a Commonwealth model, eight different state models, a further eight models in the Catholic sector, as well as different models for other non‑government school systems. Education reform, not just funding While funding is important, national and international research indicates that, by itself, it isn't a sufficiently effective driver of improved outcomes—countries that spend a high proportion of their GDP on education do not automatically produce high performing education systems. Despite total government (Commonwealth and state) spending on schools doubling in real terms from 1987 to 2012, student outcomes have not improved, with results from the 2012 Programme for International Student Assessment indicating that outcomes for Australian students are slipping relative to other countries. The Australian Government's approach recognises that states, territories and the non-government school sector are best placed to determine how policies should be implemented in their schools. The Government's Students First policy is focused on the following four areas: teacher quality: the first step to achieving a quality education is to support the quality, professionalism and status of the teaching profession school autonomy: both internationally and in Australia, evidence emphasises the advantages of school autonomy as part of a comprehensive strategy for school improvement. Great schools have leaders and teachers who have the independence to make the decisions and develop the programs that best meet the needs of their students engaging parents in education: parents are one of the most important influences on a child's education. When parents are engaged in their children's education, they are more likely to attend school and to achieve better outcomes strengthening the curriculum: a robust, relevant and up-to-date Australian Curriculum is essential to improve the quality of education for all school students. In particular, high quality school science and mathematics education are critically important for Australia's current and future productivity. The Government's Students First policy is based on the best evidence available. The Government is working closely with education authorities to deliver policy settings that will help improve outcomes rather than just focussing on funding. Background On 12 December 2013, the Senate formed the Senate Select Committee on School Funding to inquire into and report on the development and implementation of national school funding arrangements and school reform. The Senate Select Committee on School Funding held public hearings in all states (with the exception of the Northern Territory) between 13 March and 16 May and over 445 submissions were received. The Senate Select Committee on School Funding report, Equity and excellence in Australian schools, was tabled and released on 9 July 2014. The majority report included eight recommendations and one additional recommendation was made by the Australian Greens. Government Senators issued a dissenting report. Response to individual recommendations Recommendation 1 (commit to implementation of the NPSI) The Senate Select Committee on School Funding believes that the significant consensus achieved from the Gonski Review and the agreements negotiated under the National Plan for School Improvement (NPSI) must not be lost with the current government's harmful and confusing changes. The committee recommends the Australian Government honour its pre-election commitments to fully implement the national needs-based, sector-blind funding model incorporated in the NPSI to improve equity across Australian schools. In particular, the Australian Government should commit to the following elements of the NPSI: the six year transition to a nationally consistent Schooling Resource Standard; maintain the commitments made under the National Education Reform Agreement (NERA) and bilateral agreements with participating states and territories, in particular the five areas of the NPSI: - quality teaching - quality learning - empowered school leadership - meeting student need - greater transparency and accountability; and conduct reviews prescribed under the NERA and strive for equitable funding for schools most in need. The Australian Government does not support this recommendation. The majority report suggests, there was overwhelming consensus for all the changes proposed by the previous government as a result of the Gonski Review. This is an incorrect representation of the facts. Three states and territories did not sign up to the plan: Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Two other states, Victoria and Tasmania had only signed the heads of agreement and had not reached bilateral agreement with the Commonwealth. There has been criticism from the states and territories of the National Education Reform Agreement (NERA), including the National Plan for School Improvement (NPSI) and how it has been embedded within the Australian Education Act 2013, as representing a significant overreach of Commonwealth powers and, effectively, a Commonwealth takeover of schools. This has been demonstrated by the refusal of some jurisdictions to sign up to the NERA, as well through criticisms of the Australian Education Act 2013 (the Act). The Government is committed to recognising the responsibilities of the states and territories and school systems for the operation and management of their schools and will consult with school authorities on the appropriateness of requirements of the Act. The Government has already started consulting with key stakeholders on how to address the unnecessary command and control aspects of the Act, reduce the regulatory burden, and return power to where it should be: school principals, school communities, parents and the education authorities. Under its Students First policy, the Government is pursuing improved education outcomes for all students through the implementation of important reforms in four areas: improving the quality of teaching; ensuring a robust national curriculum; expanding school autonomy; and engaging parents in education. In contrast to the previous government ' s approach via the NPSI, the Government is working with jurisdictions to deliver effective, evidenced-based policies that do not constrain or bind the states and territories or create unnecessary red tape. The Government has honoured its election commitment and has delivered funding for all states and sectors for 2014 to 2017 by investing $64.5 billion in schools over the financial years to 2017-18. This is more funding than ever before and takes Commonwealth investment in schooling over the forward estimates to a record high. Under these arrangements, all schools are treated the same way by the Commonwealth across the forward estimates; this ensures that no state and territory will miss out on Commonwealth funding. The previous government proposed an increase in Commonwealth funding from 2018 but they did not budget for it. This proposed increase was clearly unsustainable and the Government ' s approach to school funding growth from 2018 will build on the already substantial growth to 2017 and remain fiscally