Coalition Senators' dissenting report

Introduction

1.1The Free TAFE Bill 2024 (bill) is chiefly concerned with providing financial assistance to the states and territories for the delivery of 100,000 free TAFE and vocational education and training (VET) places from 2027, although the bill's Explanatory Memorandum states that there is 'no financial impact' with the passage of the bill.

1.2The bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on 7 November 2024. The bill was referred by the Senate to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee (committee) for inquiry on 21 November 2024 with a report due on 27 February 2025.

1.3The first public hearing was held in Adelaide on 31 January 2025 and a second hearing was held in Canberra on 7 February 2025.

Labor's Missed Opportunity

1.4This bill represents nothing more than an ideological bent of this failed Labor government. It has not adequately demonstrated any logical rationale for the bill, beyond its ideological obsession, nor how it will be costed.

1.5Australia needs a strong and thriving vocational training sector to effectively address current and future skills requirements and maintain a competitive advantage.

1.6The Coalition is a strong supporter of the VET sector, including the vital role of our TAFEs. TAFEs are important education institutions and have provided a successful career pathway for millions of students.

1.7The Coalition appreciates efforts to address the current skills crisis and to strengthen our VET sector. However, we have concerns about how the Albanese Labor government has crafted this bill. Specifically, we oppose the elimination of student choice, question the underlying ideology, and note the lack of sufficient data to support the bill. As a result, Coalition Senators do not support the bill's passage through the Senate.

1.8The bill has a notable heavy bias towards one delivery platform in the sector at the expense of other providers and ignores the contribution of providers other than TAFE itself.

1.9The Bill demonstrates this government's general antagonism towards the private sector even in the face of the cost-effective delivery and choice that registered training organisations (RTOs) clearly provide to the community.

1.10The bill will adversely impact the small business sector, which is already carrying a heavy burden placed on it by the Albanese Labor government from radical industrial relations changes, higher utility charges and the cost-of-living crisis.

1.11Labor is misleading Australians on Free TAFE, as it has not increased the number of Australians taking up skills or training.

1.12The fact is Labor has made it harder than ever for businesses to put on apprentices or trainees.

1.13Ludicrously, the bill does not even guarantee Free TAFE will be free, as the title of the bill purports to provide, because the choice of courses made available across the VET system are not all 'free'.

1.14The Albanese Labor government's failed skills and training policies are underscored by the fact that despite spending $1.5 billion on Free TAFE, there are over 80,000 fewer apprentices and trainees today than when Labor took office and Free TAFE courses have a graduation rate of around 13 per cent.[1]

1.15Currently, the bill does not adequately address Australia's skills shortfall or recognise the valuable role performed by RTOs. As the Housing Industry Association (HIA) remarked, this bill in 'its current structure risks creating inefficiencies, inequities, and gaps in training delivery'.[2] While Surveyors Australia said:

… any reforms to the VET system must recognise the key role for industry in developing and delivering training that best meets the needs of the sector. Furthermore, this inclusivity will also ensure that students can choose the most appropriate training provider for their specific needs, fostering a diverse and competitive VET sector and enabling VET providers to deliver training in areas not serviced by public training providers'.[3]

Labor Dividing the Sector

1.16Instead of adopting a holistic approach for the industry, the Albanese Labor government has chosen to support particular providers, thereby limiting choice.

1.17Evidence presented during the public hearings and inquiry submissions highlighted the value RTOs provide to the sector.

1.18Instead of adopting a divide and conquer approach to skills and training, the Albanese Labor government instead should have introduced a more balanced and collegiate pathway of having RTOs and public TAFEs working in tandem.

1.19This cordial approach would be consistent with the aims of Jobs and Skills Australia's position on the sector which they stated in their submission:

We must help more Australians access the social and economic benefits of participation. Critical to this challenge is ensuring we have a well-balanced and aligned post-secondary education profile and encourage more young Australians to consider vocational education and training pathways to employment and further study.[4]

1.20In its submission to the inquiry, the Independent Tertiary Education Council Australia (ITECA) noted:

Australian Government policy must acknowledge the complementary roles of independent RTOs and public TAFE colleges. While TAFE plays a legitimate and important role in the skills training sector, it cannot meet the needs of all students, industries and regions. A diverse and complex economy like Australia’s requires a collaborative approach that leverages the strengths of both public and independent providers.[5]

