Appendices

The Annual Report of the department is prepared in accordance with all relevant Victorian legislation and pronouncements. This index has been prepared to facilitate identification of the department’s compliance with statutory disclosure requirements.

The budget portfolio outcomes provide a comparison between the actual financial statements of all general government sector entities in the portfolio and the forecast financial information published in the 2021–22 Budget Paper No. 5 Statement of Finances (BP5). The budget portfolio outcomes comprise the operating statements, balance sheets, cash flow statements, statements of equity and administered item statements.

The budget portfolio outcomes have been prepared on a consolidated basis and include all general government sector entities in the portfolio. Financial transactions and balances are classified into either controlled or administered categories, as agreed with the Treasurer in the context of the published statements in BP5.

The following budget portfolio outcomes statements are not subject to audit by the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office and are not prepared on the same basis as the department’s financial statements, as they include the consolidated financial information of the following entities:

• the department (including government schools)
• ACFE Board
• VATL
• VCAA
• VRQA
• 12 TAFE institutes.

At the date of publication, the Victorian Auditor General’s Office had not yet finalised the financial audits of ACFE, VCAA and VRQA.

Comprehensive operating statement for the year ended 30 June 2022

Notes:

1. The variance below the published budget is largely driven by a reduction in output appropriations recognised as revenue, due to lower than anticipated demand for training and school programs as well as carryover requested into 2022–23 across state and Commonwealth initiatives. The carryover includes state initiatives such as air purification and shade sails for schools, Non-Government Schools Infrastructure Fund, 2020–21 Building Better TAFEs Fund, Essential Maintenance and Compliance, and the Minor Capital Works Fund.
2. The variance below the published budget is mainly due to schools earning lower interest revenue than anticipated.
3. The variance below the published budget primarily relates to TAFE fees for services. The published budget for TAFE fees for services did not take into account the severity of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021 and the ongoing impacts in 2022, including the lower than forecast rates of unemployment resulting in lower demand for training.
4. The variance above the published budget primarily relates to grants received from other Victorian Government departments, which were not reflected in the published budget. This includes several grants, such as the Future Agriculture Skills Capacity Fund Secondary Schools program, Early Childhood Educator Traineeship Program, the Combustible Cladding Rectification program, the Victorian Public Service Training Program and the Recovery Coordination and Workforce Wellbeing program.
5. The variance above the published budget is primarily driven by RATs received from the Department of Health for on-passing free of charge to government and non‑government schools, which was not factored in as part of the 2021–22 Budget.
6. The variance below the published budget primarily relates to lower than anticipated collection of own-source revenue by schools. For example, locally raised funds from school fetes, fundraising events and voluntary contributions made by parents. It was anticipated that schools' non-third‑party revenue would return to levels seen prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there have been ongoing impacts on schools' ability to collect revenue in 2021–22.
7. The variance below the published budget primarily reflects lower salary expenditure due to marginally lower enrolments in government schools in 2021–22. This reduction was driven by the continuation of the COVID-19 pandemic into 2021, which was not factored in as part of the 2021–22 Budget.
8. The variance below the published budget is primarily due to capital rephases approved by the Treasurer into the forward years that were mainly due to COVID-19 related impacts on the school construction program. The rephase of these capital initiatives have flow on effects to depreciation expenditure. These include the Minor Capital Works Fund, New Schools Construction and Education plans, Ready for school: kinder for every three-year-old, Relocatable buildings program, and Upgrades and Modernisation.
9. The variance below the published budget is primarily due to the department and TAFEs incurring lower interest expenditure than anticipated.
10. The variance below published budget primarily relates to re-phases approved by the Treasurer into the forward years. These include the Non-Government Schools Infrastructure Fund, Ready for school: kinder for every three-year-old, Children's facilities capital program, and Kindergarten refurbishment and minor works program.
11. The variance above the published budget primarily relates to the recognition of the VATL building at 603 Queensberry St, North Melbourne.
12. The variance above the published budget primarily relates to TAFEs recognising a share of profits from joint ventures, which was not reflected in the budget.
13. The variance below the published budget is mainly due to the review and write-off of bad and doubtful debts.
14. The variance above the published budget mainly reflects revisions in the annual and long service leave provisions, due to movements in the wage inflation and present value discount rates issued by DTF to calculate the present value of leave liabilities.
15. The variance above the published budget primarily relates to an upward land revaluation of 21% following the application of VGV’s land indices, in line with the requirements of FRD 103.
16. The variance below the published budget is primarily due to accumulated funds transfers from reserves in TAFEs being higher than expected.