responsible. In line with the standard for Commonwealth funding arrangements, Australian taxpayers have always funded schools on four year rolling agreements aligned with the budget planning cycle of the forward estimates period. The Government will work cooperatively with states and territories to deliver sensible and stable funding arrangements beyond 2017, and has already commenced the planned review processes for the loadings that were scheduled to occur during 2014. The Government remains committed to needs-based funding. Loadings target disadvantage such as students from low socio-economic backgrounds, students with disability, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, and students in regional and remote areas. As noted in the Government Senators' dissenting report, all states and territories have already established needs-based funding arrangements. States and territories are best placed to manage their own schools and they have budget flexibility to allocate funds within their schooling sector as they see fit. Recommendation 2 (non-participating states) The Senate Select Committee on School Funding recommends that the government work with non-participating states and territories to: maintain the existing education spending of all non-participating states and territories; ensure appropriate indexation of education spending for all non-participating states and territories; ensure that adequate co-contribution arrangements are agreed by all non-participating states and territories to establish a national School Resource Standard; and achieve agreement with non-participating states and territories to the national funding model and NPSI established under the Australian Education Act 2013. The Australian Government does not support this recommendation. State and territory governments are accountable to their own electorates for how they manage their own budgets and this Government will not dictate how schools are run or tell education authorities how national policy settings should be translated into action at the local level. This recommendation is using outdated concepts of participating and non-participating in regards to schools funding arrangements. The Government has honoured its election commitments to schools and the current school funding arrangements do not continue the previous government's illogical differentiation between states and territories but ensures all schools are treated the same way by the Commonwealth across the forward estimates. In addition to honouring funding agreements for all states and sectors for 2014 to 2017, the Government has invested an additional $1.2 billion to ensure that schools in Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory don't miss out on the new funding arrangements as they would have under the previous government. The Government will work cooperatively with states and territories to deliver sensible and stable funding arrangements beyond 2017, and has already commenced the planned review processes for the loadings that were scheduled to occur during 2014. The Government ' s reforms for school education will be implemented in a way that reflects the realities of our federation in which states have primary responsibility for delivering school education. Recommendation 3 (disability loading) The Senate Select Committee on School Funding recommends that the government moves, as a matter of urgency, to a disability loading based on actual student need. To this end, the committee recommends that data collection and decisions about the loading for students with a disability should be expedited so as to provide certainty around a needs-based disability loading to replace the temporary arrangements in 2015. This must happen in close consultation with advocacy groups, the various school sectors and states and territories. The Australian Government notes this recommendation. The Government is already working closely with state, territory and non-government education authorities to finalise a loading for students with disability as part of the planned loading review process. The Government has also consulted with broader stakeholder groups to provide an opportunity for all interested parties to be involved. The Nationally Consistent Collection of Data on School Students with Disability (NCCD) is being phased in over 2013 to 2015. It is expected that all schools will be participating in the NCCD in 2015. Once fully implemented and well established in everyday school practice, the NCCD should provide the evidence base to inform the distribution of the funding loading for students with disability based on student need. The move from existing state and territory criteria to the NCCD is a significant undertaking. As agreed by all states and territories and stakeholders, it will take time for the data collection to produce sufficiently robust and reliable data upon which to support a funding loading for students with disability. Recommendation 4 (disability loading) The Senate Select Committee on School Funding recommends the Federal Government honours its election commitment for increased funding to cover unmet need for students with a disability. Further, the Senate Select Committee on School Funding recommends that the government works with all states, territories and advocacy groups to clarify the interaction between the disability loading and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The Australian Government notes this recommendation. The Government has met its election commitment and is clear in its support for students with disability and their families and carers. A funding loading to support students with disability has already been introduced in 2014. This loading is providing over $1 billion of Australian Government funding in 2014 alone. This is more Australian Government funding for students with disability than ever before. The implementation of the loading is being transitioned, consistent with all aspects of the needs-based funding model. The loading is provided for students with disability no matter where they live or where they go to school. The Government cannot implement a students with disability loading in isolation. The Government must work with the states the territories. Through nationally-agreed collaborative processes, work is currently underway to inform potential refinements to the funding loading for students with disability and to identify the necessary quantum of resourcing for students with a disability, including the Nationally Consistent Collection of Data on School Students with Disability (NCCD). It would be pre-empting the outcomes of these processes to suggest that there is a resourcing gap and, if so, to quantify it. In addition to supporting the important work on funding loadings for students with disability, the Government provided an extra $100 million to extend the More Support for Students with Disability initiative in the 2014 school year, which will help improve teacher skills and increase the inclusiveness of schools. The previous government only provided this funding until the end of 2013. The Government recognises the importance of understanding