Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am quite happy to do that, but I actually thought the member opposite would be supportive of the comments that I was making and would like to see Australia’s educational reputation enhanced. I thought that this would be a prime opportunity to mention some of the issues that have been highlighted in the media recently. But, as the member opposite obviously is not supportive of Australia’s international education reputation or the need for us to provide quality education within this country, I am quite happy to return to the other aspects of this legislation, go through it schedule by schedule and point by point and ensure that the member opposite listens to my contribution for a full 20 minutes. I hope that people in his electorate, where I know there are a number of people who are concerned about this issue, are aware of his blatant disregard for the quality of vocational education and of the education that is provided to students from overseas. I might add that it is not only overseas students whom this legislation is addressing.

Under the current arrangements, items 16 to 25(c), which I am sure the member opposite is quite familiar with, and 6(d) of schedule 1A of the HESA require that all applicants demonstrate that they have met the requirement to have tuition assurance arrangements in place and that they make their application for approval as a higher education or VET provider. Given the Rudd government’s commitment to an education revolution, to quality education and to ensuring that we do not have VET organisations going belly up, as they have been doing around Australia, this is a very important amendment to the existing legislation. The member opposite may be quite supportive of institutions being able to provide training without going through the proper process—he may be happy with the situation as it exists at the moment—but we on this side are not. We want to have quality arrangements and quality requirements in place, and we want to ensure that the approval process takes place in a proper fashion.

As I was saying, the process of application for approval as a higher education VET provider can result in delays in the application assessment and approval process as well as imposing an additional financial burden on the applicant well before they are approved as a provider and are beginning to offer assistance to students. The Rudd government recognises that this can be a problem. We do not move away from that requirement to ensure that there is a quality process in place. This amendment will allow applicants additional time to put tuition assurance arrangements in place. Also, they will not be required to demonstrate they have met the requirements unless and until they have met all the conditions, being the other conditions associated with the application process. The decision to approve an application will still be contingent upon the fulfilment of the tuition assurance requirements. Legislative instruments under both schemes will be amended to provide further direction to applicants regarding this obligation.

The bill provides for a new proposed section 11(2)(b), as I am sure the member opposite would be aware and would welcome, in schedule 1A of the Higher Education Support Act. This is to allow for the minister or her delegate to be satisfied that an application for VET provider approval meets one or all of the VET quality and accountability requirements. I think it is important that I state here that we on this side of the House are very committed to accountability. We on this side of the House believe in transparency. We on this side of the House believe in consultation. All of this has taken place in relation to this piece of legislation. I know that when the opposition was in power that was not always the case.

If a body identified in the VET provider guidelines makes a recommendation to the minister or her delegate, amendments will be made to the scheme’s legislative instrument to identify relevant national, state or territory registration and accreditation agencies able to make such recommendations for the purpose of the VET provider approval process. It was my understanding that the opposition was quite supportive of these changes to the legislation. I sincerely hope that the member opposite, the member for Mitchell, is going to stand up and support this legislation. I would be very disappointed if he did not show the same level of support for this legislation as he is obviously showing for overseas students. I would like to think that he was a bit more committed to Australia’s educational reputation and a bit more committed to ensuring that Australia actually excels in that area. But I am sure that he will have an excuse for not being as supportive as he should be.

Under the current arrangements there is no discretion for the minister or her delegate to accept recommendations for the purpose of making decisions to approve an application. This bill is all about making the legislation more workable. It is all about making the VET system more responsive to the needs of those people who actually need action, the students who are trained through the VET system. I think that should be embraced. There is currently no provision for the minister to rely on the outcomes of processes conducted by national or state regulatory agencies when making her decision, and it is pretty disgraceful that the minister cannot rely on these processes.

This bill has such a sensible approach and brings much-needed change. I believe it will also stop duplication. These amendments will allow for a more streamlined VET provider assessment process, and I think that is what everybody involved in the VET area would like to see: a streamlined process that will benefit those providers, that will benefit the students, that will benefit us as a nation and that will benefit industry. The bill creates administrative efficiencies, and those administrative efficiencies will be accompanied by processes that lead to efficiencies within the course. There will be better courses and better outcomes and, when the legislation reduces costs and duplication between the Commonwealth VET provider application process and those processes administered by national and state based agencies, it will be a good outcome for all.

The amendments are aimed at encouraging a greater number of quality registered training organisations. This will be very beneficial. I state once again for the benefit of my colleague the member for Melbourne Ports, who is in the chamber, that Victoria will also be included in the process. I know that he embraces that, welcomes that and is very keen to see it happen. Applications will be assessed more quickly and will provide students with access to FEE-HELP assistance sooner—and that is what it is about: encouraging students to undertake VET retraining and ensuring that they have the fee assistance that they need and that they can access the courses that they need very quickly so they can get the skills they need to re-enter the workforce and are suitably qualified and that we in Australia have a skilled workforce. We recognise that there have been problems with a skill shortage in Australia. Unlike any members of the previous government, I think this legislation will help in a number of ways—(Time expired)

See this speech in context