Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Canberra celebrations have been all too much for you. Congratulations, too. It was a wonderful function this morning and I know you participated with the member for Canberra. Indeed, today is a very important day for Canberrans. Canberrans also understand the need, the necessity and the importance of higher education. Canberra perhaps has more people with degrees per capita than any other capital city in Australia. We know how important a good education is; it is the great enabler.

I take issue with the previous speaker, the member for Blair, for his criticism of the shadow minister and, as he called it, her being sanctimonious on the issue. I listened very closely to the member for Farrer, my neighbouring electorate colleague, and I did not think she was sanctimonious at all. In fact, I thought she gave quite a good account of the bill. You would almost think that the coalition was not supporting this legislation from the way the member for Blair has just carried on. Once again, like so many Labor members opposite, he has tried to introduce state issues into what is a federal matter. If he wants to talk about state matters, he only needs to think about the Victorian election in November 2010, New South Wales in March 2011, Queensland in March 2012, the Northern Territory in August 2012, and Saturday's Western Australian election to see that many of the things that his government offers are not in the best interests of this nation and are being rejected by the voters at the ballot box. He should be very careful when he tries to introduce those state issues into what is a federal matter.

The federal matter before us is the Higher Education Support Amendment (Further Streamlining and Other Measures) Bill 2013. You would almost think that we as a coalition were opposing this bill from the sentiments that the member for Blair expressed and the condemnatory way—the virtual assault—in which he described the things we are proposing and the sorts of things that state governments are doing. These are not even in line with what this legislation is about because those are state matters.

A post-implementation review of vocational education and training—the Higher Education Loan Program: VET FEE-HELP—was undertaken in 2011. This bill seeks to introduce some of the recommendations made. This bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to enable the strengthening of compliance and accountability frameworks for VET FEE-HELP and FEE-HELP loans. The amendments also improve transparency between the tertiary education regulators and allow for more efficient administrative arrangements when changing business entity names of approved providers. So, there, I agree with what is proposed. The coalition is in support of what is being proposed. I am really at a loss to understand why the member for Blair continued his rant in the way that he did.

In 2005, income contingent loans were extended to full-fee paying students in higher education courses through FEE-HELP under the Howard coalition government. In 2008, income contingent loans were extended to the vocational education sector in the form of VET FEE-HELP. These loans ensure students wishing to pursue a vocation can be provided with financial assistance similar to that on offer to university students through the Higher Education Contribution Scheme. The Howard Liberal-Nationals government recognised the importance of vocations and higher education and of enabling people to have the assistance they require, through tertiary and vocational supporting programs, to get the best job and realise their full potential. Certainly it was done then. The Labor government now says it is doing the same. When it comes up with a proposal or a plan that the coalition can see will be beneficial to those people looking to better themselves, we are in agreement with it. The loan may cover or partially cover the tuition costs for the VET course, however, VET FEE-HELP is not available for Certificates I to IV and students are required to repay their loan once their income exceeds the minimum repayment level, which is $49,096 for 2012-13.

In order for students to be able to access these loans, their registered training organisation needs to have approval to offer VET FEE-HELP. The eligibility criteria for offering VET FEE-HELP includes a provider being a body corporate with the principal purpose of offering education, proving their financial viability, having central management based in Australia, offering VET accredited diploma and advanced diploma courses, with credit transfer arrangements in place, and being a member of an approved tuition assurance scheme, or have exemption from this requirement. Of the 2,000 or so providers who offer diploma and advanced diploma courses, only 112 are currently approved as VET FEE-HELP providers. That was certainly brought out in the speech earlier this afternoon of the member for Farrer, the shadow minister. As a result, the take-up of VET FEE-HELP has been low, with only 39,124 students accessing VET FEE-HELP assistance in 2011.

Given that the intent of extending income contingent loans to the VET sector was done largely to alleviate the inequity of access, it is apparent there is considerably more work to do. In addition there are some major areas of skill shortages which could be addressed by ensuring that the organisations which offer these qualifications are VET FEE-HELP eligible. When I speak of inequity of access, that is certainly a factor in regional areas. Because of a lack of all sorts of services and support programs students in regional areas have a more difficult job of actually gaining tertiary education and better vocations than do people in metropolitan areas and people in your own electorates and here in Canberra. That is why I know the shadow parliamentary secretary for regional education, Senator Fiona Nash, has been so strident in her advocacy for independent youth allowance. Whilst that is not part of this bill, it is something that is important and imperative for regional students.

Schedule 1 of this particular bill is intended to bolster the accountability frameworks for FEE-HELP and VET FEE-HELP. These amendments specifically will enable the automatic revocation of registered training organisations' approval as a higher education or vocational education provider when any of the following have occurred: the relevant tertiary regulator has ceased the provider's registration; a court has made an order to wind up a provider; or ASIC has determined they can no longer operate. Until such time as all paths of appeal have been exhausted the provider will continue to be registered.

The proposed amendments in schedule 2 of the bill would allow the minister to change the name of the entity for HELP purposes through one legislative instrument, but only in cases where there has been no change in legal ownership. Currently, if a provider changes their name yet the legal entity remains the same, the provider is required to be re-approved as a new applicant would be.

In order to ensure that students are not adversely affected—and this is most important, because the last thing we need is for levels of bureaucracy to be affecting students when they need to get on with the job of learning—the minister is currently required to revoke the approval of the provider and reapprove the same entity with retrospective application. Therefore, the entity would no longer be required to reapply and go through a duplicate approval process, which is currently the case.

Schedule 3 of the bill will enable additional flexibility for managing provider noncompliance. Currently, the act has limited options available for the management of noncompliance by providers. As it stands, the only options available to the minister are to either revoke or suspend the approval of a higher educational or VET provider or to withhold provider payments. These actions may be excessive for many administrative breaches. Under these amendments, there will be provision for a provider to be given a compliance notice which specifies the breach, the corrective action required and the time frame for this to be undertaken.

Schedule 4 of the bill seeks to update the calculation of HELP repayment thresholds. This has become necessary as average weekly earnings data is determined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics data. This data was published quarterly; however, it is now published biannually.

Schedule 5 of the bill deals with other amendments and will see the consolidation of provisions related to the government's ability to seek information from relevant tertiary education regulators in the one division. These will improve the transparency—and we all want greater transparency—with the relevant tertiary education regulators and enhance arrangements to identify at-risk providers. Additionally, there have been changes to definitions to incorporate changes to the Australian Qualifications Framework. These changes will help to enhance the quality and accountability frameworks underpinning the higher education loan program, will enable the government to better manage risk to students and public moneys and will effectively and flexibly respond to low-quality providers.

When it comes to enabling universities and other support mechanisms for students to gain better vocations, I am on record thanking and praising the government for initiatives which have helped Charles Sturt University, whose Wagga Wagga campus is in my electorate. I attended the opening of the life sciences hub along with the Parliamentary Secretary for Higher Education and Skills, the member for Cunningham. It is a tremendous facility and it will do so much not only for this nation but for regional Australia and for the Riverina electorate.

At the moment, there is a push in Wagga Wagga for a rural medical school. I know that the relevant ministers are well aware of this, and it is something I will certainly be pushing. I know how important these rural medical schools are to the recruitment and retention of doctors in regional areas. There are proposals being put forward by the University of New South Wales and Charles Sturt University. I am in support of those proposals. A collaborative effort, a whole-of-government approach, is something that would be very beneficial to Wagga Wagga, to the Riverina, to country New South Wales and to the nation. I thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. The coalition supports this legislation.

See this speech in context