the interface between the funding loading for students with disability and the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). The Australian Government Department of Education continues to work with all state and territory government and non-government education authorities, the Department of Social Services and the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) to clarify the roles and responsibilities of each measure and to ensure both measures are complementary. Recommendation 5 (disability loading) The Senate Select Committee on School Funding recommends that information assisting parents and carers of students with a disability be produced and distributed as soon as possible. The Australian Government notes this recommendation. The Government already makes publically available information on funding arrangements for students with as disability. The Government also provides information to government and non-government education authorities to support them in answering questions from parents on students with disability funding. Comprehensive fact sheets on the Nationally Consistent Collection of Data on School Students with Disability (NCCD) are available on the Australian Government Department of Education website. Also available through the Department's website are a range of fact sheets about the Disability Standards for Education 2005. The Government further notes that the responsibility for supporting students with disability rests with state and territory governments and non-government school authorities. Given this responsibility, state and territory education authorities have a critical role in providing information and support for parents and carers of students with disability. Recommendation 6 (federal-state relations and accountability) The Senate Select Committee on School Funding recommends that the Department of Education produce an annual 'report card' detailing the breakdown of school funding including: funding provided to states and territories (participating and non-participating) and non-government schools by sector; comparable information contributed by state and territory governments about their school funding; the extent to which these arrangements are achieving equitable funding to schools and students in most need; and funding broken down to a school level. The Australian Government does not accept this recommendation. The information proposed to be in the "report card" is already available. The Report on Government Service (RoGS) provides information on funding at national and state and territory levels. The RoGS is produced under the direction of the Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision (the Steering Committee) at the request of the Council of Australian Governments. It has been released annually since 1995 and its purpose is to inform Australians about services provided by governments and enable performance comparisons and benchmarking between jurisdictions and within a jurisdiction over time. The RoGS covers twelve service areas including school education. The RoGS reports recurrent expenditure on government and non-government schools by the Australian Government and State and Territory governments. The financial data are disaggregated by state and territory. Expenditure relating to funding sources other than government (such as parent contributions and fees) is excluded. A detailed breakdown of funding for all schools is also provided on the My School website (www.MySchool.edu.au). The My School website is a collaborative, national initiative and is operated by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority on behalf of all education ministers. The website provides basic school profiles and National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) performance data for virtually every Australian School. Individual schools also provide a range of detailed information to their communities. From the 2011 My School release, financial information for each Australian school has been included. The data comprises a breakdown of capital expenditure and recurrent funding from the Australian Government and state/territory governments for each calendar year. The National Report on Schooling in Australia is an annual national report on school education of the COAG Ministerial Council. The report was first produced in 1989 and provides a range of information on schooling in Australia, with a current focus on progress towards the Educational Goals for Young Australians and the Commitment to Action for achieving them announced by Australian Education Ministers in the Melbourne Declaration of December 2008. The report addresses the eight areas of commitment specified in the Melbourne Declaration. It describes the national policy and reporting context for school education in Australia, outlines nationally agreed policy initiatives and reports against nationally agreed key performance measures for schooling in Australia. Recommendation 7 (indexation rate post 2017) The Senate Select Committee on School Funding recommends that the Australian Government should reinstate an appropriate indexation rate for school funding. The government should ensure that Commonwealth school funding is not cut in real terms by adopting a more realistic indexation rate that ensures annual indexation is not below actual cost pressures. The committee notes that the previously agreed rates increased Commonwealth funding at 4.7 per cent per annum and states' contributions at 3 per cent per annum. The Australian Government does not support this recommendation. The Government has honoured the funding agreements for all states and sectors for 2014-2017 and has actually exceeded the investment by $1.2 billion over that committed for this period by the previous Government. The claim that there was a previously agreed rate of 4.7 per cent for Commonwealth indexation is not correct. The Commonwealth indexation arrangements represented in the Australian Education Act 2013 are as follows. Approved Authorities above the Schooling Resource Standard (SRS) are to be indexed at 3 per cent and Approved Authorities on the SRS are to be indexed at 3.6 per cent. Only those Approved Authorities below the SRS have their Commonwealth funding indexed at 4.7 per cent. These indexation arrangements reflect the outcome of negotiations between the former government and each jurisdiction and were intended to bring all approved authorities towards the SRS over time. However, the impact of these arrangements on the Federal Budget is clearly unsustainable—so much so that the previous government did not budget for it. There is no evidence that the previously applied indexation rate for school funding was appropriate and states and territories requested it be reviewed. On this basis, from 2018 onwards, school education funding from 2018 will increase based on student enrolment growth and the government-wide indexation rate of the Consumer Price Index. This will consolidate the substantial increases in Government funding made from 2014 to 2017 and allow sustainable growth into the future for Australian schools. CPI is the indexation rate being applied