Balance sheet as at 30 June 2022

Notes:

1. The variance above the published budget mainly reflects:
   • That schools' cash and deposits were higher than budget, primarily due to the published budget being established from June 2020 closing balances, which did not factor in increased operating cash surpluses earned during remote learning when schools had lower operational costs, due to reductions in running costs and the lower volume of onsite activities. In addition, timing differences in schools' payables balances, due to schools’ term break starting from the last week of June 2022, also contributed to higher than budgeted bank balances.
   • TAFEs' cash and deposits, which are higher than budget mainly due to timing of payments during the COVID-19 pandemic and timing of grants received.
2. The variance above the published budget is mainly due to the timing of the drawdown in the State Administrative Unit (SAU). The SAU balance is impacted by movement in the output appropriation surplus, other financial assets, payables and provisions.
3. The variance above the published budget mainly reflects the timing of receipts from corporate receivables, including international education student fees. This is partially offset by lower than budgeted TAFE debtors, due to timing of receivables for goods and services provided by third party organisations.
4. The variance above the published budget mainly reflects one day of prepaid salaries, due to timing differences between cash payment of salaries at 30 June 2022.
5. The variance below the published budget mainly reflects lower levels of inventory held for distribution in the ordinary course of TAFEs' business operations.
6. The variance above the published budget mainly reflects higher than anticipated departmental land held for sale.
7. The variance above the published budget mainly reflects an upward land revaluation of 21% for the 2021–22 managerial asset revaluation under FRD 103, and the continued implementation of the government's school capital program. The published budget, established in June 2020, does not incorporate asset revaluations, undertaken in both June 2021 and 2022.
8. The variance above the published budget mainly reflects increase in acquisition of software, offset by the software depreciation of the department and TAFEs.
9. The variance above the published budget mainly reflects higher than anticipated levels of biological assets held by TAFEs.
10. The variance above the published budget is mainly due to timing of schools’ payables for operating expenditures and TAFE student fees received in advance, offset by corporate payables, which are lower than published budget, due to timing of payments and reduction in accruals.
11. The variance above the published budget mainly reflects the higher than anticipated right‑of‑use lease liabilities for corporate, net of lower than anticipated right‑of‑use lease liabilities for TAFEs.
12. The variance below published budget mainly reflects the impact of the revised wages inflation rate and discount rate on the long service and annual leave liabilities, and timing of school holiday term on annual leave.
13. The variance above the published budget reflects the accumulated net results of operating balances and other economic flows.
14. The variance above the published budget mainly reflects an upward asset revaluation of 21% for the 2021–22 managerial asset revaluation under FRD 103. The published budget, established in June 2020, does not incorporate asset revaluations, undertaken in both June 2021 and 2022.
15. The variance below the published budget mainly reflects lower than budget capital appropriation claimed primarily due to revised implementation of capital programs into future years.

Statement of cash flows for the year ended 30 June 2022

Notes:

