This report provides an overview of funding arrangements implemented as a result of the 1992 Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) Agreement. It describes the vocational education and training (VET) policy environment leading to the Agreement and the prevailing policy environment 10 years on. It discusses the outcomes of government, industry and individual investment in training, and includes examples of overseas funding models. The allocation of ANTA funds by training area is discussed and the observation is made that some industries rely largely on public funding for their... [+] Show more
This report provides an overview of funding arrangements implemented as a result of the 1992 Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) Agreement. It describes the vocational education and training (VET) policy environment leading to the Agreement and the prevailing policy environment 10 years on. It discusses the outcomes of government, industry and individual investment in training, and includes examples of overseas funding models. The allocation of ANTA funds by training area is discussed and the observation is made that some industries rely largely on public funding for their training needs (for example, construction, tourism and hospitality), while some do not (for example, retail, finance and insurance). The discussion focuses on which industries spend the most on training and how much individuals contribute to their own training.
The author suggests that better integration in funding is just one issue. Australia’s public commitment to postschool funding is lower than comparable Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries and young Australians continue to be excluded from the education and training system. Increased VET participation among young people who drop out of all education should be a policy priority and future debate on VET funding should embrace the needs of the unemployed or those facing redundancy. Making individuals responsible for their own VET funding has the potential to increase social inequity. Comparing overseas funding models like levy schemes, and approaches which aim to increase demand for training, such as tax incentives, vouchers, loans and learning accounts, may be useful in helping Australia achieve greater educational equity.
Download