to all demand driven Commonwealth funding programs. Choosing indexation consistent with the rest of government is fiscally responsible. The distribution of the funding envelope from 2018 will be subject to formal negotiations with all states and territories and non-government education providers to develop funding arrangements which are equitable, address student need, and which help governments to deliver quality education outcomes in a sustainable and affordable manner. These negotiations will provide the opportunity to consider the issue of indexation. Recommendation 8 (ongoing scrutiny) The Senate Select Committee on School Funding recommends the Senate pay particular regard to: any further cuts to Commonwealth or state education funding; the effect on Commonwealth-state relations with any further cuts or changes, particularly the effect on states' ability to adequately fund schools; and any reviews conducted or amendments proposed to the Australian Education Act 2013. The committee also recommends that the Senate refer any amendments proposed to the Australian Education Act 2013 to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report. The Australian Government notes this recommendation. Australian Greens Additional Comments Australian Greens Recommendation 1 The Australian Greens recommend the Commonwealth Government establish a National Schools Resourcing Body, as envisaged in the Gonski Review of School Funding, to administer current funding arrangements, rebuild shared ownership of the Gonski reforms and manage future school funding negotiations. The Australian Government does not support this recommendation. Australian and State and Territory Governments are accountable to the public for their share of public funding allocated to schools. It is unnecessary to create another body and another level of administration and bureaucracy to manage school funding. Existing forums, such as the COAG Education Council are in place to make national level decisions on school education policies. Australian Government response to the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee report: Higher education and skills training to support future demand in agriculture and agribusiness in Australia October 2014 Acronyms ACDA Australian Council of Deans of Agriculture ARCom Australian Research Committee AWPA Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency CSU Charles Sturt University COAG Council of Australian Governments EFTSL equivalent full-time student load ISC Industry Skills Council NBN National Broadband Network NEST National Agribusiness Education Skills and Labour Taskforce OLT Office for Learning and Teaching PICSE Primary Industry Centre for Science Education PIEF Primary Industries Education Foundation RDCs research and development corporations RD&E National Primary Industries Research, Development and Extension Framework RESJ Regional Education, Skills and Jobs RTOs Registered Training Organisations SCOTESE Standing Council on Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment VET vocational education and training Introduction On 19 September 2011, the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee (the Committee) was asked by the Senate to undertake an inquiry into the skills requirements of the agriculture and agribusiness sectors within Australia to consider the implications of skill shortages on the future workforce. The terms of reference for the inquiry are at Appendix A. The Committee received 69 public submissions from a broad range of stakeholders, demonstrating the significance of this issue for the sector. A summary of the submissions is at Appendix B. The Committee also conducted public hearings in Canberra, Perth and Melbourne in February, March and May 2012 respectively. The Committee released its report Inquiry into higher education and skills training to support agriculture and agribusiness in Australia (the Report) on 21 June 2012. The Australian Government response to the Report recognises the structural changes in the agricultural and agribusiness sector over the past twenty years and values the important contribution the sector makes to Australia's economic growth. Structural adjustments resulting from globalisation, the recent decade of drought and ongoing challenges arising from a changing climate are resulting in the need for Australia's agricultural and agribusiness workforce to modernise and be more highly skilled. Skills shortages in the agricultural and agribusiness sector have been exacerbated by Australia's ageing population and a booming resources sector which has, until recently, been absorbing much of the available labour in parts of regional Australia. In 2012 there was some indication that a few agricultural occupations may be starting to meet their workforce needs. The Skills Shortages Australia 2012 report for the September 2012 quarter found that there were no shortages of agricultural scientists and consultants,1 however these occupations account for only a small portion of the sector's workforce. Some employers surveyed indicated that there were not enough agricultural science graduates entering these occupations, for future demand. According to the Secretary of the Australian Council of Deans of Agriculture, there are as many as 4000 graduate level positions available for about 700 agriculture graduates across Australia. Industry has a critical role in addressing the education, skills and training needs of the agricultural and agribusiness workforce. The Australian Government supports industry in this endeavour through investment in skills and workforce development, and in research infrastructure. Investment in skills Education and training play an important role in building a skilled agricultural and agribusiness workforce. Over the coming decades, this workforce will require higher level skills to operate new farming systems that use land, water, nutrients, pesticides and energy more efficiently, in order to remain competitive. The Australian Government has made significant investments in education, skills and training through its investment in the national training system and in higher education. Under the Council of Australian Governments' National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform, $1.75 billion was committed over five years from 2012-13 through to 2016-17.2 This funding is in addition to the $1.4 billion per annum allocated to the States each year.3 Additionally, the Australian Government directly funds programs to achieve national growth in skills, qualifications and more effective workforce planning and development. Nationally, a third of Australian universities offer places in agriculture-related courses at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels, with most universities offering related courses in business and science fields. In addition, agriculture units of study receive the highest rate of Australian Government funding ($21 075 per Commonwealth supported place in 20134). AgriFood Skills Australia, as one of the 11 government established Industry Skills Councils is tasked to address the skills and training needs of the agricultural and