Some points of consistency and of difference between jurisdictions were noted over the course of the project. These are outlined in Table 1.

Table 1: Observations of similarities and differences in VET pricing approaches

Similarities Differences
  • The general intent of government subsidisation of training is consistent across the nation.
  • All jurisdictions base their subsidies mainly on the cost of delivery.
  • The cost of delivery is generally attached to the field of study, and the relative cost of delivering training in that field.
  • All jurisdictions take hours of delivery (whether nominal or actual) into account when setting prices and subsidies.
  • While jurisdictions have a similar intent and basis of price and subsidy calculations, the detail underlying these calculations differs and hence results in different prices and subsidy levels.
  • Jurisdiction-level approaches tend to capture the differing economic and demographic factors that affect skill attainment and prioritisation, and the location of training delivery.
  • The extent to which data can be observed for qualifications varies across jurisdictions and qualifications.
  • The price paid for a qualification may be fixed for a given enrolment, or determined by the combination of units of competency actually taken and/or the number of hours actually delivered.

Source: Deloitte Access Economics.

In conducting the website-based fee data collection, it was found that about 56% of providers sampled clearly published subsidised fee information. Of the remainder, either the provider website could not be located, the course could not be located for that provider, or the fee either was not stated, was stated as a full fee, or was not clearly specified.