Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Hansard source

I move opposition amendment (1) as circulated in my name:

(1) Page 2 (after line 11), after clause 3, insert:

4 Review of Schedule 2 to this Act

(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by Schedule 2 to this Act, with the purpose of assessing the expansion of the policy of waiving HELP debt to additional professions of high skills need in rural and remote Australia.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the review must consider, and make recommendations to the Commonwealth Government about, the expansion of the policy implemented by the amendments to other sectors in rural and remote Australia, including the health, mental health and education sectors.

(3) The review should consult widely with rural and remote communities and their health, mental health and education service providers and specifically, the following must be consulted as part of the review:

(a) the National Rural Health Commissioner;

(b) the Regional Education Commissioner.

Timing of review

(4) The review must start as soon as practicable after the end of the period of 2 years after the commencement of this Act.

Review report

(5) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 3 months of the commencement of the review.

(6) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.

Government response to recommendations

(7) As soon as practicable, and in any event within 3 months, after the report is first tabled in a House of the Parliament, the Minister must cause:

(a) a statement, setting out the Commonwealth Government's response to each recommendation included in the report, to be prepared; and

(b) the statement to be published on the Department's website.

This amendment, which I tabled in my second reading speech, is an important one.

The coalition pioneered this scheme, which the education minister has reintroduced. It was a MYEFO measure and was specifically designed to create incentives for new doctors and nurse practitioner graduates to go and work in the regional and remote areas. It will make a difference because they're very substantial incentives, one of which is to completely waive the HECS debt a doctor or nurse practitioner has if they go and work in the regional or remote areas for a certain length of time. We were very proud to introduce that, and I'm very pleased that the government has followed through in reintroducing this measure.

What this amendment does is actually call on a couple of things. Most importantly, it calls for a review to occur after two years. A period of two years is important because it gives enough time to see what the behavioural change will be from the operation of this bill in relation to the doctors and nurse practitioners. Secondly, it asks for the review team to specifically examine whether or not the measures which are proposed for doctors and nurse practitioners should apply to other professions where there are shortages in regional and remote areas. In particular, the amendment calls for an examination of other health measures—mental health in particular—and the education sector. But there may be other professions where there are shortages. In a couple of years time those shortages could be different ones, and we may want to consider providing the same HECS discounts for those professions. I think this is a good amendment, and I hope it will get support across this chamber.

The other important element of this amendment is that it documents at least a couple of different groups which should be consulted while the review is underway. Those include the National Rural Health Commissioner and the Regional Education Commissioner.

I notice that the member for Mackellar is also going to move an amendment, which has been circulated. It's quite similar to the opposition's amendment, but it doesn't go as far as ours. Her amendment says 'before three years', rather than 'after two'. I think two years is a more appropriate length of time after which to do that review. Secondly, it doesn't specify who should be consulted—it's an open question—whereas we think that the National Rural Health Commissioner and the Regional Education Commissioner should be, quite rightly, consulted as part of the review and should be documented in the legislation itself. Most importantly, the amendment I have moved on behalf of the opposition specifically says that the review 'must consider' the expansion of policy to other areas. The member for Mackellar's circulated amendment is blind on that question.

Consequently, I would put to the member for Mackellar and the government that the amendment that has been moved in my name is a better and more comprehensive amendment. It incorporates everything that the member for Mackellar's amendment proposes but goes further. Most importantly, it specifically says that the question in relation to other policy areas and professions where there may be shortages in regional and remote areas should be examined, and that advice should be provided to the government and, indeed, to the parliament for consideration. I commend this amendment to the chamber, and I hope that it gets broadscale support.

See this speech in context