agribusiness sector. AgriFood Skills Australia assists the agricultural sector to identify their training needs and to skill their workforce. Under funding programs which are drawing to a close, agricultural enterprises were able to apply for government funding through AgriFood Skills Australia to match their own investment, in order to develop skills within their workforce. The skills and labour issues across the food supply chainwere examined in the Food and Beverage Workforce study published in October 2013. It focused on ways to enhance Australia's food export performance and capitalise on growth opportunities within the region. A range of stakeholders across the sector have established strategies for developing workforce skills, however, the coverage is not consistent. In August 2012, the Senate Select Committee on Australia's Food Processing Sector released a report Inquiry into Australia's food processing sector. The report made four recommendations relating to better matching skills with the needs of industry. The impending Australian Government response to that inquiry will consider these recommendations. The Australian Government is developing the Agricultural Competitiveness White Paper which will set out a strategic approach to promote greater investment, provide for growth in jobs and improve profitability in the agriculture sector. The paper will consider issues including food security, improving farm gate returns, debt, drought management, supply chain competitiveness, investment, job creation, infrastructure, skills and training, research and development, regulatory effectiveness, and market access. While the Australian Government will continue to provide assistance in addressing the challenges facing the agricultural and agribusiness sector through the national education and training systems, ultimately the sector's ability to attract new people will be an important factor in determining whether it remains competitive and profitable. This is a key challenge for agriculture and agribusiness. The Australian Government acknowledges that a range of stakeholders, including the Primary Industries Education Foundation (PIEF), the Primary Industry Centre for Science Education (PICSE) and the Australian Council of Deans of Agriculture (ACDA) are increasing awareness of agricultural careers and education in agriculture. There is strong collaboration amongst industry, education stakeholders and governments in ensuring a future workforce for the agricultural and agribusiness sector. A number of industry organisations and state governments have developed resources in this area. Cotton Australia has a range of educational resources available for use in classrooms to increase awareness of careers in the cotton industry. Queensland Government's Gateway to Industry Schools Program also raises the profile of agribusiness in schools. The Australian Government is implementing new approaches to support businesses to build their competitiveness and efficiency through skilling their workers. The new Industry Skills Fund is available to small and medium businesses which are focusing on new areas of growth and wish to share funding responsibilities with the Government to skill up their workers. Businesses can seek assistance from the fund through the Department of Industry's Single Business Service and access other forms of business development support and information. Investment in research infrastructure Governments, universities, public research agencies and industry invest in research infrastructure that relates to agriculture. Knowledge arising from research infrastructure, such as data, findings and new research techniques, feed into teaching resources and provide further career opportunities for agriculture science students. Previous investment has enabled the creation of a national system of world-class, collaborative research infrastructure facilities and projects across a broad range of research domains, including animal and plant phenomics, animal and human health, and terrestrial and oceanic ecosystems. Examples of research infrastructure that directly support future demand in agriculture and agribusiness in Australia: Australian Plant Phenomics Facility The Australian Government provided almost $32 million to the Australian Plant Phenomics Facility. Part of the Australian Plant Phenomics Facility is located in the University of Adelaide's Waite Campus, which is a pre-eminent plant science research site in Australia and has 1 200 researchers. The Plant Accelerator is an Australian first that will improve international efforts to cultivate sustainable crops, as well as providing a competitive edge for Australia's $28 billion annual agricultural export industry. Ultimately, this facility will enable researchers to respond more quickly to market needs, and give Australia a head start in a field of research that will deliver practical benefits to primary producers. A 'super greenhouse' features a series of 50 high-tech glasshouses and laboratories housing more than 1km of conveyor systems that will deliver plants automatically to state-of-the-art imaging, robotic and computing equipment. This will allow continual measurement of the physical attributes (the phenotype) of up to 160 000 plants a year. The accelerator mode of this facility will identify those varieties of plant that will be most successful in growth and function, and therefore reduce the time between the breeding of new varieties and their delivery to agricultural producers. Charles Sturt University Food, Soil and Water Research Centre The Australian Government provided $5.93 million to support the establishment of the Food, Soil and Water Research Centre, located at Charles Sturt University's Port Macquarie campus, comprising a testing and research facility and a teaching facility. The Centre will be a hub for local, national and international researchers in the area of food security, water security and soil science, forming a unique link between industry, commercial laboratory facilities and higher education through: testing of food, soil and water for local and broader regional industries including agriculture, aquaculture, local government and environmental organisation; enabling strategic, regional partnership through the development of links to higher level educational research and on-site course delivery; connecting the region with the research and education undertaken within the university's other laboratories and locations; and providing undergraduate and postgraduate students and researchers with access to real environments, business and industry to develop solutions that have immediacy for practice. Summary The Australian Government acknowledges the contribution that the agricultural and agribusiness sector makes to the community and to the economy. Industry has a central role in contributing to the education, skills and training needs of the agricultural and agribusiness workforce. The Australian Government supports industry in this undertaking by investing in skills to assist industry, and in research infrastructure within this sector. Recommendation 1: The committee recommends that