Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I want to pick up on that last point about the various educational pathways to be achieved by, hopefully, many young people and students in Australia. I have just come from a meeting with two 18-year-olds, Heidi Pett and Jess O’Callaghan, from Port Macquarie, both of whom have taken time away from three part-time jobs to come to Canberra to express their concern about some of the changes contained in the budget, post-Bradley, with regard to, in particular, the independence test in the Youth Allowance.

Picking up on the point of the previous speaker, many people choose many different pathways to tertiary education and to qualifications generally. But I sincerely hope the language from the government of the last 12 months in regard to an education revolution includes very much the concept, the belief and the practice of keeping as many pathways as possible open, including those for students who have the impediment of geography by being based in regional and rural Australia. I do not make that point lightly. The comparative statistics in regard to people who access tertiary education for the mid-North Coast New South Wales, my electorate, are not good. The statistics roughly equate to one in six people on the mid-North Coast having tertiary qualifications compared to the state average in New South Wales of one in three.

We have a fundamental issue of disadvantage that I hope the government, in its language over the last 12 months under the broad banner of an education revolution, is aware of and wanting to address. I certainly hope that we work through the broad changes post the Bradley review and post the budget response from government. We are now dealing with a range of students and potential students who are raising concerns on a number of issues. I hope the government communicates actively with them and work through the issues that they face. If there are issues genuinely raised that are further structural impediments to students from my region and other regions of New South Wales in accessing university and choosing pathways then I would hope the government addresses those issues and feels not one grain of guilt in changing some of the responses contained in the post-Bradley period that we live in.

In a lot of ways, I think, it will be a test of the education revolution language to see over the coming weeks and months how the government, the executive and the minister in particular, engage with a group of people who have left school and who have been caught in this retrospective trap of public policy in regard to the independence test for the youth allowance. If there is poor engagement on that front, any of the language we have heard from government over the past 12 to 18 months starts to look very hollow. If there is good engagement, if it is communication and if it is working through the changed eligibility criteria then certainly it would renew and restore my faith, and the faith of many 18-year-olds on the mid-North Coast and right through regional and rural Australia, that the government are serious about lifting the standard of education in this nation.

That links into the issue before us in regard to the Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP and Providers) Bill 2009. FEE-HELP is a loan given to eligible fee-paying students to help pay part or all of their tuition fees. The government pays the amount of the loan directly to the student’s provider. Students repay their loan through the tax system once their income is above the minimum threshold for compulsory repayment, otherwise to be known as ICLs, or income contingency loans.

The bill makes amendments to access to VET FEE-HELP and also to regulate the providers of vocational education and training. That second point is, I think, a point of reflection for all of us as we move to an era, like it or not, of full contestability within the vocational education and training sector. There are costs and benefits that come with that era and with regulating providers, whether they are registered training organisations or one of the many different forms that we now have for vocational education and training. I think there is a need to keep a very close eye from a public policy point of view on the regulatory environment and the role that government and ministers play in ensuring quality is not diminished as we enter this new era. The bill also clarifies that a student cannot access the VET FEE-HELP assistance to undertake a VET unit of study unless that VET unit of study is required to be undertaken in order for the student to receive the award associated with that course of study.

A new requirement is that a body corporate must offer at least one VET course of study before the minister may approve that body as a VET provider. The minister can revoke the approval of a body corporate as a VET provider if that body corporate no longer offers at least one VET course of study, is no longer established under Australian law, no longer carries on business in Australia or no longer has its central management control in Australia. It also provides that notices of approval for higher education and VET providers take effect on the day immediately following the day the relevant notice is registered on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments. Where a notice of approval ceases to have effect the cessation has no affect in relation to any rights or responsibilities which have already accrued in relation to the enrolment of students with a higher education or VET provider.

The effects of the bill are that these amendments provide what we consider appropriate protections for the minister and the Commonwealth as we enter this new era. The present amendment mirrors those made to higher education providers in 2007 and brings consistency to the rules relating to higher education FEE-HELP and VET FEE-HELP assistance schemes. The amendments ensure that higher education and VET providers will be able to offer FEE-HELP or VET FEE-HELP assistance to students immediately following the registration of their approval as a provider. Therefore it speeds up access to higher education FEE-HELP and VET FEE-HELP. Due to previous reforms a broader range of providers can seek access to these loans. These amendments should, I hope, speed up access to the loans, therefore a greater protection by way of the revocation of providers is an obvious consequence.

As far as local issues are concerned, I have just spoken about a couple of very impressive 18-year-olds who are down here this week engaging with government and lobbying about their concerns, the concerns of their colleagues and, as we all could argue, what is in the best public interest for the nation for the future. The particular amendment speeds up access to VET FEE-HELP for local vocational education and training students undertaking courses by a newly approved provider, and anything that improves access within what is a complex area for people who are not engaged in the public policy process can only be a good thing. It limits the availability of FEE-HELP to courses that are required or essential to be taken for the student to achieve the award. That is something we will continue to watch and monitor. It certainly broadens the minister’s powers for revocation of providers. Whenever public policy gives discretion in any form to a minister or an executive, I would hope that this place would maintain an ongoing watching brief on those discretionary powers—in this case, increased discretionary powers of a minister.

These amendments support the implementation of the policy agenda for income contingency loans established in other legislation so, in isolation, they are unlikely to be controversial and therefore, from my point of view, are certainly not to be opposed. However, the global issue of the moment is the way students and potential students are reading the post-Bradley, post-budget environment provided by government and therefore weighing up their education pathways for the future. Given the amount of change that has taken place and is taking place, I would leave government with this message from my region. There is a need for greater communication and engagement on the concepts underlying a lot of the changes that are taking place and on the detail with regard to individual, personal and family circumstances as to what would have been accessible from a lower SES regional environment such as mine in the previous environment compared with what I think is the common goal of trying to broaden access for more people in a region such as mine. While the theory and the principles behind it are sound, and the language is sound with regard to an education revolution and trying to lift the general standard of education within the nation, it is the practice of the moment that is challenging a lot of people.

The government needs to stay earnest and engaged with the many people who are grappling with the changes, who are trying to understand the reasons for them and are struggling to do the maths on their personal circumstances, which in many ways will make the decision for them as to whether or not they access vocational education and training or other tertiary education. I would hope everyone in this chamber fundamentally agrees with the principle of trying to get as many students as possible into tertiary education in all its forms. Whether it is vocational education, university or whatever, we are trying to encourage people to engage in education pathways and to put some meat on the bones with regard to length of stay in education. That length of stay in education principle affects us in terms of employment or unemployment, lifestyle, self-knowledge and awareness, wellness—the whole suite of issues that confront this nation. Education is the meal ticket. I think the government has picked it up. I would hope this is part of that response. I just earnestly ask the government to stay engaged in this period when a lot of reform has been dropped on local communities. There is a lot of concern, some of it right and some of wrong, within communities about the direction of government and the implications of the post-Bradley period. I do not oppose this bill.

See this speech in context