Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The bill will introduce a number of streamlining measures to the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (the Act) to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and to maintain the ongoing integrity of the government's income contingent loan programs for the higher education and vocational education and training (VET) sectors, namely FEE-HELP and VET FEE-HELP respectively. It is now apparent that some aspects of these programs require refinement to reflect current higher education and VET sector arrangements.

The bill will also ensure consistency with other Commonwealth regulatory frameworks including the proposed National VET Regulator expected to be established by April 2011. Furthermore, the bill will better position the government to implement its 2010 budget measures announced in the Skills for Sustainable Growth Strategy, in particular, its commitment to a National Entitlement to a Quality Training Place by 1 July 2011.

FEE-HELP is available to eligible full-fee-paying higher education students and VET FEE-HELP is available to eligible full-fee-paying and certain state government subsidised VET students studying in higher level education or training, and provides a loan for all or part of a student's tuition costs. This assistance is aimed at encouraging students to take up higher education and higher level skill qualifications by reducing the financial barriers associated with study.

The bill is aimed at ensuring quality education providers can apply for and be approved as providers under the act to be able to offer FEE-HELP and VET FEE-HELP assistance. The changes will simplify administrative requirements delivering efficiencies to both providers and the Commonwealth, to improve the Commonwealth's ability to manage provider risk, to increase the rate of provider approval, and therefore increase the number of students able to access income contingent loans through quality providers in both the higher education and VET sectors.

I commend the bill to the House.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare and Early Childhood Learning) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (No. 1) Bill 2011. This bill seeks to ensure that quality education providers are able to apply and receive approval to offer FEE-HELP and VET FEE-HELP assistance to students. The coalition supports the bill.

Australia's future economic prosperity will be largely dependent on access to a highly skilled, productive workforce. As a nation we need to deepen and broaden our skills base if we are to be well placed to compete at a global level. We need to boost participation and ensure that our workers are appropriately trained so that we do not risk having economic growth constrained by lack of qualified staff. We need to ensure that we utilise the VET sector as best we can in addressing these future needs.

Skills Australia has undertaken considerable research into future employment scenarios for Australia. The highest growth scenario based on current policy settings would see Australia needing an additional 2.4 million people in the workforce with qualifications at Certificate III and higher by 2015. Under the former coalition government income contingent loans were extended to the VET sector in 2007, enabling provision of student loans for diploma, advanced diploma, graduate certificate and graduate diploma courses. This followed on from the provision of FEE-HELP to domestic students who chose to undertake non-Commonwealth funded courses at universities and approved private providers. This was to ensure that students wishing to pursue a vocation were provided with financial assistance similar to that on offer to university students through the HECS scheme, ensuring that prospective students would be able to access VET education without having to pay upfront. This system previously made it difficult for students who had financial constraints to access VET opportunities. Income contingent loans enhance accessibility to study for many Australians who may otherwise be precluded due to financial circumstances. Often the only thing preventing young Australians from following the employment pathway of their choosing is their ability to fund their study or to support themselves while studying. The 2010 report by the Foundation for Young Australians, How young people are faring, reported that 246,000 teenagers are currently not in full-time work or education. If we can make VET courses a financial reality for these young people, we may be able to prevent another generation of disengaged and disenfranchised Australians. Particularly given the rampant skills shortages facing Australia today, it is more important than ever that young Australians are able to access vocational qualifications that lead to sustainable employment opportunities. Many VET qualifications address the skill and demand, and it is critical that students are given every opportunity to undertake these courses.

Regrettably, too few Australians have been able to access VET FEE-HELP to date. The most recent data available from the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations show that in 2009 only 5,262 students had income contingent loans with only 50 institutions approved to offer it. This bill seeks to increase access to VET FEE-HELP loans by enabling more providers to become approved institutions and to ensure that students who may otherwise be unable to study a VET course are in fact able to do so. Many of these courses target areas of real skills shortages. Given the current skills crisis facing this country, it is critical that we assist young Australians, enabling them to gain skills and career opportunities. Looking forward, we will need many more people with foundation and higher level skills. Skills Australia in their discussion paper, Creating a future direction for Australian vocational education and training, identified that over the last five years enrolment growth in the VET sector has only averaged less than one per cent a year.

Under the proposed new requirements, the minister will specify by legislative instrument the criteria that must be taken into account in deciding whether a body is fit and proper before their body may be approved as either a higher education provider or a VET provider. This provides a safeguard to protect against those providers who unfortunately bring the sector into disrepute. It will hopefully go some way to boosting public confidence in a sector that has been damaged in recent years by a number of unethical providers offering substandard qualifications. By simplifying the administrative requirements for providers whilst managing the Commonwealth's ability to manage provider risk, a greater number of providers will be deemed eligible to offer loans and more students will benefit from this access to income contingent loans through FEE-HELP and VET FEE-HELP. This is about more than just ensuring that VET students are afforded the same opportunities for funding assistance as those following a tertiary pathway. The coalition is intent on reiterating that a vocational qualification holds the same importance as a tertiary parchment and that VET qualifications will increasingly be in demand. I commend the bill to the House.

Craig Thomson (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian government recognises that for some people the payment of an upfront tuition fee for higher education and VET courses is a barrier to study. The FEE-HELP and VET FEE-HELP are available to assist eligible full-fee-paying students with their tuition fees. VET FEE-HELP is part of the Higher Education Loan Program and is an extension of the higher education student loan scheme, FEE-HELP. The amendments will ensure that a higher education or VET provider is a fit and proper body before they are approved; therefore, ensuring the integrity of these programs. The proposed amendments will be broadly consistent with the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000, following the recommendations of the Beard review of the proposed regulator. Requirements will be developed for inclusion in legislative instruments made under the act and where possible streamlining the use of existing Commonwealth regulatory frameworks. The amendments will allow the minister to qualify approvals of higher education or VET providers by imposing conditions on providers and specifying these conditions in the notice of approval. The minister will be able to vary or remove conditions which have been imposed. Placing conditions on the approval and continued approval of a body corporate as a VET or higher education provider will allow the minister the power to approve a body corporate as a VET or higher education provider while imposing conditions to better manage the risks that may be associated with that particular organisation. If these conditions are breached, approvals could be suspended and/or revoked. The amendments will allow the minister the discretion to approve a higher education or VET provider where the body's principal purpose may not be education, as long as its purpose does not conflict with its purpose to provide education. This would allow education providers that are dual or multi-purpose organisations to be approved as a higher education or VET providers without significantly diminishing the quality requirements of the educational provision.