1. The variance below the published budget is largely driven by a reduction in demand for training and school programs, including for training subsidies, Free TAFE Fee Waivers and Concessions, Disability Inclusion, Doctors in Schools and Sanitary items in schools, as well as carryover requested into 2022–23 across State initiatives and Commonwealth initiatives. The carryover includes state initiatives such as air purification and shade sails for schools, Non-Government Schools Infrastructure Fund, 2020–21 Building Better TAFEs Fund, Essential Maintenance and Compliance, and Minor Capital Works Fund. This also includes the Commonwealth initiative, Preschool Reform Agreement.
2. The variance below the published budget primarily relates to lower than anticipated collection of school and TAFE own‑sourced revenue, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and Stage 4 restrictions during the first half of 2021–22.
3. The variance below the published budget is mainly due to schools earning lower interest revenue than anticipated.
4. d. The variance below the published budget primarily relates to TAFE fees for services. The published budget TAFE fees for services figures did not account for the severity of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021 and the ongoing impacts in 2022.
5. The variance below the published budget is primarily due to capital re-phases approved by the Treasurer into the forward years that were only approved as part of the 2022–23 Budget. The rephase of these capital initiatives have flow on effects to depreciation expenditure. These include the Minor Capital Works Fund, New Schools Construction and Education plans, Ready for school: kinder for every three-year-old, the Relocatable buildings program and Upgrades and Modernisation.
6. The variance below the published budget primarily reflects lower salary expenditure, due to marginally lower enrolments in government schools in 2021–22 than expected. This reduction was driven by the continuing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic into 2021, which was not factored in as part of the 2021–22 Budget. This is also driven by revised delivery timelines, where funding was rephased into future years for maintenance‑related programs and schools incurring less maintenance expenditure than expected.
7. The variance below the published budget is mainly driven by lower than budgeted interest lease expense on right‑of‑use assets.
8. The variance above the published budget is primarily driven by gain in equity investments in TAFEs, but is partially offset by TAFEs recognising a share of profits from joint ventures, which was not reflected in the published budget.
9. The variance below the published budget primarily relates to rephases approved by the Treasurer into the forward years mainly due to COVID-related impacts on the school construction program. These include: Upgrades and Modernisation, Minor Capital Works Fund, Land acquisition, Ready for school: kinder for every three-year-old, New Schools construction and education plans, and the Relocatable buildings program 2021–22. This is also driven by carryover requested into 2022–23. This includes initiatives such as Upgrades and Modernisation, New Schools Construction, Land acquisition and Ready for school: kinder for every three-year-old.
10. The variance above the published budget is primarily due to higher than anticipated proceeds from the sale of vehicles and equipment.
11. The variance below the published budget mainly reflects loans provided to other parties.
12. The variance below the published budget mainly reflects lower than budget capital appropriation claimed primarily due to revised implementation of capital programs into future years.
13. The variance below the published budget primarily relates to lower than budgeted right‑of‑use lease repayments.
14. The variance above the published budget primarily relates to the net movement in public account advances with DTF.
15. The variance above the published budget relates to revisions in opening balances from published budget to actual closing balances on 30 June 2022.

Statement of changes in equity for the year ending 30 June 2022

Notes:

1. The variance in revaluation surplus above the published budget relates to an upward land revaluation of 21%, following the application of the VGV's land indices, in line with the requirements of FRD 103 for the revaluation surplus. The variance in accumulated surplus above the published budget reflects the accumulated net results of operating balances and other economic flows.
2. The variance below the published budget mainly reflects lower than budget capital appropriation claimed primarily due to revised implementation of capital programs into future years.

Administered items statement for the year ending 30 June 2022

Notes:

1. The variance below the published budget primarily relates to the department's fees for services that are accessed as section 29 appropriation, in particular overseas student program fees, which are lower due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on international students.
2. The variance above the published budget primarily relates to higher than budgeted Commonwealth Quality Schools funding for non-government schools.
3. The variance above the published budget primarily relates to an insurance settlement received and subsequently on-passed to a school.
4. The variance above the published budget primarily relates to the on-passing of the Commonwealth funding explained in Note (b).
5. The variance below the published budget is driven primarily by the return to the SAU.
6. f. The variance below the published budget primarily relates to a net loss of value of buildings and land sold, slightly offset by gross proceeds of sale of land and accumulated depreciation of assets sold.
7. The variance above the published budget is due to higher‑than‑expected receivables from the Department of Justice and Community Safety for settlement payments or court‑ordered payments, pursuant to section 26 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1958, and contribution from councils.
8. The variance above the published budget reflects the timing of Commonwealth grants to be on-passed to non-government schools.

