The Labor government’s commitment to "Free TAFE" is making headlines, but is it truly the best path forward for students and employers? Before we cast our votes, it's essential to look beyond the political rhetoric and ask: Is "free" really the solution to Australia’s skills shortage?

The Real Question: Is Free TAFE Effective?

Minister for Skills and Training, Andrew Giles, has made it abundantly clear that Labor is firmly committed to Free TAFE. The government’s position is that providing free education will give students access to vital skills training and support their future employment opportunities. However, the crucial question we should be asking before heading to the polls is: Is "free" the best option for students, employers, and the nation’s workforce?

Completion Rates Tell the Full Story: Is "Free" Really Free?

Completion rates are a critical measure of the success of any educational program. The shocking truth is that TAFE, despite being a key pillar of the government’s training strategy, has a disastrously low completion rate compared to its private counterparts:

• Private RTOs: 80% completion rate

• TAFE: 13% completion rate

While Free TAFE may sound appealing on the surface, the reality is that students are not completing their courses at the rate needed to meet the demands of employers. The debate should not just focus on the upfront cost to students but on whether this policy is truly leading to job-ready graduates.

What Does This Mean for Students and Employers?

A "free" course is ultimately meaningless if students don’t finish it and enter the workforce with the skills they need. Employers need skilled, qualified, and competent workers, not incomplete enrolments or half-hearted training experiences. Private Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) have been delivering job-ready graduates for decades, yet government policy continues to favor TAFE. Despite the overwhelming evidence showing that private providers have higher completion rates and more effective training outcomes, the government continues to allocate significant funding to TAFE institutions.

Why? Because the politics of "free" make for an easy sell. But the question remains: Is this the most sustainable, effective, and strategic use of taxpayers' money? The answer, according to the facts, is not so simple.

Political Point-Scoring vs. Effective Training

The political rhetoric surrounding Free TAFE often centers around the narrative that the opposition is against affordable education. In reality, the opposition is not against Free TAFE—they are calling for a more balanced distribution of government funding between public and private training providers. The core issue is that the government has prioritised funding to TAFE institutions despite evidence that private RTOs deliver better completion rates and higher employment outcomes for graduates.

The private training sector is calling for a shift in focus. Instead of blindly pushing for Free TAFE, funding should be directed towards training providers that consistently deliver high-quality outcomes—no matter whether those providers are public or private. The end goal should always be the same: to equip students with the skills and qualifications they need to succeed in the workforce.

Collaboration Over Competition: Bridging the Skills Gap Together

The truth is that neither public TAFE nor private RTOs alone can bridge Australia’s growing skills gap. The demand for skilled workers in key industries such as housing, infrastructure, and manufacturing is reaching critical levels, and we need collaboration between both sectors to meet this challenge. The skills shortage won’t be addressed by political point-scoring or partisan bickering—it will be solved through collaboration and strategic investment in the institutions that deliver the best results for students, employers, and the economy.

So, Who Should You Vote For?

The answer is simple: Vote for the party that understands the importance of investing in quality outcomes, not just free enrolments. Look for a platform that:

• Invests in training providers based on the quality of outcomes, not just the size or public status of the institution.

• Supports students to complete their training, not just start it. After all, a qualification means nothing if students don’t finish their courses.

• Ensures that funding goes where it can make the most significant impact—to training providers that deliver results and effectively prepare students for real-world employment.

In this election, let’s think beyond the allure of "free" and focus on training that leads to real job outcomes. Only through quality education and collaboration between all training providers can Australia hope to meet the urgent demands of its workforce and future-proof its economy.

Is Free TAFE the Right Path?

While the concept of Free TAFE might seem like an ideal solution for reducing financial barriers to education, we must ask ourselves: Is it the best policy for long-term success? Evidence shows that completion rates are an essential factor when measuring the effectiveness of any education program. If funding continues to favor institutions that show poor outcomes, such as TAFE, while sidelining the highly successful private RTOs, then we risk leaving students, employers, and industries in the lurch.

The real question is: Should funding follow quality outcomes rather than just being handed to Free TAFE? The government must clarify what it means by "Free TAFE" and whether it specifically refers to TAFE institutions alone, or if it extends to Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) delivering TAFE courses funded by employers. Only by investing in training that delivers tangible results—no matter the provider—can we ensure that students are equipped with the skills needed to thrive in today’s competitive job market.

Let’s Make Education Effective, Not Just Free

The time has come for a serious reevaluation of the government’s approach to training and skills development. The goal should always be to deliver high-quality, job-ready graduates, not just offer a free ride to those who start a course. This election, let’s vote for policies that prioritise results over rhetoric and that invest in Australia’s future workforce—regardless of whether the provider is public or private.

What Do You Think?

Is Free TAFE really the solution, or should we focus on supporting high-quality training providers, regardless of whether they’re public or private? Let us know your thoughts, and get ready to cast your vote for policies that ensure effective, impactful training for the future.

FAQs

Q1: Why are completion rates important when discussing Free TAFE? 

Completion rates indicate how many students finish their course and gain the necessary skills for employment. Low completion rates, like those in TAFE, mean that many students may not be ready for the workforce, which undermines the value of "free" education.

Q2: What is the opposition’s stance on Free TAFE? 

The opposition supports the fair distribution of funding between public and private providers. They advocate for policies that invest in training providers based on quality outcomes, not just on the status of the institution.

Q3: Can private RTOs deliver better results than TAFE? 

Yes, private RTOs consistently show higher completion rates and more job-ready graduates compared to TAFE, making them a key player in meeting Australia’s skills demands.

Q4: What should the government focus on in terms of skills training? 

The government should focus on quality outcomes by investing in training providers that deliver tangible results, whether they are public or private institutions.

Q5: Should funding be tied to completion rates? 

We believe that funding should be allocated to institutions that consistently demonstrate high completion rates and strong job outcomes, ensuring that students are prepared for the workforce, irrespective of whether they are from private or public providers.