The technical amendments will correct an omission in the current provisions by requiring the minister to give notice to higher education or VET providers before issuing an intention to suspend a provider's approval. They will also allow the minister a reasonable period of time between issuing a higher education or VET provider a notice of suspension and making a decision regarding revocation of provider approval. This provides the minister with more time to investigate possible breaches and make an informed decision.

In more detail, the bill contains four proposed amendments to the HESA to improve the administrative efficiency and effectiveness of the government's income contingency loans, FEE-HELP and VET FEE-HELP. The amendments will introduce a fit and proper person requirement to ensure that applicants are fit and proper for that purpose. This will ensure that senior officers and directors, or persons who are in a position of influence in terms of the management of the applicant, must demonstrate that they are fit and proper persons to be approved as a VET or higher education provider.

This is important legislation. It is part of what this government has been doing more broadly in relation to higher education. When we came to government in 2007 we found higher education in a pretty sorry state. While the rest of the OECD had been providing increased funding in relation to the higher education sector, what we found in Australia was something that was vastly different. We found that we were actually going backwards in terms of the contribution to higher education, ranking as last in the OECD in terms of investments in higher education. This is also reflected if one looks at the number of people who have bachelor degrees or higher in Australia, running at around 29 per cent—compared to the UK, which is over 40 per cent, or to Ireland, which is over 55 per cent. We simply were not investing enough in higher education and VET.

This government has taken a very positive decision that we need to look at a wide-ranging series of reforms. But we also need to be investing dollars and cents into this area so that we can upskill the Australian community so that the capacity constraints that the Reserve Bank Governor warned the previous government about on over 20 occasions can be addressed. We are about making sure that we have a smarter workforce, a workforce that can improve the productivity of this nation, and the best way of doing that is through investment in education, investment in human capital. It is an area that the previous government chose totally to neglect, to walk away from.

The previous government's major contribution to higher education was to try and tie funding for universities to Work Choices. A condition of funding under the previous government was that, if you did not offer statutory individual contracts to every employee—if you did not offer an AWA—then you were not going to get your funding. When we look at the record of the previous government and what they wanted to do in terms of higher education, we find that they did two things: they cut the amount of funding that was there and they chose to tie the amount of funding that they actually got in higher education to Work Choices. You would have thought they would have learnt the lesson in relation to this and they would be there saying: 'Look, the government's doing a great job in terms of higher education. This government is providing opportunities for Australians to upskill, for Australians to contribute more greatly to the economy. This government is making sure that conditions of workers are not being affected.' But, no, we do not get that at all from the opposition. What we get from the opposition is a re-run of the mistakes of last 10 years. It is because ripping off workers is absolutely in their DNA. Look at the O'Farrell government that has just come in. The first thing it has done is attack public sector workers. It attacked them straight away by trying to take away their conditions, taking away the conditions of nurses and firefighters. It is an absolute disgrace that an incoming government chooses to pick on these vital public service areas when what they should be doing is supporting this government's reforms in higher education, of which this bill is an important part, and making sure that we can make the changes needed in education so that we can develop the economy. But, no: we have an opposition that is all opposition and no substance; it has no policy whatsoever.

Mr Hawke interjecting—

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Mitchell may not speak soon if he continues in that vein. Please, let us have some courtesy from both sides.

Craig Thomson (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The whining from the other side does not disturb me in the slightest.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It disturbs me so, if you do not mind, let us get back to the legislation.

Craig Thomson (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The contribution that we are seeing from those opposite is pretty much the contribution we see generally in relation to their policy issues in this place or anywhere else—that is, we will have a whine, we will have a bit of a whinge, we will oppose what the government wants to do because we do not really have any policies ourselves. This is important legislation because it is about making sure that there are more opportunities for students who want to get into higher education and making sure that they have other means of meeting the fees.

I would like to spend a few minutes talking about the university campus I have in my electorate, which is the Central Coast campus of the University of Newcastle. This legislation is particularly important to it because it is a campus that incorporates a community college, a TAFE and a university. It was a Labor government that made sure that we had a campus there. If it were not for the good work of my predecessor Michael Lee and the very strong representation he put, we would not have seen that university campus on the Central Coast at all.

Whilst the national average for people having a bachelor degree or more is 20 per cent, we have less than half that on the Central Coast. By having that university we are giving the opportunity to local kids to go to university. This government has been particularly supportive of the University of Newcastle's Central Coast campus in terms of capital funding for a new library and library extensions and for the health sciences and places in nursing. The sorts of jobs that we have on the Central Coast are the sorts of investments both in human capital and in physical capital that have been made at the Central Coast campus of the University of Newcastle.

It is important that we see the sorts of investments made by this government across the board. As a result of those investments, we are seeing local kids going to a local university and not having to travel down to Sydney—a round trip of four hours which often sees local kids dropping out of university or TAFE because it is simply too much to expect with the pressure of university. We have seen much higher levels of young people going to our campus, finishing their degrees and being available to meet the requirements that modern employers are seeking from their workforce now: a more educated workforce and a more technically savvy workforce. That is why this legislation and this government's program in relation to education, investment in early childhood right through to higher education, is so important.

We are at 4.9 per cent unemployment at the moment, and predicted to go to 4.5 per cent. If we do not have this investment in higher education and education generally, the effect will be that our economy will face impediments in labour supply but also, more importantly, in productivity. This is not news, because this is what the Reserve Bank governor was telling those opposite for years and years. But they just did the lazy thing; they watched the money roll in from the mining boom mark 1 and did nothing. They did nothing in terms of the structural reform that was required in higher education and did nothing to make sure the labour market was going to be skilled properly to meet the challenges of the 21st century. The previous government chose to do nothing on those issues.

