Key Facts:
- 5.13 million skills training students in Australia in 2024, a 1.8% increase from 2023
- Independent RTOs supported 90.8% of all student enrolments (4.66 million), with 1.03 million more students than in 2019
- Only 11.4% of independent RTO students received government support in 2024, compared to 87.4% of TAFE students
- Independent RTOs support approximately 90% (1.23 million) of skills training students in regional and remote Australia
- Public TAFE enrolments decreased between 2019-2024, with 32,000 fewer government-funded students in 2024 compared to 2023
Today's release of the most recent data from Australia's pre-eminent skills training data agency, the National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER), shows what members of the Independent Tertiary Education Council Australia (ITECA) have known and experienced for a long time. These are the direct experiences of the distortions in policy rhetoric and delivery affecting the lives of students, businesses and the national economy.
The data released by the NCVER show that in 2024 there were 5.13 million skills training students in Australia, an increase of 1.8% on 2023.
Of these, independent Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) supported a staggering 90.8% of all student enrolments in skills training. That's around 4.66 million student enrolments at independent RTOs; around 91,500 more than in 2023 and 1.03 million more than in 2019.
In late August, NCVER also released data on Government-funded students in skills training. To offer some perspective to today's whole-of-sector data, these two datasets show that in 2024, there were 1.22 million students in skills training that enjoyed a level of government financial support (e.g. a partial subsidy). In 2024 this translated to 87.4% of students attending a public TAFE being government-supported (an increase from 86.6% in 2023), but just 11.4% of students at independent RTOs (a decrease from 12.3% in 2023).
Why does this matter? It matters because for a long time, governments in Australia have funded training based on the type of institution a student attends with the course type being a secondary consideration. They don't invest in the student as the primary consideration. It also matters because students and the business that employ them have a clear preference for independent RTOs and the quality, flexibility, the strong industry ties, and responsiveness to evolving employer needs they deliver. If government's shifted gear and invested in students, then the picture would look very different.
The Total VET Activity data from today shows that by the end of 2024, despite very substantial financial and policy effort and disruption, there were fewer students at public TAFE than in 2019. As a result, despite the funding priorities of governments across Australia and as outlined in the National Skills Agreement, in total there were just over 32,000 fewer government-funded students in 2024 compared to 2023.
Since well before the pandemic, Australia's independent skills training sector has worked hard and has extended its reputation as Australia's powerhouse for workforce development, continuing to outpace public sector providers across both training disciplines and student cohorts. This includes independent RTOs supporting around 1.23 million students (around 90% of the total) undertaking skills training in regional and remote Australia.
We shouldn't be mistaken though. There are some areas where the publicly owned and run institutions do very good work, often working in partnership with the independent sector. These are good examples of how the skills training system works best when viewed as an ecosystem focused on outcomes for students and business.
Skills training that delivers on Australia's productivity needs is a national policy focus. It shouldn't be a case of governments subsidising state-owned entities to deliver in exclusive "markets" combined with policies designed to restrict or exclude competition. Or removing the single and largest government-owned provider from the competitive market. Governments work best when they effectively regulate markets and streamline controls for better outcomes. Governments should invest in students on behalf of taxpayers such that those taxpayers reap the benefits of informed student and business-led resource allocation.
That is surely a better outcome than propping up loss-making organisations, ultimately at the expense of taxpayers, students, business and the economy.
If Australia is to pursue higher levels of workplace productivity and global competitiveness, then we must not strangle the preferences for workforce engagement and development, and the businesses that act dynamically to employ that workforce.