the Australian Council of Deans of Agriculture considers working with the Australian Council of Deans of Education to strengthen engagement between agriculture and education faculties during teacher education programs. Response: Noted The Australian Government notes that this is a matter for consideration by the two Councils. Recommendation 2: The committee recommends that the Government continues to provide financial support for the promotion of agriculture in primary and secondary schools, such as the work undertaken by the Primary Industry Centre for Science Education and the Primary Industries Education Foundation. Response: Supported in principle The Australian Government supports this recommendation in principle and notes the importance of the work already done by the Primary Industry Centre for Science Education (PICSE) and the Primary Industries Education Foundation (PIEF) and their role in the promotion of agriculture in primary and secondary schools. The Australian Government has funded the University of Tasmania to support PICSE. PICSE has now established itself as an important body in collaborating with universities, regional communities and local primary industries, to attract students into tertiary science and to increase the number of skilled professionals in science based primary industries. The Australian Curriculum provides opportunities for school students to learn about agriculture and its importance to Australia. The Australian Government encourages organisations to develop and promulgate resources to support the curriculum, such as PIEF's Primezone which provides teachers with access to a range of primary industries' education resources. The Australian Government has committed $2 million for a new program to help teachers better understand the products and processes associated with food and fibre production. As part of this program, information resources will be provided through a central website. Teachers will be able to participate in workshops to learn how these digital resources can be used in the classroom and linked to key parts of the curriculum. Recommendation 3: The committee recommends that the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science, Research and Tertiary Education reviews the impediments to seamless national delivery of agriculture and agribusiness education in the Vocational Education and Training sector. Response: Supported In Principle The Australian Government currently provides a range of mechanisms through the national training system to provide consistency, transparency and quality for agricultural education, skills and training in Australia. The Australian Government recognises the benefits of consistent high-quality, industry relevant training across Australia. The Government, in its leadership responsibilities for vocational education and training in Australia, will assess the need for refinements to training to meet the needs of the industry. As part of the White Paper on Agricultural Competitiveness, the Australian Government will be considering the adequacy of current skills training and education requirements. AgriFood Skills Australia, the national Industry Skills Council with responsibility for the agriculture sector works with industry and other stakeholders to develop and maintain nationally recognised and industry endorsed competencies, Skill Sets and qualifications for the sector. Skills Sets, in particular, provide flexibility to training organisations, businesses and individuals in selecting training to suit the needs of industry. Formal recognition of the training through a a statement of attainment allows individuals to add other skills training at a later date to build a full qualification.. The Government's Indigenous Land Corporation provides training and employment opportunities for Indigenous Australians in the pastoral sector through its 14 agricultural businesses. During 2012-13 these businesses hosted 130 Indigenous people as trainees, offering Certificate I and 12-month Certificate II or III traineeships in rural skills including agriculture, meat processing, horticulture, conservation and land management, construction, tourism and hospitality. Recommendation 4 The committee recommends that the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science, Research and Tertiary Education consult with state and territory agencies and relevant industry bodies to determine the most appropriate delivery model for Vocational Education and Training in the agricultural and agribusiness sector with a view to ensuring adequate funding which will deliver the most effective training outcomes for employees and employers alike. Response: Supported in principle The Australian Government supports this recommendation in principle but already consults the states and territories regularly on VET, as the national training system is jointly administered by the Commonwealth, states and territories. All jurisdictions recognise the importance of addressing the challenges of providing effective delivery of agricultural education to ensure an adequate supply of skilled workers in agriculture in regional areas. While the Australian Government contributes significant funding to the VET sector, state and territory governments are largely responsible for the administration, delivery, operations, course offerings and budgetary decisions made in relation to their training systems. Through national Industry Skills Councils the Australian Government funds the development and continuous improvement of nationally endorsed qualifications and units of competency which support industry in meeting the skills needs of their workforce. The Australian Government directly supports the Australian Apprenticeships system through the Australian Apprenticeships Incentives Program (AAIP) to encourage participation and retention of apprentices in the system. The AAIP provides incentives to employers who employ eligible Australian apprentices and thereby encourages people to enter into work while also acquiring skills as part of their employment. Recommendation 5: The committee recommends that the government explores options for the Regional Higher Education, Skills and Jobs Coordinators to work with organisations such as the Primary Industries Education Foundation to raise the profile of agriculture in schools. Response: Noted The Australian Government previously funded 34 Regional Education, Skills and Jobs (RESJ) Coordinators to work in regional communities across Australia. They worked with community stakeholders, including Regional Development Australia Committees, to develop RESJ Plans that included strategies to improve participation and outcomes in education, training and employment in regional Australia. The RESJ Coordinators worked to ensure communities were aware of the opportunities available including facilitating linkages across Government programs. Where, through consultation with local stakeholders, the agriculture sector in a region was identified as requiring support with its workforce and skill needs, the RESJ Coordinator worked with the sector and other local stakeholders, such as schools, training providers