This government is about making sure we make that investment in education. We are making the investment for a number of reasons: firstly, because making sure people get opportunities equally around Australia—and this bill will make sure there are opportunities to get into a university and VET—is the right thing to do; and, secondly, because of the economy. By investing in human capital in this area we are providing the leverages for the economy to continue to grow in the areas that we will be most competitive in in the future.

That is just one part of the legislation. It is part of this government's suite of reforms. It is fixing up the 11 years of neglect and making sure that higher education and education generally get a fair go. I commend this bill to the House.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (No. 1) Bill 2011. When the Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare and Minister for the Status of Women was speaking I felt that we had finally begun to make some progress on the matters before us today in this bill, but then when I listened to the member for Dobell's contribution I felt we were going backwards. The minister has finally come to the view, as I knew she inevitably would move away from her student days, that it is appropriate for us to allow private providers and people in the education sector to participate and make a contribution to the education of young Australians. For too long in this country the government has always been the answer to education and there has been the view, simply put, that people ought not to make a contribution to their own education. That is the view of this government and of ministers within this government.

It is good to see that in the provisions of this bill they are expanding the Howard government's approach to education and recognising that people ought to make a contribution to their own education. When you get education you get an economic asset and an improvement in your ability to function in the economy. That is a valuable thing—it is something that has a real return to you as a person and in your career prospects—therefore, you should make a contribution to it. That is why VET FEE-HELP and all the provisions here are meaningful. That is why the Howard government extended VET FEE-HELP to be accessed by people in different institutions in the economy and in society. It has been so successful because education has become one of our bigger export markets—well it was until very recently when we had some troubles and regulatory problems imposed by this government.

Education ought to be a vibrant, functioning part of the private economy as well as a government monopoly. This bill is a good thing because it recognises that. I praise the minister for finally coming to that view. She has shed her student activist days when she opposed all of the things covered in this bill. She has come to the table responsibly and recognised that it is important for us to have a vibrant education sector in terms of education colleges. I think that is a positive development.

Let us look at what this bill intends to do. I think it is good to streamline what is going on in this sector. In that intention I think the government has got it right here. The intention to simplify arrangements for VET providers to ensure quality providers apply for and can offer these income contingent loans is a good development. Income contingent loans were offered by the Howard government in 2007 and extended to the vocational education and training sector, which was a good development as well.

Students are required to repay their loan once their income exceeds the minimum repayment level. Again, it is good to say to people: 'You have received an economic contribution from the taxpayer. You ought to make a contribution to your own education because of the added value you get from that education.' It is a worthwhile and smart system to say to people early on: 'As a government, we will use a carrot instead of a stick. We will provide the incentives that enable you to get the education and access to skills that you need to do better and lift yourself economically and socially. You can seek and achieve whatever you want to do with the skills that you learn, but you then must make a contribution to society for that education.' That system has been proven to work.

Regrettably, in Australia too few people have been able to access VET FEE-HELP and that needs to change. It is good, through the provisions of this bill, that it is changing. In 2009 only 5,262 students received income-contingent loans. Of course, there were only 50 registered training organisations available. With the diversity of organisations out there in the economy today offering diplomas or other types of degrees and courses, it is great that we are expanding this system in order to take into account the diversity of this sector.

It has been a great success story for the Australian economy. The education sector is doing very well in spite of what I regard as significant regulatory burdens imposed by state and federal governments. In many cases these regulatory burdens are there for good reasons, but in many cases they are there simply to require further bureaucracy and administration on very fine and worthy institutions that really need to be allowed to get on with the job of providing courses that local and foreign students seek. Of course, that is the subject for another debate.

The minister will specify in this legislation by means of a legislative instrument the criteria that need to be taken into account in deciding whether the management of a registered training organisation is fit and proper before the body may be approved as either a higher education provider or a VET provider. I support that intention in this bill. I urge that it not be so restrictive that it does not recognise the diversity of bodies and courses in the modern Australian economy because we want to encourage diversity and plurality. We should not seek competition between the public and private providers because we want to encourage capital investment in education.

One of the big failings of the Australian economy is that we have not successfully sought the investment of more capital into the provision of education to increase the skills of our population. In America there is a very strong and successful system. We had the member for Dobell talking about Work Choices and how, in order to increase the skills of our population, the government is doing this and that. It is not only up to the government to do things, and that is where the member for Dobell and the minister fail in their intentions. It is not just the role of government. There are many capable, qualified and successful providers of diplomas, degrees and other courses in our economy today and they ought to have the ability to function properly and successfully. So while the government is introducing a bill which enables and extends VET FEE-HELP to more areas in our economy, it also seems that the member for Dobell simply does not understand that we need these things to promote more private capital into education so that we can have more operators and courses to educate people.

I support income-contingent loans because they are the smart approach to government. These loans use a carrot and not a stick by saying, 'We are going to provide incentives at an early stage for you to get educated and get yourself ahead.' This is a good approach to government.

Without labouring the point too much, I support the intentions of this legislation. The loan system that the Howard government extended to the vocational education and training sector in 2007 is working. This is a worthy set of measures to ensure that system is expanded to more sectors of our economy. I am personally encouraged by the minister's contribution today. She is moving away from compulsory unionism and her days of student activism where it was always about the state educating students. She is recognising that we have a vibrant education industry in Australia today that is not just government funded or controlled. We will continue to promote measures that encourage not only the education sector to flourish but also the expansion of fit and proper education providers in our economy.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Higher Education Support Amendment (No. 1) Bill 2011 seeks to streamline measures to the Higher Education Support Act 2003 by simplifying administrative arrangements for VET providers and managing provider risk. We need to ensure that quality providers apply for and are able to offer income-contingent loans to students in the form of VET FEE-HELP. This bill is intended to increase access to the VET FEE-HELP, which of course, if you are able to gain this help, removes some of the financial barriers to higher education—I stress 'some' of the barriers.

It is a concern of both this government and the opposition that there seems to be much more potential to increase the numbers of students taking up VET FEE-HELP, and it is a concern for me personally that rural and regional students are under-represented when it comes to undertaking either tertiary education or vocational education and training options. A lot of that, as we know from our research and surveys, is to do with the costs of leaving home to study, so there is not much point in just offering help with fees at your university, TAFE or registered training organisation if in fact you cannot afford to feed yourself or pay the rent when it comes to living away from home to undertake that course.

