Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Higher Education Support Amendment (No. 1) Bill 2011 is an important bill. We on this side are broadly supportive of the intent of this bill, as are the Labor Party, which seeks to extend the operation of the Higher Education Support Act 2003, ensuring that quality vocational education training providers can apply for and be approved as providers and are able to offer income contingent loans in the form of VET FEE-HELP.

Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, as I am sure you would be aware, FEE-HELP was an initiative of the former coalition government. We recognise the absolute value that is added to the Australian economy as a consequence of Australians and others undertaking additional tertiary study. Whether that tertiary study is at a vocational level or at a tertiary institution like a university, the reality is that it is a way for people to invest in their human capital, ensuring that that investment in themselves, in their children—it may, in fact, be in their grandchildren—actually reaps rewards for the broader community as well. There is power through knowledge, and the former coalition and I are strongly committed to knowledge in the form of additional education. In that sense, that was the precursor to additional support that was offered through the FEE-HELP program.

This initiative of the government to extend the operation of the Higher Education Support Act to include those providers operating in the VET space is a welcome addition. It ensures that, where there are fit and proper people, they are able to offer their students income contingent loans. In that sense, this is enabling legislation.

The reality is that, for many people in the community, the opportunity to undertake additional study in the form of VET education is often out of their reach. Financially, for many people it would seem to be, in some respects, a decision between their ability to live and their ability to undertake further study. That is not a choice that should have to be made. So, in that sense, this bill and its operation to extend VET FEE-HELP is a welcome addition, because it ensures that, where possible and where appropriate, the government recognises the public benefit that flows from increased education across the community and offers a helping hand. Of course, one of the primary functions of federal government is to offer that helping hand where obvious public dividends flow from it. In that sense, this is a bill that certainly moves a long way towards making sure that the public broadly is able to enjoy the benefits and the dividends that flow from a more educated populace.

In addition to that, extending it from the university sector, where traditionally it has been quarantined, into the VET sector, with student loans being made available for diploma, advanced diploma, graduate certificate and graduate diploma courses, is a very positive step. The loans, as they would function as a consequence of this bill, may cover or partially cover tuition costs for the VET course. Students are required to repay their loan once their income exceeds a minimum payment level of $44,911 for the financial year.

Regrettably, though, very few Australians—too few, I would argue—have been able to access VET FEE-HELP to date. DEEWR figures show that in 2009 there were only some 5,262 who received income-contingent loans under the VET FEE-HELP scheme—the 2009 figures are the most recent figures available—and there were only 50 registered training organisations that were eligible. We are pleased, as a coalition, that the minister will specify through the legislative instrument the criteria to take into account in deciding whether management of the RTO is a fit and proper person before the body may be approved as either a higher education provider or a VET provider. In that sense, we await the specifications of the criteria.

There is no doubt that Australia has had some rough patches when it comes to VET education. As long ago as 12 months but more recently as well, we have seen some examples, especially where they relate to international students, of some education providers perhaps not meeting the character test. The inclusion of this test is a step forward because it does recognise that quality providers should be able to provide income-contingent loans on behalf of taxpayers to those who meet the criteria, in terms of both the RTO in question and those students that might benefit from that education.

There is for me, though, on the Gold Coast, a concern with respect to VET education. Specifically, it is with respect to foreign students affected by the decision of this Labor government to withdraw the office of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship from Southport. This is inexorably linked to the issue of vocational education and training. That is because, for those international students who have decided to undertake VET training—for example, have decided to undertake an English language course in Australia—ready access to the department—in particular, over-the-counter services of the department—are crucial to their undertaking their studies in Australia.

In that sense, there were in the Southport office of the department of immigration some 30,000 over-the-counter inquiries. That has now all been put in jeopardy. Actually, it is going to be axed as a consequence of the decision of this Labor government. The Department of Immigration and Citizenship will no longer exist in Southport, and is in fact now going to be transferred to Brisbane. So, at the one point where this bill does take some concrete steps towards improving VET outcomes for those who undertake additional study, the government is also unfortunately withdrawing from Australia's sixth-largest city this crucial service through the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. This is going to materially and directly affect those international students who choose to undertake VET study on the Gold Coast. It is a massive step backwards, and it demonstrates that this is a government that is now seeking to recover costs wherever it can as a direct consequence of its reckless spending and the fact that it is borrowing $135 million a day. Now, of course, it desperately needs to try to recover costs in some way, and that means the withdrawal of government services from a city of 500,000 people.

However, turning to the more germane elements of this bill, in broad terms we on the coalition side are supportive of the intent of the legislation. I would hope that the result of this legislation will be that there are young Australians who today think that they cannot afford to undertake VET training or additional VET study who will now recognise that, should they qualify, they will be provided assistance by taxpayers to undertake further study. That is absolutely a good step forward for them. It is absolutely going to pay dividends to the community. We know that those with additional educational qualifications are generally less likely to become unemployed and, when they are unemployed, are less likely to be unemployed for a longer period of time—that is, those who have a better level of education generally tend to be unemployed for shorter periods of time. Both of those measures are an investment in the future of Australia as well as an investment in those particular individuals themselves. I will confine my comments to these.

See this speech in context