1.21This position was shared by the Business Council of Australia (BCA), who asserted:

In Australia, there are over 4,000 VET providers delivering training. Of these, only 24 are publicly funded TAFEs, with the rest comprising private Registered Training organisations (RTOs), dual sector providers, enterprise (industry) RTOs, community RTOs and schools. Around 80 per cent of VET students study at non-TAFE institutions. The competitive mix of providers allows students to choose what they want to study. Where they want to study. It encourages high performance and labour market responsiveness with the VET sector. High- quality private RTOs often provide specialised, industry-focused training that gives individuals the critical skills needed in key industries. NCVER data indicates private RTOs deliver not only most short courses, but also most higher level and complex qualifications.[6]

1.22RTOs often fill gaps that TAFEs do not, particularly in regional and remote areas of Australia. Surveyors Australia referred to this in their submission by revealing they had created an RTO because there existed a 'critical gap' in what was provided by TAFE and stated that 'this gap underscores the limitations of a TAFE-centric approach'.[7] Which, as Coalition Senators note, is precisely what the Albanese Labor government is undertaking with this bill.

1.23By prioritising one type of provider over another, the Albanese Labor government is signalling to prospective students that they should only consider pursuing careers linked to TAFE courses, especially in the context of a national skills shortage.

1.24It also limits individual choice. This was emphasised by the submission from ASC Training & Development which stated:

… the bill, in its current form, restricts fee-free qualifications to TAFE institutions only. This limitation effectively eliminates the possibility for students to choose alternative RTOs operating as private, enterprise or not-for-profit concerns if they wish to pursue fee-free education. Consequently, students are deprived of the opportunity to select an institution that best suits their individual learning needs and career aspirations.[8]

1.25Concerns with limiting student choice and the disadvantage that creates were shared by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) in its submission to the inquiry:

… while we appreciate the government's efforts to lower financial barriers in education and training, we oppose legislating a government-owned provider as the sole option to achieve this. This approach disadvantages students, reducing their autonomy, and disadvantages independent providers that often deliver superior services and outcomes for students. The legislation effectively signals to price-sensitive students that they should only consider TAFE for their education, given it's the sole provider with comprehensive financial support. This approach overlooks broader issues like lower completion rates and dissatisfaction among students and employers, focusing narrowly on financial incentives.[9]

1.26These sentiments were supported by the BCA who said:

… restricting Fee-Free places to TAFE disincentives students from selecting the course most suited to their career aspirations, and ultimately undermines national efforts to overcome workforce shortages. It could also impact overall VET completion rates, diverting scarce funding and student cohort from more effective private and enterprise RTOs'.[10]

1.27At the second public hearing in Canberra, the BCA were questioned by the Coalition on how employers were more focused, not on who delivered training programs, but who was best placed to:

Senator O'Sullivan: For employers, it's that agility that's important. Who provides the training? Are employers essentially agnostic, in that regard? They want the outcome rather than focusing on who is actually delivering the course. Is that right?

Ms Black: Absolutely, agnostic as to who's delivering it. They're focused on outcomes. That's what a business has to do.

…

Ms Black: However, I would say, at the moment, the reason why the RTOs have absolutely flourished is they are providing the outcomes. This goes back to my other point, about how we lift the capacity within TAFE. As I mentioned, I think the South Australian TAFE is doing some really good things there. The new centres which are really focused on particular skill sets are something that could well be a real positive, going forward, if they're done right. I think they can provide some of the certainty. But they're not within the fee-free TAFE sort of thing. They're a bigger part of the overall structure that we need to look at with vocational training, and it remains complex. The point about agility is important, and I think that is where the RTOs have been providing the outcomes business has been looking for. That's why they've gone there and that's where the students have gone.

One of the issues—and I mentioned this in my statement—is that this needs to be looking, much more, at where the stream wants to go. It's all about the institutions and one sort, which is TAFE. It is not looking enough at, 'What does the student want and where do they want to go?' If you give a student a choice, you'll generally find they will go to the RTO, because they know that at the end of the RTO they are more likely to get a job.

Senator O'Sullivan: Particularly if there's a link with the employer.