In 2007, income-contingent loans were extended to the VET sector to ensure that students wishing to pursue a trade or vocation were provided with financial assistance similar to that on offer to university students through the old HECS, the Higher Education Contribution Scheme. The intention of FEE-HELP and VET FEE-HELP was to ensure greater equity between students in the tertiary sector and those studying for a vocational qualification. Why should there be any difference or discrimination between students guiding themselves into those different career pathways? After all, the incomes for those who undertake a trade qualification may be much higher than for those who complete a tertiary degree or postgraduate study. Certainly in our community you cannot argue that one career is of greater value to the economy or the community than another. So it is, I think, very important that we have equity of access to government funded support between those who go into the tertiary sector and those who go into the vocational streams. VET FEE-HELP loans were introduced by the then coalition government, and the coalition has remained and is today strongly supportive of the program.

FEE-HELP is available to eligible full-fee-paying higher education students, and VET FEE-HELP is available to eligible full-fee-paying and certain state-government-subsidised VET students who are studying in higher level education or training. It provides a loan for all or part of a student's tuition costs. Under FEE-HELP you can borrow up to the amount of the tuition fee being charged by your provider for your study. However, over your lifetime you can borrow only up to the FEE-HELP limit. Eligible people may borrow up to the FEE-HELP limit to pay tuition fees over their lifetime. In 2011 the FEE-HELP limit was $86,422, unless a person was undertaking medicine, dentistry or veterinary science which led to an initial registration as a medical practitioner, dentist, vet or veterinary surgeon. If they are in those areas of work, the FEE-HELP limit is increased to $108,029, and of course FEE-HELP is indexed on 1 January each year.

VET FEE-HELP is a student loan scheme for the VET sector that is part of the Higher Education Loan Program, or HELP. VET FEE-HELP assists eligible students to undertake certain VET courses of study, diplomas, advanced diplomas, graduate certificates and graduate diploma courses with an approved VET provider by paying all or part of the course. Students are required to repay their loan once their income exceeds the minimum repayment level of $44,911 for 2011.

The problem I alluded to in my opening remarks is that, regrettably, too few students are accessing VET FEE-HELP. DEEWR figures show that in 2009 only 5,262 students received income-contingent loans under the VET FEE-HELP scheme. They are the most recent figures; we do not have figures since 2009, which is in itself a problem, and I have to wonder why we do not have more recent figures. Only 50 registered training organisations, or RTOs—including 20 TAFEs—were eligible to offer their students VET FEE-HELP. Victoria, my home state, had the highest number of approved VET providers at 27, and 18 of those were TAFEs.

Unfortunately, the Northern Territory and Tasmania had no approved VET providers in 2009. This has to be of great concern to the communities of Tasmania and the Northern Territory, where there are skills gaps and enormous shortages of tradesmen and tradeswomen and where the costs of leaving to study elsewhere are very substantial. We need to do detailed work to understand why we have a shortage of RTOs, or indeed TAFEs, in those places. Governments need to consider the circumstances of places like the Northern Territory and Tasmania because the future skills availability in those parts of Australia is a major problem. Given that there is a great deal of unemployment in those areas, as well as skills shortages, we must do better when it comes to assisting students to access these income contingent loans.

In 2009, 5,262 students accessed VET FEE-HELP, as I said, including 78 Indigenous Australian students—just 1.5 per cent. I am very pleased that 78 students with an Indigenous background were able to access this assistance, but clearly there is enormous scope for additional Indigenous students to access trades and vocational education in areas like Northern Australia where their proportion of the population is way above 1.5 per cent. I have to say that 788 students who accessed VET FEE-HELP were from regional and remote areas, only 15 per cent of the total, and there were only 890 students of low socioeconomic status, or 17 per cent. Clearly this potential assistance to students is not being used effectively. We have a long way to go before a student can rule out the cost of their fees being a barrier to them going from their year 12 studies onto a pathway for their preferred career.

The On Track report of 2010—and I am referring here to the Goulburn-Murray Local Learning and Employment Network, or GMLLEN—found that a substantial number of completers, some 25.1 per cent of year 12 or equivalent completers, were not in education or training. Some 19 per cent of them were employed either full or part time, which left us with a significant number who were looking for work but were unemployed. There was another one per cent not in the labour force, education or training. I find it very sad that at the end of year 12 a significant number of our students are not stepping immediately into a career or into education and training, particularly in rural and regional areas where the costs of living can be substantial and the costs of going to be educated elsewhere are substantial. We have to do better and make sure there is not a two-speed economy—one where, in a metropolitan area, you can access education easily and the costs are diminished because you can live at home, and the other where students may only be two or three hours away from a capital city or a big regional centre, as in my electorate, but where students are constrained and substantially discriminated against when it comes to access to a career through further education and training.

We found deferral of tertiary studies was much more common for VET in Schools participants from rural areas—11.7 per cent compared with 7.1 per cent in metropolitan locations. Why is it that we have almost double the number of students deferring in rural areas compared to metropolitan areas? The answer, again, is pretty simple—it is about costs. I guess the government has been waiting for me to raise the issue of independent youth allowance. This has been one of the biggest problems, compared to any other factor, affecting the capacity of rural and regional students to take up tertiary studies. This also extends into the VET sector, where you do not have big TAFEs offering a range of courses within commuting distance of your home. If you cannot afford the $20,000 or so to live away from home then you simply defer your studies and, despite your offer, try and get work and try and match, if you are in the inner region, the new criteria that this government is insisting upon. But, of course, those new criteria for the inner regions make it impossible for you to gain independent youth allowance.

When you have nearly double the number of students deferring from rural and regional areas, the tragedy is that as each year of deferral goes by the proportion who do take up studies again diminishes drastically. It is a very serious problem right throughout northern Victoria, where we have the lowest rates of enrolment in bachelor degrees, particularly in the Hume region. Only 31 per cent, or less than a third of students, in the Hume region of Victoria are enrolling in bachelor degrees. That is slightly below the Gippsland region at 31.3 per cent.

