Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I speak in support of the passage of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment Bill 2015 and also of the second-reading amendment moved by the shadow minister. We have all seen the emails and advertisements encouraging people to start a vocational training course using phrases like 'Buy now, pay later,' or 'Get a free iPad,' selling to students courses they never intended to study or delivering courses in fewer hours and online. These are some of the aggressive tactics of an increasing number of private vocational training providers.

Educating the population is a noble and desirable objective. There is no doubt that the more educated the population is the more productive our economy is. Over time, the wealthier our nation is the higher the standard of living we enjoy. So we need to encourage people to take on education. But in doing that we need also to ensure that those who are offering courses, particularly in the vocational education market, are offering realistic courses and alternatives for students and are doing so in a way that ensures transparency and an ethical and open manner.

Nobody wins when the service provided is of poor quality or the student is ill suited to the training. It is not just about the number of courses that are operated and offered; it is also about the quality and the ethics behind the offering of those courses. It is crucial that the education suit the person, the courses be appropriate and the outcomes realistic.

In recent years there has been a very large increase in the number of people taking on vocational education and training courses. Unfortunately, in many cases they have signed up for courses they were unqualified for or for courses that the provider or the broker knew or had a very good inclination that the student would have very little chance of completing and ultimately repaying their VET FEE-HELP debt to the government. So it is important that we have greater transparency in the marketing of these courses.

In some cases, people are unaware who the provider is when they sign up for a course. They may go through a broker who will attract them to a course in a particular way. They will sign up online, but it is not very clear to the person when they sign up for the course who is actually providing the training and, ultimately, who provides and qualifies the person in the course they have enrolled in.

In its submission to the inquiry by the Senate Education and Employment References Committee into private VET providers, Inclusion Australia revealed a plethora of troubling stories. It provided firsthand accounts of spruikers signing up individuals with intellectual disabilities to courses that were expensive and offering totally unachievable qualifications and of sales people roaming the streets and signing up students with the promise of free laptops and the likelihood that, as long as they never earn above the threshold of $53,000, they will never have to repay the debt associated with the course. There were even reports of disadvantaged students and unemployed people outside local Centrelink offices being recruited to training companies.

A University of Sydney study has revealed that some of Australia's largest training companies are reporting profit margins of more than 50 per cent. To date, the RTOs' proclivity to distance themselves from some of the tactics of the spruikers or brokers who operate on their behalf has been a significant barrier to linking the RTOs with those who are undertaking the activities on their behalf.

This bill seeks to tie the responsibility between the course provider and the broker operating on their behalf. The bill allows a more rapid response by the minister and the regulator to quality standard issues, creates a new offence of offering to provide a VET course without disclosing the name and registration code of the relevant provider, and extends the period of registration able to be granted by the regulator from five to seven years. These are all good quality transparency measures that the opposition supports and build on the work that the previous Labor government did in establishing the quality framework around vocational education and training.

Whilst this bill is designed to improve regulatory oversight of the sector, it does not address the damage to individuals that has already occurred or propose action to engage with the community to minimise future problems. The actions of unscrupulous RTOs and brokers have had serious impacts on many vulnerable individuals, and many of those have been highlighted in the speeches of members of parliament in this debate. I think we have all been contacted by students, prospective students and parents of students who have had concerns and troubles with the way that many RTOs have operated and some of the activities that they have engaged in to sign people up to courses. The reports of people being targeted and left with whopping great debts and no qualifications or useless qualifications must be addressed. The government needs to look with more urgency at the notion of the protection of students in circumstances such as these. Labor is calling on the government to immediately seek a consumer protection information campaign by the ACCC, including advice for people who need to seek redress, and consider other mechanisms available to strengthen consumer protections.

However, for the time being, the reality, according to analysis by the Grattan Institute, is that 40 per cent of vocational students will never repay their student loans—that is a very troubling figure. In order to maintain quality in the VET sector, in 2011 Labor established the national regulator, the Australian Skills Quality Authority. Since its establishment in 2011, ASQA has received more than 4,000 complaints and conducted 3,000 audits. It was recently announced that ASQA would lead an investigation into 23 vocational education institutions following widespread allegations of students being tricked into signing up for courses.

It was in 2007 that the Howard government extended the use of VET FEE-HELP to include this sector for approved diploma and advanced diploma courses. VET FEE-HELP commenced in 2009 and, in 2011, in order to maintain quality in this sector, Labor established the Quality Framework through ASQA.

It has been a tactic of the government to seek to blame some of the circumstances that are occurring in this industry on the previous Labor government, claiming that it is Labor's fault that students have been undertaking courses and signed up by providers under predatory circumstances—they have been unable to complete courses; dollars have been wasted; debt has been extended—but this is a really, really narrow focused and baseless attack and is quite plainly and simply wrong. Labor, based on the information that MPs were receiving, conducted a number of inquiries—there was a Senate inquiry involved—and acted on the recommendations of those inquiries. Labor has held a strong belief that there needs to be appropriate regulation of all education sectors to ensure that there is integrity in the system, that there is quality in outcomes but also that there is transparency so people can make informed decisions in a marketplace about whether or not the course is appropriate and whether or not, importantly, they are in a position to complete the course.

In New South Wales, TAFE students have been struggling with a number of issues associated with changes to the system. In 2014, 40 per cent of students were slugged an additional $500 to $1,500 for courses under a new regime. To rectify this, the New South Wales Labor opposition have announced a $100 million TAFE rescue plan designed to abolish some of the measures that have been introduced by the current Liberal government. They have also promised to reverse some of the hikes in fees that have occurred to guarantee funding to TAFE by capping the amount of public funds that can be contestable by private operators up to 30 per cent and commission a landmark review of education and training in New South Wales after year 10.

Federally, the Abbott government has also, unfortunately, removed support for students in this sector, the VET sector. It has taken the axe to the skills portfolio, cutting $2 billion since the last budget. We have all seen programs such as Tools For Your Trade that have been cut. I have received emails from students and, indeed, from small business employers in our community, who are concerned that many of their apprentices will drop out of the trade because that vital support has gone. At a time when people are not earning a realistic and liveable wage because they are on an apprenticeship, they need all the support they can get to maintain a standard of living, particularly older apprentices. It is very important that the government understands that support for vocational education and training is crucial in ensuring that we are keeping a good flow of apprentices coming through the system.

Nonetheless, this bill does have Labor's support. I also support the second reading amendment that has been moved by the shadow minister. We are firmly of the belief that more must be done to protect students and young Australians and provide them with the proper support that they need to better themselves, to attain better work, to contribute to the future of our nature and, ultimately, to ensure that our nation is more productive because we have educated a greater number of people. But that is based on ensuring that the system delivers ethical outcomes and provides transparency and accountability in the marketing of courses so that young students in particular who are undertaking these courses are in a position to make informed decisions about their future and are signing up for courses that are appropriate and that, ultimately, they can complete so that they can go into the workforce, begin earning money and, where they have taken out a VET FEE-HELP loan, pay that money back. On that basis, we support these increased transparency measures.

See this speech in context