Ms Black: Absolutely.[11]

1.28The pitfall of limiting student choice in accessing a service provider was highlighted by the Multicultural Youth Advocacy Network Australia's evidence during the first public hearing:

Senator O'Sullivan: To get the best outcome you need a student-centred design, because every student has different needs. You’ve mentioned geography, language and different barriers and needs that people have. So, in your view, is it better to put choice with the person, the student, rather than with the provider? Should the student have a bit more autonomy over how they are trained and which training provider they go to?

Ms Ebrahimi: In the end, it’s the best practice, but, if you look at the reality and the services that exist, it’s really different in each state and territory. In some states, yes, the best practice is the individualised approach, but in some states where the population is really high you have to prioritise – you have to give the opportunity to the highest priority or heightened risk, and it limits your service. That’s why it’s not necessarily individualised. And, if you make it place based, or a combination of both, with stronger partnership and collaboration in the bigger states, it is actually possible that you give better service and more efficient service. But in smaller areas we definitely advise that it’s what we observe: because of the lower numbers we have the opportunity to give individualised –

Senator O'Sullivan: You need the economy of scale to make it viable?

Ms Ebrahimi: Yes.[12]

1.29The Albanese Labor government has also ignored data which indicates that RTOs achieve higher qualification completion rates than public TAFE colleges.[13]

1.30Labor also neglects the linkage between RTOs and employers. As ITECA highlights in their submission:

… when it comes to supporting employers in accessing the next generation of skilled and educated employees, it's clear that independent RTOs deliver the best outcomes. A major contributing factor in this is the ability of independent RTOs to be flexible in meeting the changing industry-driven needs of employer'.[14]

1.31During the first public hearing, the Coalition underscored the value of the relationship between RTOs and employers:

Senator O'Sullivan: What influence do you place on that linkage with employers?

Mr Williams: Significant. We've spent a bit of time unpacking this. Quite often it is because independent RTOs—it is like dealing with like. If you are a small RTO, you're a small business, and you develop a relationship with your local car mechanic, local banking firm and local kitchen. You've got two small businesses talking to each other. As I said, it's like talking with like. Their struggles are the same. In no way do I want to diminish TAFE, but if funding just comes from the sky the imperative to deliver high-quality outcomes, to seek new students and to retain that business is very different.

My best mate's wife works at the TAFE in Queensland. She does great work. I know many TAFE teachers and senior executives. They do good work. They try their hardest. But they're constrained quite often by the bureaucratic nature of their organisations. Independent RTOs tend to be more flexible and tend to have higher linkages with industry because they're smaller and more agile. They're also more engaged in their sectors. I look across many of our members. Not only are they members of ITECA; they're also members of master painters associations, master builders associations—all the other associations. They're actively involved in them. In fact, some of our members have been chairs of those associations. Typically they have stronger links with industry just because it's like dealing with like. It's two small businesses dealing with each other.

Senator O'Sullivan: They would go out of business, no doubt, if they didn't have those links.

Mr Williams: No doubt. The driving force for most small businesses is repeat business. If you're a bad business it doesn't work. Even when it comes to government funding, if you don't meet your performance metrics you don't get a funding contract. No disrespect to TAFE, but, if they don't meet their performance metrics, their funding still comes up next year.[15]

Labor's Lack of Data

1.32The lack of data necessitating the need for this bill was a consistent theme from many stakeholders. Quite simply, the data did not reflect a need for this bill, primarily because the data was insufficient in scope or detail.

1.33Master Builders Australia (MBA) commented that 'as yet, there is no adequate data to show that the Free TAFE initiative has worked as it is still too early in the piece'.[16] As a result, MBA 'holds the view that the initiative should not be committed to legislation until such time as robust data can show that it works'.[17]

1.34Lack of sufficient data was also a concern for ACCI, who were of the view:

… delaying the legislation of any free skills training program as a permanent aspect of the VET system until more comprehensive data on the program's outcomes is available. The total cost-benefit of the program remains unclear. The existing evidence for Free TAFE does not yet substantiate the program's effectiveness, particularly regarding completion rates and employment outcomes, which are crucial for assessing its real-world impact. We caution against locking in budget measures with legislation where a large expenditure may have little benefit.[18]

1.35The HIA said the legislation needed to include a provision for the 'timely collection and publication of data that enables objective evaluation of the fee-free scheme'.[19]

1.36Further highlighting the deficiencies in the data, HIA argued:

… to date, the level of performance reporting of the Fee-free scheme has been grossly inadequate.