Compared to any other developed country, I would suggest that, if only less than a third of the population from a rural or regional area only two or three hours from a capital city like Melbourne is enrolling in university courses, we have a serious policy problem. It is a policy problem which should be addressing the costs of having to leave home to study, and this debate we are having today is in part driven by the fact that we have not enough uptake of VET FEE-HELP. Of course, we have had numerous debates in the House and in this committee chamber about the policy failures in relation to independent youth allowance.

A nation is as good as its next generation of skilled people; it is about human capital. If we fail to invest in education—whether it is for a trade, a skilled occupation or a university occupation—and fail to give our students that opportunity then we can expect to fall further and further behind in productivity for our nation and in our competitiveness compared to those that we try and keep step with in terms of our own domestic economy and in our exporting. While we of course support the administrative changes that this bill is ushering in—after all, as a coalition we were the architects of a program to bring VET students into the mix when it came to fee assistance—we are concerned that not enough students are taking up this option, that there are very limited options for students in the Northern Territory and Tasmania.

I am hugely concerned, as a rural and regional member, at the declining rates of participation in higher education in my local rural population. We have a very serious problem with our own socioeconomic status in northern Victoria. After seven years of drought, a flood and the impacts of government policy in relation to water access, we have families who are getting more and more stressed financially. We need this support for our students to have a chance in a career of choice and in a career which will add to the value and the wealth of the nation.

It is therefore the situation that I support this bill but I condemn this government for not understanding the proper policy initiatives that are needed to do away with the discriminations that currently exist between metropolitan student access and rural student access to higher education and training. We cannot have enormous numbers of deferrals—in fact, double the number of deferrals—for year 12 students when you compare metropolitan and non-metropolitan uptake. I mentioned those figures before. We cannot have the situation where students have to walk away from a training opportunity because their families cannot afford to pay for their being and studying away from home. That is a nation that is squandering the human capital that we depend on for our futures.

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last week the government had its fifth chance to change the criteria for youth allowance so that all students had a fair chance of furthering their education. Sadly, the government decided to deny regional students that chance to attend university by voting against the coalition's private member's motion on youth allowance criteria.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Shame!

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a shame, Member for Murray. Unfortunately Labor, the Greens and the Independent MPs, with the exception of the member for Kalgoorlie, voted against this motion. This is very disappointing for the students in the electorates of those members on the other side that are missing out on receiving support to help them reach their full potential. The coalition has been continuously calling on the government to make the criteria fairer for inner regional students. The maps currently used are ridiculous and do not accurately reflect the difficulty students from some areas have in getting to university. In fact, they make it very difficult for some students to actually get to university.

To help members on the other side understand this, in South Australia we have the perfect example in Mt Gambier, which is about 450 kilometres away from Melbourne or Adelaide universities. It is a long way and, unlike their city cousins, there is no way Mt Gambier residents can go from home to university every day. But if you live in Mt Gambier you are treated just like a student in Adelaide or Melbourne. However, if you live outside the town boundaries, you are treated as you were under the old Howard government conditions. This decision makes no sense. It is based not on any educational criteria but on medical criteria relating to the availability of doctors. It has nothing whatsoever to do with education. As a result of this decision, people living in a reasonably sized city like Mt Gambier, which has 23,000 or 24,000 people, are treated differently from those living outside the town boundaries, even if that boundary lies just across the road.

What we are trying to do is point out to the government, for the fifth time, that they do not understand that people in Mt Gambier are very angry about being treated differently from those who live outside the city itself. If you understood Mt Gambier at all, you would know that outside the town boundaries is still part of the urban area which is in the district council of Grant. There are perhaps up to 20,000 other examples of this ridiculous government decision, but Mt Gambier is easier to understand as it is so clearly a long way from the nearest universities. This government has inadvertently drawn random lines on a map and changed the lives of students across Australia.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And their families.

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And their families; that is right, member for Forrest. It is not fair that this government can act so carelessly when students' futures are at risk. University is a crucial part of life that for many students will decide what path their careers take. The coalition has tried to give a voice to these students that are being treated so unfairly, but the government does not seem to want to listen. We have introduced motions and legislation, we have tabled petitions, we have held roundtables, we have spoken to the media over and over again, but this government is so arrogant that it cannot see the error of its ways.

So we have these two classes of students. Inner regional students are currently forced to find 30 hours of work per week over an 18-month period, and anyone who has an idea about regional communities would know that this work is very difficult to find—30 hours of work per week is a lot for regional communities to support for even a couple of students who are aspiring to head to university, let alone more. Communities such as those in my electorate do not have endless retail outlets and fast food eateries for young people to work in for 30 hours per week. Small businesses are already feeling the Labor pinch; now we want to ask them to supply jobs for 30 hours per week for an 18-month period. It just does not make sense and in most cases is not possible. I have received a huge number of letters, calls and emails from concerned students and parents over the length of this debate because there is a genuine problem that needs to be fixed. The calls are all different but the stories similar: students are very keen to attend university but cannot afford to do it without the support of Youth Allowance. As a representative of a large rural electorate where parents are faced with huge costs to fund their children's university studies hundreds of kilometres away, often to the tune of, say, $15,000 a year, I remain extremely concerned by the government's arrogant dismissal of the very sincere problems caused by the changes to the support arrangements for rural and regional students. This is an opportunity for the government to stop the inequity and get it fixed. Reasonable students are suffering at the hands of an incompetent government which is denying many students fair access to support.

If the government were committed to youth allowance reform, it would fix the inner regional discrepancy straightaway. It is not a hard call. There is a very simple way to fix it but this government would rather wait until at least January next year before doing something, if that does in fact even happen. During debate on this matter recently, members on the other side suggested that we are ignoring the government's announcement made a few weeks ago about the increased numbers going to university. Can I say the coalition does not have a problem with that. We support that, but there is still the problem of the criteria for the so-called inner regional students being based not on educational criteria but on medical criteria. We are trying to address the problem which has been caused by this government.