Children’s Services Coordination Board

The Children’s Services Coordination Board was established in 2005 under the Child Wellbeing and Safety Act 2005 and supports the coordination of government actions relating to children. The board reports annually to the Minister for Education, the Minister for Early Childhood and Pre-Prep, the Minister for Health, and the Minister for Child Protection and Family Services. These reports draw on data from the Victorian child and adolescent monitoring system. The department provides secretariat support to the Board.

The Children’s Services Coordination Board met one time in 2021–22. Members are shown below.

Children’s Services Coordination Board members as at 30 June 2022

Victorian Children’s Council

The Victorian Children’s Council was established under the Child Wellbeing and Safety Act. The council supports the Premier and Ministers for Education, Early Childhood and Pre-Prep, Health, and Child Protection and Family Services, with expert independent advice relating to policies and services that enhance the health, wellbeing, development and safety of children.

Council members are recognised experts in children’s policies and services, and are selected as individuals, not as representatives of their organisations or sectors. The council’s mandate is to be forward-looking, acting as an adviser to the Victorian Government on how to meet key challenges facing Victorian families and improve outcomes for children. The council is particularly concerned with the problems faced by children who are vulnerable and at risk of poor developmental, learning or longer-term life outcomes.

The council actively engages with the Victorian Government in planning to help families give children the best start in life, supporting young people in the transition to adulthood. It is involved in helping Victorian Government departments build a stronger evidence base and understanding of how to improve child outcomes and opportunities.

The council met 6 times in 2021–22, with additional working group meetings as needed. The department provides secretariat support to the Victorian Children’s Council.

Victorian Children’s Council members as at 30 June 2022

Disciplinary Appeals Boards

The Disciplinary Appeals Boards were established in 2005 following an amendment to the Teaching Service Act 1981. They hear and determine appeals in relation to decisions of the Secretary of the Department of Education and Training made under sections 2.4.59F, 2.4.61 and 2.4.61A of the Education and Training Reform Act. Each Disciplinary Appeals Board comprises a chairperson, a secretary’s nominee and a minister’s nominee.

The Disciplinary Appeals Boards had 2 appeals pending as at 1 July 2021 and received a further 6 appeals by 30 June 2022.

The Senior Chairperson of the Merit Protection Boards administers the Disciplinary Appeals Boards and selects members to the boards as required. The Merit Protection Boards’ staff provide administrative support to the Disciplinary Appeals Boards.

Chairpersons, nominated by the secretary, were appointed under sections 2.4.73(2)(a) and 2.4.74 of the Education and Training Reform Act. Chairpersons must have been admitted to legal practice in Victoria for a minimum of 5 years. Chairpersons of the Disciplinary Appeals Boards are shown in the table below.

Chairpersons of the Disciplinary Appeals Boards from 1 August 2020

• Mr Richard Besley
• Ms Catherine Healy
• Mr Ian Scott
• Dr Peter Condliffe
• Mr William O’Shea
• Mr Peter Harris
• Ms Paula Robinson

Secretary’s nominees, who have knowledge and experience in education, education administration or public sector administration, were appointed under sections 2.4.73(2)(c) and 2.4.74 of the Education and Training Reform Act. Secretary’s nominees are shown below.

Secretary’s nominees to the Disciplinary Appeals Boards from 1 August 2020

• Ms Claire Bolster
• Ms Marilyn McMahon
• Mr Brendan White
• Ms Moira Findlay
• Mr Peter Norden
• Mr Darren Youngs
• Dr Richard Gould
• Mr Brian O’Dea

Minister’s nominees, who are officers in the teaching service, were appointed under sections 2.4.73(2)(b) and 2.4.74 of the Education and Training Reform Act. Minister’s nominees are shown below.

Minister’s nominees to the Disciplinary Appeals Boards from 1 August 2020

• Ms Rhonda Warburton

Minister’s nominees to the Disciplinary Appeals Boards from 20 October 2020

• Ms Robyn Anderson
• Ms Leonie Fitzgerald
• Mr Nicolas Ryan
• Mr Daryl Bennett
• Ms Samantha Fleming
• Ms Susan Seneviratne
• Ms Rachel Carlyon
• Mr Paul Newson
• Ms Larissa Field
• Mr George Porter

Appointments are for 5 years. The next appointments are scheduled for August 2025.