…

Legislation must include provision for the timely collection and publication of data that enables objective evaluation of the fee-free scheme. Data collection and reporting must be done in a way that enables integration with existing VET datasets maintained by the National Centre for Vocational education and Research.[20]

1.37Extraordinarily, the Albanese Labor government has not tasked the National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER) with the collection and reporting of data on 'Free TAFE'. NCVER is ready and willing to assist:

… could support this initiative by providing transparent, impartial, quality data and reports, leveraging its established systems and methodologies. If tasked with collecting and reporting on Free TAFE, NCVER could provide robust, public data and insights into the initiative. NCVER has extensive experience in collecting, analysing, and reporting VET data, ensuring reliable and impartial insights. This expertise could be extended to include Free TAFE data, with minimal disruption to our existing systems.[21]

1.38Yet despite this, the Albanese Labor government has not utilised NCVER expertise, instead avoiding transparency and pushing through a bill that is not back up with sufficient data.

1.39The data that does exist was highlighted during the first public hearing, in that ITECA argued that 'for every $1 cost for completion with an independent RTO, the cost with TAFE is $3.83. It is three, nearly four, times more expensive for taxpayers when students study with TAFE'.[22]

1.40The bill undermines its own legitimacy with the Explanatory Memorandum stating 'there is no financial impact' from the provisions contained in the bill.

1.41The fact that so-called 'Fee Free TAFE' is in place already under existing arrangements demonstrates the redundancy of this bill.

1.42This was a point raised by the BCA in their submission who said 'it is too early to assess the impact of Fee Free TAFE on students, the VET sector and the labour market. We are concerned about the use of legislation to prematurely hard wire this policy. We are also concerned the government has not allocated funds to this bill'.[23]

1.43This is inconsistent with the government claiming this bill 'is changing lives'.[24] It is not a new program if no financial backing supports it going forward. It's just more spin from the Labor Party, particularly when the Commonwealth already has an existing Free TAFE agreement in place with the states until 2027.

1.44Given the data and reporting of Fee Free TAFE initiative 'has been grossly inadequate' it is unsurprising stakeholders called for 'evaluating the performance of the Fee-Free TAFE scheme to date before enshrining the scheme into legislation'.[25]

1.45The Australian Industry Group were of the view that:

A key reason for not supporting the current legislation is that the effectiveness of free TAFE programs that have already been commenced has not yet been properly evaluated. While there is evidence of strong commencements, particularly from equity groups, there are suggestions of high drop-off rates and poor completions in some areas. However, there is no publicly available data to back up any claims either way.[26]

1.46During the first public hearing in Adelaide, the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia (COSBOA) were cleared-eyed about the necessity of a review proceeding prior to the bill being passed into legislation:

Senator O'Sullivan: Would you like to see a review before [the Bill progresses]

Ms Sutton: Absolutely. I think we would just like to see some data. I think there has been some data that has come out today about enrolments, but nobody in industry had seen it before. I think it would be useful to have some quantitative data for analysis before rushing to pass the bill.[27]

1.47This would be a prudent and responsible course of action to take, one which the Albanese Labor government has disregarded in pursuit of implementing its union back ideological agenda.

1.48This ideology was revealed by the hyperbole in the evidence presented by the unions before the committee during the second public hearing, when only anecdotal evidence was provided instead of actual evidence:

Senator O'Sullivan: I have a couple of quick follow-ups. Thank you both for your time before us today. Firstly, Mr Chadwick, in answering a question earlier, you were talking about some diversity differences between TAFE and private providers. Were you quoting from any particular study? Can you provide us with the data you were quoting from?

Mr Chadwick: I'm sorry, no I can't. That's just anecdotal.

Senator O'Sullivan: Okay.

Mr Chadwick: From talking to our members, from the meetings that we hold at Federation and from the time I spend walking around TAFE colleges, I've noticed a great diversity in the range of—

Senator O'Sullivan: Have you been to many private colleges?

Mr Chadwick: Most of the private colleges that we come across are operating out of the backs of cars, so, no, I haven't.