The government claimed that the number of inner regional students receiving youth allowance increased by 4,250 students or 20 per cent in 12 months. The problem is that the government did not disclose that there are students receiving only a part rate of allowance. The truth is in the detail once again. During Senate estimates, it was revealed that some students could be getting as little as a few dollars a week of dependent youth allowance, compared to the full rate of $388. I would challenge anyone to be able to afford to attend university on a few dollars a week or fortnight. These students have packed up and moved to the city to attend university because obviously they cannot attend on a daily basis—450 kilometres and not too many of them own a private jet, and I do not think we would be giving them youth allowance if they could afford to fly to university. It is an obvious problem. They cannot go to university on a daily basis so they have to move from home and that costs money.

During questioning departmental official Marsha Milliken said it would be a varied mix of students, some receiving the maximum rate and some receiving a part rate. To claim that 4,250 extra students are getting youth allowance—which we would welcome—denies the fact that many of them are on only a very small portion of that allowance. Even more concerning are the government's plans. Senator Evans was recording as saying:

… we are committed to removing those distinctions between the various rural and regional areas, but we’ve also made it clear that there is not an endless bucket of money and I think people need to be aware that does not mean that everyone will move to the outer regional areas.

Basically, this is the government admitting that students will miss out under its watch, even after all this time has elapsed since the government was first made aware of the inner regional discrepancy—some 18 months ago I believe; it might even be closer to two years ago—and they still have not fixed the problem, even after all the pressure from angry students and parents and even after the coalition have reminded the government time after time and week after week that this is just not good enough. This issue is not going to go away.

Members on the other side should realise that promises of reviews and announcements such as those made by Senator Evans in May are nothing more than an attempt to mask the real problems and will not stop the students, the parents and the coalition from calling for this criteria to be changed. This government thinks it is good at trying to sweep things under the carpet but the coalition will not let this one fade. The future of students in our rural electorates is far too important to just let this issue fade. We must not let the government push the matter aside for another six months or a year. Families in rural electorates have to plan for the future. Students have to plan for the future, but they have no prospect of going to university if this problem is not fixed.

Members and senators from the coalition have done a great job of keeping up the pressure on this issue. The member for Sturt, the member for Forrest—and I am sure she will give a great contribution on this topic as she always does—and Senator Nash have been fantastic advocates for this cause. But it is now time for the government members to stand up and show the sort of support for students that this side of the House has displayed. I know that the member for Braddon said there are problems in his electorate, but apparently he is prepared to wait for this review. I like the member for Braddon. He is a good man. We came to this parliament together and we have done a lot of committee work together. Unlike him, I am not prepared to wait. We have to fix this problem. We have to give the opportunity to rural students to plan for their futures and help their families to plan for their futures. This issue is too important to be swept under the carpet.

We implore the government to recognise the folly of their mistake on this issue. It has been a huge issue and it continues to be a huge issue in my electorate and electorates like mine all around Australia. They have been stymied by a stupid ruling, a stupid line on a map, that is not based on educational criteria or on the ability to go to university. It is based simply on the availability of doctors in a town, not on the ability of students to go to university. As I pointed out, if you live on one side of the street in Mount Gambier, you will be under the new guidelines and be in a regional area. If you live over the road in the township in the District Council of Grant, you are under the old rules, which are much fairer and more consistent with what happens in all communities.

I implore the government to quickly change their mind on this and fix the problem. We all know there is a problem. It should not take a six-month review to fix the problem. For the last 18 months, we have been showing them where the problems are and the government have failed to listen. It is about time that this government listened to the people being affected by this silly ruling and by the silly lines on a map. They are affecting the future of our young people.

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today I rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (No.1) Bill 2011. It gives me enormous pleasure to again be speaking on a higher education matter in this place. The Gillard government has certainly been a reformist government when it comes to education, increasing the opportunities for students to access the higher education system. This bill will provide opportunities for greater efficiency and effectiveness in the government's VET system. This bill will also better position implementation of the government's 2010 budget measure, Skills for Sustainable Growth. That is certainly something that I welcome and I know all members from the Labor side welcome this quality provision. The Australian government recognise that for some people the payment of up-front tuition fees for higher education and for VET courses is a barrier to study. I know the member for Deakin has raised this matter often. He is a qualified electrician and has a real passion for, and has taken an interest in, making sure that young people have the opportunity to take up a trade and receive a TAFE education as part of that. I certainly welcome his contribution.

In keeping with the tradition that Labor governments want to improve the access of people to higher education, VET training and the like, we want to lift barriers to participation. These are important provisions to enable that. They build on the FEE-HELP and the VET FEE-HELP that have been put in place to enable people to access TAFE courses and the like. I think these amendments are proper and will enable people to access the very important reform areas that we have put in place.

Requirements will be developed for inclusion in legislative instruments under the act, where possible, for streamlining and for the use of existing Commonwealth regulatory frameworks to apply. The amendments will allow the minister to put in place the necessary approvals for higher education and for VET providers. The minister will be able to vary or remove conditions which have been imposed in the past. I think placing conditions on approval and continued approval is very important.

I take this opportunity to put on record my continued support for the Gordon, the Geelong TAFE training facility that has, in one way or another, been around since 1887. It has played a very important role in providing training opportunities for young people across Geelong and the western districts. By the nature of my seat, two-thirds of young people that access TAFE training would access that institution with the remainder of people, from the northern part, taking the opportunity to go to the School of Mines in Ballarat, another very old institution. Its roots go back to the gold rush. It has had a very long and proud history of training young people for a very significant period of time in the northern part of my electorate. In the western part, we have the South West Institute of TAFE which was established in the late seventies. It has been providing training opportunities for young people. Whilst it is based in Warrnambool, one of its sites, the Glenormiston College, is only just to the west of my electorate and has been providing educational opportunities, particularly in agriculture, for a very long time. It is something I am very proud of. I know many people in the western district have access to training opportunities in the west.