Merit Protection Boards

The Merit Protection Boards and Review of Action Boards provide an independent mechanism to hear appeals and grievances of employees of the department and associated education and training statutory authorities.

The Merit Protection Boards were established in 1993 under the Teaching Service Act. They are currently empowered by the Education and Training Reform Act to:

• advise the Minister for Education about principles of merit and equity to be applied in the teaching service
• hear reviews and appeals in relation to decisions made under the Education and Training Reform Act (except proceedings under Divisions 9A or 10 of Part 2.4) or other acts
• advise the minister or the secretary about referred matters relating to merit and equity in the teaching service
• hear reviews and appeals relating to decisions prescribed by the regulations or Ministerial Order
• hear reviews and appeals on behalf of the secretary, if the secretary has delegated their function or power to a Merit Protection Board.

The Senior Chairperson, Mr Steve Metcalfe, is a full-time member of the Merit Protection Boards. Ms June Weir is the Registrar for the Boards and there are 2 administrative officers who support their work.

Access to the Merit Protection Boards is available to public service employees of the department and members of the teaching service, including principals, teachers and school-based non-teaching staff. Appeals and grievances may relate to transfer and promotion, leave, change of time fraction of working hours, outcomes of performance reviews, outcomes of local complaints, translation from fixed term to ongoing employment and other personnel management decisions. Appeals and grievances may have previously been heard in the metropolitan area or regional centres. During 2021–22 appeals and grievances were heard online as a consequence of the COVID-19 impact.

Grievances of the department lodged by VPS staff are heard by a Review of Action Board. The Senior Chairperson establishes the Review of Action Boards, which make recommendations to the secretary of the department. In the event that the Senior Chairperson does not sit on the Review of Action Board, the Board makes a recommendation to the Senior Chairperson, who in turn makes the recommendation to the secretary.

Members of the Merit Protection and Review of Action Boards have a duty to act as individuals in an independent and objective manner in fairly hearing and determining appeals and grievances. The hearing procedures of both boards are consistent with the principles of procedural fairness.

Members are appointed for 3 years. The next appointments are scheduled for September 2022.

Chairpersons of the Merit Protection Boards from 22 September 2019

• Ms Alison Murphy (Senior Chairperson, full-time) [1]
• Ms Meagan Cook
• Ms Sandra Greenhill
• Ms Rowena Archer
• Mr Rick Gervasoni [2]
• Mr Vernon Hilditch

Chairpersons of the Merit Protection Boards from 4 October 2021

• Mr Steve Metcalfe (Senior Chairperson, full-time)

Secretary’s nominees to the Merit Protection Boards from 22 September 2019

• Ms Rowena Archer
• Mr Graham Friedman
• Mr George Porter
• Ms Clare Berger
• Ms Sandra Greenhill
• Ms Paula Robinson
• Dr Mary Cannon
• Mr Andrew Harnett
• Ms Glenda Splatt
• Mr Christopher Chant
• Mr Peter Hibbins
• Mr Timothy Wall
• Mr Jason Coningsby
• Ms Sally Lasslett
• Ms Jane Warren
• Ms Meagan Cook
• Ms Julia McKean
• Mr Brendan White
• Dr David Finnerty
• Ms Gillian Oscar

Minister’s nominees to the Merit Protection Boards from 22 September 2019

• Mr Steven Adams
• Ms Rebekah Fewkes [3]
• Mr Douglas Lunt
• Ms Tanya Burton
• Ms Moira Findlay
• Ms Natalie Harvey-Nelson
• Ms Rachel Carlyon
• Mr Rick Gervasoni
• Ms Leanne Preece
• Mr Nathan Chisholm
• Ms Karen Harris
• Mr Edward Strain
• Ms Michelle Costa
• Mr Matthew McKittrick
• Ms Rhonda Warburton
• Ms Penelope Ellis
• Mr Vernon Hilditch
• Mr Aaron Wolaniuk
• Ms Janet Evison
• Ms Susan Mattingley

Appeals and grievances

Appeals and grievances

Word 19.98 KB

(opens in a new window)

Merit protection training

It is a requirement that all departmental recruitment and promotion selection panels include a merit-trained employee as a member. To facilitate this, the Merit Protection Boards provide training in the principles of merit and equity for teaching service and public service staff.

