Celia Hammond (Curtin, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak in favour of these bills: the Education Legislation Amendment (Up-front Payments Tuition Protection) Bill 2020 and the Higher Education (Up-front Payments Tuition Protection Levy) Bill 2020. I want to start by saying we are not talking about the job-ready graduates legislation. I also want to correct the record: universities were not excluded from JobKeeper. If universities satisfied the turnover tests at 30 per cent or 50 per cent they could qualify for JobSeeker. In one sense it's actually really good that they didn't qualify for JobSeeker, because that meant that they didn't suffer the 30 per cent or 50 per cent downturn. I accept that universities are doing it hard, a lot of Australia is doing it hard. But those tests of 30 per cent and 50 per cent were in place for all other businesses and all other organisations.

I note the member for Sydney did point out that a small provider that isn't a university did manage to access JobKeeper. Yes, that's correct. It was a not-for-profit, charitable organisation that doesn't receive government funding. There is a distinction. They obviously satisfied the drop in turnover.

I am going to speak about these two bills because these two bills are about higher education, but they're not specifically about universities. These bills are designed to further strengthen the quality and integrity of our higher education system here in Australia, and to ensure that the diversity and choice which has been an increasing feature since of this system since the 1980s continues. Having a system where there is real choice for students, and choice that is not clouded by questions about quality, viability or reliability of the provider, is of utmost importance. Students need to know that if they start studying something they will be able to finish it. Students need to know that the money that they invest in their education is not lost if the provider ceases to exist midway through studies.

This sort of protection has been in place for quite some time for international students studying in Australia through the Tuition Protection Service. The Tuition Protection Service for international students is industry funded through an annual provider levy. It provides assurance and assistance to international students who may be affected by the closure of an education provider or course termination. The TPS helps international students either by placing them into a similar course with another institution or by providing a refund of tuition fees paid in advance for parts of the course that were not provided to the student.

The TPS has played a very important role in ensuring the international recognition of the quality and safety of studying here in Australia, and that has been wonderful and it has made Australia an attractive destination for international students, but the situation for domestic students has always been a little bit different. Ninety per cent of higher education students in Australia study at table A universities, sometimes referred to as public universities. Now, it's been a long-time policy of governments of both varieties that, given the low risk of these institutions, no additional levels of protection are required for domestic students enrolled in them. But alongside the public university sector sits a vibrant and diverse range of registered and recognised private higher education providers, and close to 10 per cent of Australian higher education students study at these providers. These providers include two Australian universities, a university of specialisation, an overseas university and, as at June 2020, 135 non-university higher education providers.

In 2019, the last time for which statistics are available, there were 127,000 full-time-equivalent students studying at these independent, private, non-university higher education providers. These providers educate students in a range of disciplines, including law, engineering, agricultural science, architecture, business, accounting, tourism and hospitality, education, health sciences, theology, creative arts, information technology and social sciences. And they teach across all AQF qualification levels, from diplomas through to doctorates. While they range in size, and some are very small, there are some that enrol over 10,000 full-time-equivalent students across multiple disciplines, and quite a broad variety of students, both domestic and international.

The overwhelming majority of these providers are highly reputable, with solid financial underpinnings and with sound academic oversight. All of these are things that TEQSA regularly examines these organisations on. I would also add here that many of these non-university higher education providers excel on student satisfaction and student outcome measures. However, given that they're not underwritten by a government guarantee and given that there is always a danger of such an organisation or such a provider ending or collapsing, it has been a long-time policy position that these providers do need to have extra protection for students who enrol at them. These requirements, both tuition and financial safeguards, are included within the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) and are mandatory for non-table-A providers to register as higher education providers. Given the practical problems that providers had with the arrangements which were in place until last year, the government undertook to tidy up the system, ensuring that it works as it was supposed to for domestic students while simultaneously not putting an overtly costly and cumbersome obligation on these providers.

Earlier this year, the government extended the TPS to cover domestic students receiving income contingent loans through the VET Student Loans program or the Higher Education Loan Program for students studying with independent education providers. This particular bill that we are discussing today will take that further. As of January next year, it will extend the tuition protection arrangements to apply to domestic students who pay their tuition fees upfront at a private, registered higher education provider under the TEQSA Act. This is intended to ensure that those students receive the same high-quality tuition protection as students who access FEE-HELP or HECS-HELP.

Just for clarity, these protections are for the benefit of students, not providers. These arrangements offer support through a suitable replacement unit or suitable replacement course for students to continue their studies, or through a refund of the upfront payment for incomplete units of study if a provider fails to deliver them.

It should also be noted that this bill amends the TEQSA Act to provide for the requirement that a defaulting provider has initial responsibility to take action to provide a remedy to their affected students. Only when the defaulting provider is unable to provide a remedy to their affected students will the tuition protection director step in to assist in providing that assistance and assurance to the affected students. These amendments ensure that the tuition protection process is consistent for both affected HELP students and upfront-fee-paying students in the higher education sector. It provides certainty for those students who might consider studying other than at a table A university, and there are students who choose this. Ten per cent of higher education students enrolled in Australia are enrolled at non-table-A institutions.

Having this tuition and course assurance embedded in the system is an essential part of ensuring that there is real diversity in our higher education offerings and real choice. It is on this point that I actually want to highlight that both the government and the opposition have supported diversity and choice in our education offerings, both at school level and at higher education level, for decades. Despite rhetoric at various times, both parties have long recognised that the existence of both public educational offerings and private educational offerings sitting side by side is a significant benefit to the provision of education in this country and ultimately to our country as a whole. While playing a much smaller part in the higher education sector than occurs at school level, the private independent higher education providers make a vital contribution to the entirety of the sector, and so students who choose to attend to study at them should be protected. I note here that those students who do choose to study at them rate them very highly. So it is my pleasure to support this bill, given that it is helping to embed the diversity and choice in our higher education system which has become a hallmark, and long may it be so.

See this speech in context