and employment services providers, to develop and implement appropriate strategies. The RESJ Coordinator measure was funded for three years and ceased on 30 June 2014. Recommendation 6: The committee recommends that the Australian Council of Deans of Agriculture work with member universities to develop a collaboration framework to optimise research investment and improve knowledge transfer in agriculture and agribusiness research. Response: Noted While the Australian Government notes this is a matter to be considered by the Australian Council of Deans of Agriculture (ACDA), the Minister for Industry will write to the Chair of ACDA to this effect. The Australian Government notes there are existing frameworks that support a collaborative approach to research investment and knowledge transfer. These include the National Primary Industries Research, Development and Extension (RD&E) Framework and initiatives being undertaken by the Australian Research Committee (ARCom). The RD&E Framework is a partnership between the Australian, state and Northern Territory governments, the rural research and development corporations (RDCs), the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the university sector and industry. It plays a major role in identifying priority RD&E requirements for the rural sector and ensuring allocation of the most effective and efficient RD&E capacity to address them. ACDA is a partner in the RD&E Framework, and a member of the RD&E Committee, which reports to the Standing Council on Primary Industries. ARCom was established to provide integrated and strategic advice on future research investments, including in the areas of human capital, infrastructure and collaborative activities. ARCom, chaired by Australia's Chief Scientist, will consider how to increase collaboration and coordination in Commonwealth rural RD&E investment. ARCom is exploring the level of coordination of Australian Government rural research and development investment and will advise on whether any improvements can be made in terms of more coordinated funding arrangements and priority-setting, opportunities for collaboration or increasing the focus on rural research. The broader National Research Plan, released in November 2012, also outlines that ARCom will provide ongoing advice on improving linkages between the research sector and industry. It is likely that this work will have a bearing on, or provide direction to, efforts by ACDA to develop a collaboration framework to optimise research investment and improve knowledge transfer in agriculture and agribusiness research. Recommendation 7: The committee recommends that the government commissions a study inquiring into the most appropriate higher education framework to support high-level, practically-focused agribusiness education with a view to implementing the national food plan. The review should consider governance and funding arrangements (recognising the significant costs of delivering agricultural and farm studies), the effectiveness of regional campuses, needs of industry and students, and pathways between VET and higher education. Response: Not supported The Australian Government does not support this recommendation. The Government has previously initiated a number of reviews to ensure that Australia's higher education system has the capacity to provide a highly skilled and adaptable workforce to meet future challenges; there has been a strong focus on the needs of regional universities. The Australian Government is developing a White Paper on Agricultural Competitiveness, which will drive long-term agricultural policies and ensure Australia's agriculture sector remains a significant contributor to the national economy and local communities. The White Paper will take into account the analysis done for the National Food Plan, in the context of the Government's agriculture related priorities. Higher Education The current funding arrangements for universities provides for students to gain an education in order to become graduates who can enter occupations that the economy needs. The agricultural industry can work more closely with universities to encourage students to participate in courses that meet the needs of the agriculture labour market. Nationally, more than one-third of Australian universities offer places in agriculture-related courses at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels, and Australia's universities play a critical role in developing skilled workers for the agricultural and agribusiness industries. Learning and Teaching The Office for Learning and Teaching (OLT) commissions work and provides grants and fellowships to academics and professional staff to enhance learning and teaching in higher education. The OLT has funded seven projects to improve learning and teaching within the discipline of agriculture. Projects include, universities and industry working together to establish national academic standards for agriculture, updating curriculum and teaching resources (e.g. soil science, plant breeding, veterinary science and entomology) and a national forestry education network. The OLT works with peak bodies to disseminate the outcomes of these projects and final reports are published on the website (www.olt.gov.au/resources). Agricultural and Farm Studies Agriculture units of study currently receive the highest rate of Government funding ($21 273 per Commonwealth supported place in 2014). The maximum student contribution in 2014 for agriculture units of study is $8 613 for one equivalent full-time student load (EFTSL) which is the second highest student contribution band. Combined funding per agriculture EFTSL for universities will be up to $29 886 in 2014. The Government announced major reforms to the funding of higher education in the 2014-15 Budget. These reforms will help to create a world class, sustainable higher education system. From 1 January 2016, all Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) accredited higher education institutions will be able to choose to provide Commonwealth supported places (CSP) for their students. From 2016, the Government will also extend the demand driven funding system to include all higher education bachelor degrees, diplomas, advanced diplomas and associate degree courses. Australian students enrolling in these courses will be able to access a CSP. In 2016, agriculture units of study will continue to receive the highest rate of government funding ($18 067 per Commonwealth supported place). From 1 January 2016, the maximum contribution amount for Australian students at higher education institutions will be removed. Universities and other higher education institutions will be able to determine the fees they charge Commonwealth supported students. The Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) ensures that all Australians are able to participate in higher education without the need to pay any upfront fees. Students within the broad field of study—Agriculture, Environmental and Related Studies—may also pursue careers in agriculture and agribusiness. This category covers the fields of Agriculture, Horticulture and Viticulture, Forestry