The training programs are conducted statewide. In 2021–22, training was delivered online, 37 seminars were conducted, and training was provided for 1,072 teaching service and public service staff.

Number of employees trained by region [6] (includes re‑accreditation)

Other activities

The Merit Protection Boards provided advice to the department on merit and equity issues relating to major policy initiatives in response to requests, as well as advice when existing policies and procedures were being reviewed.

The Senior Chairperson accepted invitations to address groups of principals about the workings of the Merit Protection Boards.

Information about appeal and grievance processes and merit protection accreditation programs is available on the Merit Protection Boards’ website at www.mpb.vic.gov.au.

Independent Office for School Dispute Resolution

The Independent Office for School Dispute Resolution (the Office) has 2 primary responsibilities.

The first responsibility is to help resolve continuing complex and intractable disputes arising from complaints by parents or students about government schools.

The Office strengthens the existing complaints resolution process of the department by offering an alternative third tier of escalation, which operates from an independent perspective. The Office helps affected parties whose complaints have not been resolved at the school or regional level to generate a mutually acceptable resolution, so that a student can re-engage with the education system, and effective working relationships among parents and schools can be rebuilt. If resolution is not possible, the Office may make recommendations for resolution to the department about the specific complaint, or make general recommendations about managing similar conflicts more effectively.

The second responsibility is to help build the complaint management and resolution capability of the Victorian education system.

The Office accomplishes this through a variety of programs that focus on developing communication, relationship management and conflict resolution skills, as well as recommending systemic changes, commenting on policy initiatives and maintaining stakeholder engagement.

During its fifth year of operation, the Office worked on serious and time‑consuming matters that, in its view, have been exacerbated by the impact of COVID-19 on schools and the community. In particular, the Office notes that many people in all parts of the education community are extremely anxious and exhausted: there is reduced resilience and emotional capacity, resulting in a high degree of reactivity, while conflicts flare quickly and unexpectedly, and escalate easily. While the number of complaint referrals have not changed significantly, the Office notes that individual cases now seem to require more time and resources than in previous years, and that many cases contain elements that resist lasting resolution. Some cases therefore become exercises in conflict management (rather than resolution) for all involved, and the Office helps to establish a framework that requires some continuing level of input and monitoring to keep all parties able to function for the benefit of the student’s education. There is a possibility that this situation will continue for some time, meaning careful attention needs to be paid to the Office’s role and resources in order to maintain its effectiveness and responsiveness at its current benchmark.

In response to the current context and in accordance with the Office’s Strategic Plan, it has also:

• increased the availability of conflict coaching work offered to departmental staff (including schools and regions) to avoid challenging situations from becoming full blown formal complaints
• updated and refined the material and format of our suite of capability building programs to deliver both online and in-person training
• commenced development of a new website that will in part become a resource for the parent/carer community about the Office’s work
• provided the department with commentary and consultation on a variety of complaint‑management‑related policies and initiatives. In particular, the Office has commented on the Community Safety Order initiative, and has commenced resourcing and planning for its potential impact on the Office’s resources
• completed and executed an update to the memorandum of understanding between the Office and the department
• maintained its outreach to stakeholders across the education community. Although there has been a significant change in leadership roles in stakeholder groups, the new leaders remain intensely interested in reducing and resolving conflict in the education system.

As noted last year, the Office now uses the term ‘capability building’ for all skill development work not related to specific situations, and the term ‘conflict coaching’ for work with specific individuals, schools or regions. This work is undertaken for situations that are unusual in complexity or seriousness, but where no specific complaint currently exists. Conflict coaching continues to be welcomed at all levels of the department to prevent problems from escalating.