As I said a little earlier, this Labor government has a very proud record of building opportunities for young people to access TAFE and university education. We continue to put in place the necessary reforms to increase participation to enable universities and TAFE colleges to grow in a sustainable way to provide quality educational outcomes for those students. Course costs have been a barrier for access, and Labor has a very proud record, going back a long time, of putting in place opportunities for young people to be able to go to universities or TAFE and have those costs deferred to a later time when they can afford it. We are about removing barriers and we will continue to work hard to reform our education system to ensure that barriers are removed wherever possible, providing people with an opportunity. As a consequence of that, I commend to this place these bills. As I said earlier, I would like to thank the opposition for their cooperation.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition has a strong history of supporting students who are working towards higher education and training. It was the coalition government, in fact, that introduced the extension of income-contingent loans to the vocational education and training sector back in 2007. We saw the need to ensure that all students pursuing a tertiary or vocational education were, through VET FEE-HELP, provided with financial assistance and places in a similar way to the assistance offered to university students. This intent also reflected the value the coalition places on the vocational education sector and the very valuable members of our community who choose vocational pathways to achieve their higher level training. These people will become important contributors to the workforce and the economy, particularly in regional areas. Our commitment to VET FEE-HELP is reflected in our intention to ensure greater equity between students in the tertiary sector and those who study vocational qualifications. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, and as members in this chamber know, I feel very strongly about equity of access, specifically when I consider the issues confronting students in rural and regional areas. I will scrutinise the Higher Education Support Amendment (No. 1) Bill 2011 and every other piece of legislation that the government presents from that perspective.

I listened with interest to the previous speaker when he spoke about lifting barriers to participation and increasing participation. All I can say is that I wish the government would apply that rule to the students who have been defined as living in inner regional areas. I wish that the Labor government shared our strong value to ensure that all students have equity of access to financial support with their higher education and training, but we have seen the exact opposite. We have heard today that on at least five occasions the government has had the opportunity to reverse this decision. These are these great young people; these are not just nameless, faceless people who are affected by this decision. I meet them every day and I meet their families every day. They are great young people who live in regional and rural areas. They have no choice but to move away from their home. They not only leave their home but leave their home town, their friends and their families because they are passionate about studying or need to pursue their education or their courses.

Since the 2009 budget, that dark day in May 2009, the Labor government has discriminated quite directly against students from regional and rural areas right around Australia by changing eligibility requirements for independent youth allowance. This was quite deliberate. Effectively the government has decided that students from inner regional areas, for some unknown reason that I cannot fathom in all this time, do not deserve the same access to independent youth allowance as other students. What reason could there possibly be for this? I do not understand this. What on earth have these students and their families done so wrong? What have they done to deserve this treatment from the government? We have been bringing this to the government's attention consistently since 2009. What have they done wrong? These students cannot afford to commute—they physically cannot commute—to tertiary educational institutions, and they have no choice but to move away from home and incur the additional costs of living that go with this. They have no choice. These families are not wealthy, unfortunately. Evidence has shown that the cost of relocating is a massive financial barrier that is preventing regional students from undertaking tertiary study.

The other issue in trying to meet the criteria surrounding the inner regional definition—the 30 hours of work a week for 18 months—means they have to defer for two full years. If you are a young person living on a farm or in a very small community, how do you find 30 hours of work a week for 18 months and where? In these areas, it is seasonal employment for young people with their level of skill. It is extremely difficult, yet they are expected to find 30 hours of work a week for 18 months. That is virtually impossible. No part of my electorate is within practical commuting distance—some are 220 to 250 kilometres away. I constantly receive emails from people affected by this issue. Students currently on their gap year do not know if they are going to qualify and whether they have to work 30 hours a week for 18 months. Where are they going to end up?

One of the most appalling things I have come across is the lack of respect for the families and young people affected by this. I cannot believe the government have treated young people in this way. Families and students have poured their hearts out to the Prime Minister and the government on this issue. I received some information from one of the parents in my electorate and she said: 'What hope have we little people got? The government has no interest or understanding when dealing with the issues facing rural and regional residents.' This parent sent the Prime Minister an email on what is a vitally important issue to that family—whether their child can go to university and whether they had to choose which one can go. Their email, dated Wednesday, 17 June 2009, did not even get a read receipt—in other words, that someone had clicked on it to open it—until an email from the Prime Minister's office dated Friday, 6 May 2011. How do you think that made that family feel? Yes, they are in a regional area. Yes, they have a number of challenges. Does that mean they are less entitled? No, it does not and it should not if this government was genuine.

As the last speaker said, lift the barriers to participation. The government have had five opportunities since that time to lift the barriers to participation. I even have one young person in my electorate who has had to come back because they could not afford to stay away. The family thought that the legislation we put through this House would have some benefit and that the government would listen. So she began her tertiary education but she had to come back because the family could not support her. And I get families in supermarkets saying to me: 'What do we do? We have to choose which one of our children we can afford to send to tertiary education?' What is my answer, Mr Deputy Speaker? I know you would understand this very well. What do I say to these families? This government must give the answers to these families and do not take two years to provide a read receipt when families write with their heartfelt and genuine representation of where they are at.

I received another email from a lady who stated:

As a very proud parent of a child who has accepted into her chosen course of Occupational Therapy … I am now distressed to be faced with the uncertainty of her eligibility to qualify for youth allowance.

She will not have the opportunity to live at home like her fellow city based peers. We live in Busselton and for her to attend Curtin University she must live in Perth. It is over 250kms and she clearly cannot commute daily.

It will cost us at least $15,000 per year over 4 years before we even start to think about uni fees and books.

Like most country kids, she is taking a Gap Year to try to make as much money as she can … get herself set up … for the costly years ahead.

Obtaining full time or even desirable hours in part time work is proving … difficult in this … seasonal tourist town—

That is a practical indication. She goes on to state:

She has put her Resume to over a dozen resorts for casual cleaning—with one reply offering her occasional casual call in.

She has completed Austswim qualifications and built up to 14 hours per week swimming teaching.

How will she ever meet the 30 hour week employment criteria I ask?

She continues to seek further employment to make up hours, but we wonder how she can … juggle with an assortment of employers.

That is what she is up against. Another parent said:

I have two sons who are now studying at UWA and receive youth allowance and the Commonwealth accommodation scholarship. We live in the country and are not able to financially support our children away from home. My sons would not have the opportunity to study law and engineering without the financial support from the government.