Studies, Fisheries Studies; and Environmental Studies. Data available for 2013 indicates that out of all broad fields of education, Agriculture, Environmental and related studies recorded the largest increase in applications (7.1 per cent) and the largest increase in offers (7.2 per cent). Mathematics, Engineering and Science Report Students who study mathematics, engineering and science may also enter a range of agricultural and agribusiness careers. The Mathematics, Engineering and Science in the National Interest report was released in May 2012 and made 17 recommendations regarding ways to encourage greater participation in mathematics, statistics and science at university. The recommendations focused on schools, where most students identify their future study options, and teachers, who have the greatest influence on the choices students make about their careers. The recommendations fall under five themes: Inspirational teaching; Inspired school leadership; Teaching techniques; Gender issues; and Scientific literacy. In response, a $54 million package of programs addressing these five themes was provided, including the appointment of a National Maths and Science Education and Industry Adviser, located within the Office of the Chief Scientist, to champion the role of mathematics, statistics, science and engineering across education and industry. Regional Higher Education The Review of Regional Loading examined the cost of providing quality teaching in regional Australia and as a result the regional loading was increased by $110 million to help overcome the higher costs of regional campuses. Additionally, the University of New England recently received $29 million for an Integrated Agricultural Education Project that will support construction of an agricultural education building, a farm education facility and an animal husbandry facility. Pathways from VET to Higher Education Opportunities exist for students to enter higher education agriculture and agribusiness courses through a variety of pathways, including articulation from VET programs. A number of universities offering courses in agriculture and agribusiness have pathways from VET to higher education. For example, Charles Sturt University (CSU) has an articulation program with the Sunraysia Institute of Technical and Further Education (TAFE) which creates pathways from Diploma courses in Conservation and Land Management, Rural Business Management, and Horticulture into a variety of CSU degrees. Other providers, such as the University of Western Australia, have no formal credit transfer or articulation pathways into their agriculture degree program, but encourage students to apply for advanced standing, on the basis of prior study, once they have received the offer of a place. The University of Tasmania also recognises successful TAFE/VET studies as an important entry pathway to higher education study. CSU has also received funding to collaborate with the Goulburn Ovens Institute of TAFE (Wangaratta, Victoria) to establish a Regional University Centre to service the higher education market of that region. The Centre functions as an on-campus and mixed-mode delivery point for selected CSU degree programs, with a focus on agriculture and animal production. Recommendation 8: The committee recommends that the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences undertakes an analysis of the decline of Extension services and the impact of this on the dissemination of research outcomes through productivity improvement to agriculture and agribusiness. Response: Supported in principle The Australian Government acknowledges the importance of extension and adoption of research outcomes and that extension arrangements are different for different industries and regions of Australia. The RDCs are ensuring that the adoption of research outputs is treated as an integral part of the research and development planning and delivery process. These include requirements for the RDCs to develop extension plans, consider pathways to adoption of each research project and report on extension activities. Extension of research outcomes is also a major focus of the Research, Development and Extension (RD&E) Framework. The Australian Government will continue working with other parties to the RD&E Framework to ensure extension and adoption priorities are adequately understood and addressed during implementation of sectoral and cross-sectoral strategies under the framework. Recommendation 9 The committee recommends that the government facilitates the development of a national peak industry representative body for the agricultural production and agribusiness sectors. Response: Supported In Principle The Australian Government recognises the value of working collaboratively with industry to deal with the challenges impacting the agricultural and agribusiness sector into the future. The Minister for Agriculture established an Agricultural Industry Advisory Council in January 2014 to provide advice on issues and challenges facing agriculture and to enhance consultations with the sector. The Minister for Industry, as part of developing reform options for vocational education and training, has engaged with many industry sectors, including agriculture. The National Farmers' Federation also facilitates the National Agribusiness Education, Skills and Labour Taskforce (NEST), which was formed in 2012, and brings representatives of the Australian Government and the agriculture industry. Recommendation 10 The committee recommends that the government commits to regular consultation with the new peak body established in recommendation 9 regarding policy changes that impact upon agriculture and agribusiness. Response: Noted The Australian Government notes the recommendation, and in light of the response to Recommendation 9, acknowledges the current consultation processes with a wide range of agricultural and agribusiness stakeholders, along with the establishment of NEST in September 2012. Recommendation 11 The committee recommends that the new industry peak body develops and presents to government a national strategy for addressing the skills shortage, industry productivity, and food security. Response: Noted The Australian Government notes the recommendation, in light of the response to Recommendation 9. If industry elects to change its representational arrangements and establish a new body, the work program would be a matter for that body. ___________________ 1 Commonwealth Department of Employment, Skills Shortages Australia 2012 http://docs.employment.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/skillshortagesaustralia2012_13.pdf p 19 2 Council of Australian Governments, National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform, http://www.federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/content/npa/skills/skills-reform/national_partnership.pdf p 10 3 http://www.budget.gov.au/2013-14/content/bp3/html/bp3_03_part_2a.htm 4 Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding cluster amounts for 2013 – http://www.innovation.gov.au/highereducation/ResourcesAndPublications/Resources/Documents/Rates2013.pdf