The Office completed a significant portion of the work set out in last year’s Strategic Plan. The foundation set of programs, intended to raise the general capability of departmental staff at the regional level and the capability of principals at the school level, is being expanded and delivered in-person, which is a far superior delivery mode for skill development. Also, at the request of department divisions, additional programs are being rolled out and advanced skill work for some cohorts is currently in development.

The Strategic Plan is being updated and initiatives are being set for the 2022–23 financial year.

The Office has been working with reduced staffing for the last 2 years, after the departure of one of the Deputy Chairs to a senior role in the mental health and disability sectors. The Office did not immediately request a replacement Deputy Chair, as managing COVID-19 related issues were clearly a higher priority for the attention of Cabinet and the Office was able to function by relying more heavily on the current Deputy Chair’s efforts, and with increased support from the Registrar.

In the coming year, the Office will ask Cabinet and the department for the resources and support to accomplish 2 goals of:

• the appointment of a second part-time Deputy Chair to ensure sufficient case management capacity
• the establishment of a panel of consultants with advanced expertise in narrative coaching, process psychology and restorative practice, who can be called on to work on cases where entrenched attitudes and behaviours in the parent/carer and/or school leadership are barriers to resolution.

Accomplishment of these goals will allow more of the Chair’s time and the Office’s resources to go to capability building, policy and systemic change, and working with the education community to support longer lasting and fundamental improvements to conflict management in the education system. These improvements will reduce the negative impacts of conflict, and reduce the burnout and exhaustion that leads to early departures and loss of expertise and resources. This helps re-build the capacity of, and confidence in, the Victorian public education system – outcomes that the Office strives to support.

Chair and Deputy Chair of the Independent Office for School Dispute Resolution

Matter types by source of contact and Outcome of matters received

Matter types by source of contact and Outcome of matters received

Word 18.75 KB

(opens in a new window)

Enquiry and refer and monitor: Topics

Complaints: primary issues [11]

Victorian Skills Authority

The VSA was established by the Governor‑in‑Council under Section 11 of the Public Administration Act as an Administrative Office in relation to the Department of Education and Training, effective 1 July 2021.

The VSA is directly responsible to the Minister for Training and Skills for the general conduct and the effective, efficient and economical management of the functions and activities of the VSA. The CEO of the VSA, as Administrative Office Head, is responsible to the minister for carrying out the VSA’s functions, and to the secretary of the department in relation to the general conduct of the VSA and the effective, efficient and economical management of the functions and activities of the VSA.

VSA functions

The establishment of the VSA represents a stronger focus on local skills and training needs, with the VSA working closely with stakeholders across the sector to broker relationships, drive collaboration and share expert advice, to improve the sector within the policy and funding settings set by government. The VSA will deliver on this mandate across 4 workstreams as shown in the following table.

VSA workstreams

VSA Advisory Board

The Minister for Training and Skills established the VSA Advisory Board under section 5.2.10 of the Education and Training Reform Act in October 2021 to advise her and the VSA on the strategic direction and long-term performance of the Victorian training system, including input to the development of the Victorian Skills Plan.

The VSA Advisory Board met 5 times in 2021–22. The VSA provides secretariat support to the VSA Advisory Board.

VSA Advisory Board members as at 30 June 2022

VSA OHS and Worker’s compensation

The VSA’s OHS and workers’ compensation statistics are included in the department’s OHS and workers’ compensation figures. This does not include responses against the People Matter survey, which are outlined separately below.

People Matter survey results

VSA comparative workforce data

Grants provide significant benefits to the Victorian community. Department grants support and improve the delivery of education and training services.

The department has a rigorous grants policy in place to ensure that all staff, including contractors and consultants, who are responsible for administering grants, act in accordance with legislative obligations, and that all payments represent value for money and contribute to achieving the department’s objectives.

Applying the definition of grants used in the Victorian Auditor-General’s report, Grants to Non-Government Organisations: Improving Accountability, the table below lists the department’s 2021–22 grant payments. This table excludes grants to other organisations, which are included in the broader definition applied in the financial statements and notes to the financial statements to meet applicable AAS (see Note 3.1.2).

Department grant and transfer payments by activity