Current VET Data Analysis 

Vocational education and training (VET) is an essential post-school pathway in Australia, and national data give VET providers a way to examine access and outcomes for students with disability. However, students with disability are recorded in VET data at a lower rate than population data would suggest, and students and graduates who are recorded with disability continue to have lower completion and employment outcomes than students without disability.

The datasets use different populations, definitions and collection methods, and VET disability data depend on students choosing to disclose disability, impairment or a long-term condition. Even so, these differences are substantial and should prompt national and provider level analysis and response. The size and persistence of the gap should encourage providers to look closely at their own data, disclosure processes, reasonable adjustment pathways, completion patterns and transition-to-employment supports.

In 2024, students with disability represented 4.0% of domestic VET students aged 15–64 in the Australia’s Disability Strategy indicator. By comparison, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) reported that 21.4% of Australians had disability in 2022, including 15.7% of people aged 15–64. The Strategy measure has not improved against its own baseline or the population: it was 4.4% in 2021 and remains 4.0% in 2024. Outcomes show the same broad concern. For qualifications that were commenced in 2020, the 4-year completion rate for students with a disability was 40.9%. For students without a disability this was 49.1%. In 2025, 57.0% of VET graduates with disability were employed after training, compared with 78.1% of graduates without disability.^[1]

Participation

In 2024, 5.1 million students participated in nationally recognised VET in Australia, a 1.8% increase from 2023. National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER) reporting identified 196,610 students with disability, representing 3.8% of all nationally recognised VET students.^[2][3]

Table 1: Key participation measures

The participation gap is best read as a prompt for local inquiry, not as a simple prevalence comparison. VET disability data are based on self-identification. Students may not disclose because they do not see a reason to, do not know what support is available, are concerned about stigma, or are not asked in a clear and accessible way. The ABS population figures still matter because they show that disability is common across the working age population, and they are also self-report data. Providers can use the national gap as a reason to check whether enrolment forms, student communications, support referral points and staff responses make disclosure safe, useful and timely.^[4]

Participation also varies by what state students live in. In the 2024 Strategy indicator, the share of domestic VET students aged 15–64 with disability ranged from 3.2% in the Northern Territory to 5.9% in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). Tasmania was 5.4%, South Australia 4.4%, Victoria 4.3%, New South Wales (NSW) 4.1%, Queensland 4.1% and Western Australia 3.7%. Note that NCVER cautions that 2024 NSW figures are likely overstated because of reporting issues, and jurisdictional rates can also be shaped by course mix, reporting practice and local student populations.^[5]

Table 2: Participation by jurisdiction

Subgroup patterns are useful for reflection at provider level. In 2024, students with disability represented 5.4% of domestic VET students aged 15–24, 3.1% of those aged 25–44 and 4.0% of those aged 45–64. The reported rate was 9.2% for First Nations students and 4.2% for non-Indigenous students. By gender, the reported rate was 3.6% for males, 4.5% for females and 17.2% for students whose gender was reported as another gender. These differences should be treated carefully because 11.8% of VET students aged 15-64 years reported a ‘Not known’ disability status. For providers, the practical question is whether local patterns show groups who may be disclosing at very different rates, accessing support at different points, or experiencing different completion outcomes.^[6]

Among students who identified disability, the most commonly reported disability groups in the 2024 AIHW participation data were mental illness, medical condition, learning disability and other disability.^[7]

Qualification levels and provider types

By level of education, students with disability were more strongly represented in lower Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) levels, with the important caveat that students could be undertaking training at more than one level of education within a given year in VET (For example, undertaking an RSA and also enrolling in a Cert III.). In 2024, students with disability accounted for 11.6% of Certificate I students and 7.0% of Certificate II students. The share was lower at Diploma level (3.9%), Advanced Diploma level (1.6%) and Graduate Diploma level (0.4%). Certificate III had the largest absolute count of students with disability, at 54,350. Non-AQF level training recorded 104,645 students with disability, but it should be read separately because it includes training outside AQF qualification levels. For providers, these patterns can support practical questions about foundation skills, course pathways, adjustment planning and whether students with disability are progressing into higher-level qualifications at expected rates.^[8]

Table 3: Students with disability by level of education, 2024

Looking at the VET data by provider type shows differences in rates of student disclosure in TAFE and university vs. private providers. Private training providers recorded the largest absolute count of students with disability, with 118,615 in 2024, reflecting their scale in the VET system. As a share of students within each provider type, however, students with disability represented 8.2% of TAFE institute students and 7.2% of university delivered VET students, compared with 2.9% of private training provider students. This does not show that one provider type is better or worse for students with disability. It may reflect differences in course mix, student profile, disclosure practice, reporting practice and support pathways. It does suggest that provider type is worth considering when reviewing local participation and support data.^[9]

Table 4: Students with disability by provider type, 2024

Training type also varies. In 2024, students with disability made up 8.1% of students in accredited qualifications, 5.3% in training package qualifications, 5.2% in accredited courses, 3.6% in training package skill sets and 2.7% in subjects not delivered as part of a nationally recognised program. These are category specific shares, not mutually exclusive proportions of all students with disability. For providers, the more useful question is whether students with disability are concentrated in certain training types and, if so, whether that reflects student choice, available support, course design, entry pathways or barriers to progression.^[10]

Table 5: Students with disability by type of training, 2024

For whole system context, in 2024 approximately 5.1 million students enrolled in nationally recognised VET, 2.2 million students were enrolled in nationally recognised VET programs, and 3.6 million students were enrolled in subjects not delivered as part of a nationally recognised program.^[11]

Student outcomes

NCVER’s National Student Outcomes Survey reports outcomes and satisfaction for students who undertook nationally recognised VET in 2024 and were surveyed in 2025. For qualification completers overall, 86.7% achieved their main reason for training, 62.4% improved their employment status and 89.3% were satisfied with the training overall in 2025.^[12]

The disability specific indicators show continuing gaps. For the 2020 commencing cohort the 4-year completion rate for VET students with disability was 40.9%, compared with 49.1% of students without disability. AIHW notes that these completion rates use a new, more extensive dataset and should not be compared with older released completion rate series.^[13]

In 2025, 45.1% of VET graduates with disability had an improved employment status after training, compared with 62.4% of all students. Of VET graduates with disability, 57.0% were employed after training, compared with 75.7% of all students.^[14]

Employment outcomes also vary by disability group. In 2025, employment after training ranged from 65.7% for graduates who identified as hearing or deaf to 42.8% for graduates with intellectual disability. For organisational review, providers could consider asking whether course design, work placements, assessment arrangements, job-readiness activities and employer engagement are working well for students with different support needs.^[15]

Overall, the data should be used as a starting point for improvement rather than as a stand-alone judgement about any provider. A practical review would look at how and when students are invited to disclose disability, whether disclosure leads to timely adjustments, whether students with disability are concentrated in particular courses or qualification levels, and whether completion, withdrawal and employment outcomes differ from those of other students. Reviews could also consider how services are designed and integrated into the student lifecycle, and whether the services are remedying the barriers students face. The national data do not explain why the gaps exist, but they do make clear that participation, completion and post-training outcomes for students with disability should be part of routine VET quality and equity review.

Page updated May 2026