Senator O'Sullivan: I'm sorry; that's just not true. You can't say that most private colleges are operating out of the back of cars. I mean, that's blatantly not true.

Mr Chadwick: Well, it's the ones I've come across, anyway.

Senator O'Sullivan: I've been to lots of TAFE colleges. I'm a former graduate of TAFE myself, and very proud of that. I've also engaged a lot with private providers in my time, particularly prior to coming into parliament. I've engaged with a lot of Indigenous owned and operated private colleges where most of the lecturers and staff working there are actually Indigenous. So I'm just wondering where you're getting this data. You've said it's anecdotal, so that's fine. I also want to ask you about the quality of education. Have you got any evidence in relation to whether or not a private provider or a TAFE college is providing a better quality of outcome?

Mr Chadwick: Only in the fact that the way TAFE provides vocational education is through structured learning, through classroom environments and through simulated workplaces, and the fact that we are delivering a greater range of high-demand, more difficult courses to deliver, and courses that require a greater amount of infrastructure and courses that require a higher amount of skill than the majority of the private providers in the fact that the private providers tend to go for the low-hanging fruit of the simpler courses to deliver, whether they be cert IIs or diploma courses, TAFE tends to go for the areas such as electrical, carpentry, plumbing and early childhood education.

Senator O'Sullivan: Can you provide me with some evidence of that? Or are these just anecdotes again?

Mr Chadwick: That would also be anecdotal.[28]

Small Business Lose Out Once Again Under Labor

1.49The small business sector has yet again been neglected by the Albanese Labor government.

1.50This bill does nothing to provide the sector with any tangible relief, having already been crushed by this government with excessive regulation and burdensome red tape.

1.51Unsurprisingly, since Labor took office, there have been 27,000 small business insolvencies.[29]

1.52The Coalition recognises that the small business sector is a valuable contributor to our economic prosperity. It employs over 5 million people or 42 per cent of Australia's private sector workforce, contributes $483 billion to the national economy and accounts for 97 per cent of all Australian businesses.[30]

1.53In their opening remarks at the first public hearing, COSBOA outlined the confusion related to the bill's misleading title, and the role RTOs play in providing the necessary employees for their members businesses:

Many of our members tell us that they perceive the Free TAFE Bill as problematic, as it fails to address the shortages they experience on the ground. Additional confusion is being wrought even by the name of the bill, 'Free TAFE'. The very title itself does not signify, potentially, the choice of valuable courses available to students across the broader VET system, which encompasses many private and small-business RTOs. The practical experience of many small businesses and associations that represent them is that TAFE, whilst able to provide many courses and skills across certain industries, is not a one-stop shop solution for addressing the significant skills shortages that they face. There are many industries in which TAFE only offers relevant courses in a limited number of states or not at all.[31]

1.54During the first public hearing the Coalition sought feedback on what impact the bill would have because of being specifically tailored for TAFEs only:

Senator O'Sullivan: On outcomes, could having a TAFE-only focus result in poorer outcomes for students?

Ms Sutton: If it were TAFE only.

Senator O'Sullivan: It's a TAFE-only focus.

Ms Sutton: Yes, all the members we have are using a combination of TAFE and RTOs or their own RTOs. I don't think anybody I've spoken to relies solely on TAFE. In fact, there are some industries where funding has been withdrawn altogether. I was talking to the Myotherapy Association Australia last week, and their funding has just been taken away altogether. There are no funding options if you want to go into that space.

Senator O'Sullivan: Thank you. I did actually want to ask you for any examples of where you've seen providers pushed out of the space as a result of this policy.

Ms Sutton: Yes. There's no funding for that, of course. And then there are other really niche areas. I talked to the Australian Music Association, and apparently you would only need funding for 10 flute repairers; that would suffice for the entire country, but because it's such a small cohort nobody will run the course or fund it.

Senator O'Sullivan: Is it a bit difficult for TAFE or across providers to provide that?

Ms Sutton: It's just due to the smaller numbers, yes. As I was saying, there's a very broad cohort and there are 2.5 million businesses. The challenge across industries is very varied and wide.[32]

1.55The Albanese Labor government missed a golden opportunity to support the work of the small business sector. Rather than isolating the small business sector, the Albanese Labor government should have devised a bill that embraced the sector as an important cog in the VET wheel and included provisions that supported student choice of what provider they selected, and which was fee-free.

1.56Driven by opaque ideology, the Albanese Labor government squandered the prospect to sensibly and constructively engage the private sector to further bolster the VET sector. Working with the private sector, rather than working against it, benefits the whole Australian economy and contributes to addressing the dire skills shortage presided over by this Labor government over the past three years.

1.57As BCA Chief Executive Officer, Bran Black, recently wrote in the Australian Financial Review:

… though the government continues to make investments in the public vocational and educational training sector and is undertaking significant reforms of higher education, we will not be able to build the skilled workforce we need if Australia’s businesses aren’t playing a central role too. Australian companies partner with educational providers to make sure training programs actually match the real-world skills and knowledge they need, and the emerging demands they see on the horizon. That is why close business consultation is a must.[33]

1.58Labor's flawed approach undermines the Australian economy at a time it should be trying to increase productivity, drive down inflation and ease cost of living pressures. Instead of reducing competition, it should be 'empowering students to choose their preferred provider, fostering competition, and prioritising measurable outcomes will ensure that the vocational education and training system meets the needs of students, employers, and the broader economy'.[34]

1.59The existence of 'Fee Free TAFE' under current arrangements shows that this bill is unnecessary and is merely a marketing tactic by the Albanese government in anticipation of the upcoming election.

1.60That the Free TAFE Bill 2024 not be passed by the Senate.

Footnotes

[1]The Hon Sussan Ley MP, Shadow Minister for Industry, Skills and Training, Labor's skills platform in tatters: business community against Free TAFE, Media Release, 8 January 2025.

[2]Housing Industry Association, Submission 26, p. 2.

[3]Surveyors Australia, Submission 49, p. 3.

[4]Jobs and Skills Australia, Submission 53, p. 1.

[5]Independent Tertiary Education Council Australia, Submission 47, p. 11.

[6]Business Council of Australia, Submission 5, p. 2.

[7]Surveyors Australia, Submission 49, p. 1.

[8]ASC Training & Development, Submission 23, p. 1.

[9]Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Submission 34, p. 7.

[10]Business Council of Australia, Submission 5, p. 4.

[11]Proof Committee Hansard, 7 February 2025, p. 15.

[12]Proof Committee Hansard, 31 January 2025, p. 32.

[13]Independent Tertiary Education Council Australia, Submission 47, p. 16.

[14]Independent Tertiary Education Council Australia, Submission 47, p. 15.

[15]Proof Committee Hansard, 31 January 2025, p. 44.

[16]Master Builders Australia, Submission 48, p. 1.

[17]Master Builders Australia, Submission 48, p. 2.

[18]Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Submission 34, p. 1.

[19]Housing Industry Association, Submission 26, p. 2.

[20]Housing Industry Association, Submission 26, p.2.

[21]National Centre for Vocational Education Research, Submission 44, pp 1–2.

[22]Mr Troy Williams, Chief Executive, Independent Tertiary Education Australia, Proof Committee Hansard, 31 January 2025, p. 43.

[23]Business Council of Australia, Submission 5, p. 1.

[24]The Hon Anthony Albanese MP, Prime Minister, Enduring fee free TAFE one step closer thanks to Albanese Labor Government, Media Release, 5 February 2025.

[25]Housing Industry Association, Submission 26, p. 1.

[26]Australian Industry Group, Submission 40, p. 1.

[27]Ms Adele Sutton, Head, Policy & Advocacy, Council of Small Business Organisation Australia, Proof Committee Hansard, 31 January 2025, p. 62.

[28]Proof Committee Hansard, 7 February 2025, pp. 26–27.

[29]The Hon Peter Dutton MP, Leader of the Opposition, Transcript – Remarks to Coalition Joint Party Room Meeting, Canberra, 4 February 2025.

[30]Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, MSME small business facts (accessed25 February 2025).

[31]Ms Adele Sutton, Head, Policy & Advocacy, Council of Small Business Organisation Australia, Proof Committee Hansard, 31 January 2025, p. 54.

[32]Proof Committee Hansard, 31 January 2025, p. 59.

[33]Bran Black, Why businesses are key to fixing Australia's skills gaps, Australian Financial Review, 10February 2025.

[34]Small Business Organisation Australia, Submission 56, p. 4.