She recognised the real cost of rent, food, clothing, books, computers, internet connection fees, electricity, telephone and travel costs. She said:

If they were able to live at home then many of these costs are covered by a family home including not having to purchase computers for the boys to use away. They have no choice but to move to the city for their study. And we are not financially viable enough to pay for their cost of education and living away from home.

This is a very real issue. If the government is genuinely concerned about offering greater participation it should fix this problem first. This is an ongoing problem and I have extremely desperate young people in my electorate who are just crying out for an opportunity. As we heard earlier, some of the figures that were raised do not reflect the falls in the numbers of young people in those inner regional areas who were not able to access independent youth allowance, and those figures certainly do not reflect some of the minor amounts of youth allowance that some are receiving.

Given that youth allowance is a capped scheme, I was quite concerned when I heard one of the ministers in here recently talking about extending the eligibility for youth allowance to those people who are currently on Newstart or who are 20 to 21 years old and living at home. If that is going to be the case there will be even less money in the system for those who are currently trying to access youth allowance. Unless the government is planning to put further funding into this capped program, I can see some real problems ahead even for those who are currently accessing youth allowance.

We certainly care about higher education opportunities for all regional and rural students, not just the winners and losers we have seen. As I said, on five occasions we have introduced opportunities for the government to change this and it is time that the government did so voluntarily. It should not fall upon the opposition to keep bringing this matter before the parliament. The people have spoken over and over again, and two houses of parliament have agreed to this, but the government persists with it.

The VET FEE-HELP measures will provide important assistance to young people and others right throughout my electorate. There are several education and training options in the region through private providers such as the South West Institute of Technology, the Margaret River Education Campus, with its collaboratively provided Centre of Wine Excellence, and Manea Senior College, which is unique in that it gives students the opportunity to combine their school programs with certificate or university studies by accessing the pathways provided by virtually co-located campuses at Edith Cowan University and the South West Institute of Technology.

There were 116,000 people enrolled in state funded vocational education and training courses in Western Australia last year; however, we know that there are skills shortages. The state government has increased trainees and apprenticeships by 21 per cent and 16 per cent respectively in the past 12 months, which was the highest growth in the nation over the past five years. I note that there were nearly 39,000 apprentices and trainees in training in WA last year. Given that there are $220 billion of resource and infrastructure projects either under construction, committed or under consideration, we need every well-educated, trained and skilled person.

There are indications that WA will need up to 100,000 additional skilled workers by 2017. I want to see as many Western Australians as possible take advantage of these opportunities. I note that the occupations priority list includes auto electricians, diesel mechanics, heavy duty mechanics, fitters, machinists, welders, metal fabricators, sheetmetal workers, plumbers, tilers, bakers and chefs. Given the challenges facing south-western Western Australia more generally, I hope that the measures included in this bill increase provider approvals and, in practical terms, provide greater accessibility for students to VET FEE-HELP and FEE-HELP. I am aware also that the state minister Peter Collier's top priority is to prepare Western Australians for the workforce by providing training opportunities and I note that the WA state government committed $33.4 million in this year's budget to fund over 12,000 training places—that is, up to 21,000 places over the last three years. We remain committed to ensuring that students pursuing vocational pathways are provided with financial assistance and I support this bill on that basis, but I make a last plea to this government. You really need to fix the inequity of inner regional students and allow equity of access to students from the south-west and other areas right around Australia to independent youth allowance.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the Higher Education Support Amendment (No. 1) Bill 2011. Whether it is tertiary education in the vocational education sector, in TAFE or in university, this government is absolutely committed to seeing improvements after the legacy of lethargy from the coalition when they were in government for 11½ years. The previous speaker was talking about university placements and university funding. For her edification and for that of those who may be listing, we are projecting to increase to $13 billion in 2012 the funding for universities. Enrolments next year are projected to be more than half a million places. Contrast that with what came from those opposite when they were in power, $8 billion in 2007, enrolments of 400,000 in 2008, 20 per cent fewer than expected in 2012. That alone is an indication that the university sector is thriving under this government and that more and more students are going into the tertiary sector.

The legislation before the House deals with the streamlining of measures in relation to higher education. According to the explanatory memorandum, it is about improving the effectiveness and the efficiency of the government's income contingent loan programs known as FEE-HELP and VET FEE-HELP; it is about making sure that the regulatory frameworks, including the proposed VET regulator expected to commence in 2011, are brought in; and it is about making sure that our commitment to the budget measures are also carried out. We have a strategy for skilling Australians, a strategy for making sure that those skills result in high-paying jobs, making sure that the economy grows, that our productivity is enhanced and that our economic prosperity is augmented. These are extremely important.

We are committed to a national entitlement to a quality training place for every Australian, should they want one, by 1 July 2011. We have committed $558 million to tailored quality training places through our National Workforce Development Fund and we have a really ambitious program in the area of vocational education and training partnering with states and territories, a $1.75 billion commitment. We want to boost participation. We want to reward work and get people off welfare and into work, to make sure their family's financial security is enhanced and their opportunities and potential are realised. We emphasise increased funding and increased help for the tertiary sector, whether it is in TAFE or university.

The bill is about providing flexibility in terms of the principal purpose requirement for the recognition of bodies corporate as higher educational VET providers. It is also about reducing the risk of undesirable providers through the introduction of a fit and proper person test for the management of the personnel of those boards and the introduction of conditions of their recognition. We are going to make sure that education providers, whether they are universities or anyone involved in vocational education, also have appropriate education standards. The people running those institutions are fit and proper. They are people of integrity. The bodies are made up of people who are ethical. We want to make sure that the higher educational sector, while it is very diverse in size, scope and nature, is full of institutions that achieve good outcomes for students. We do not want dodgy degrees or dicky diplomas. We want to make sure that, whatever the person undertakes when they are at TAFE or university, that qualification is recognised internationally and domestically. We want to make sure that the focus at TAFE and university is about the student; their learning experience, their educational outcome and equipping them for the workplace—equipping them for the challenges of changing jobs and making sure that they have not just a ticket, a diploma or a degree but the skills necessary to carry out the work they have been employed to do, whether it is in the mines, the retail sector, the construction industry or whatever they want to do. We want to make sure that providers of education are fair dinkum about providing that degree and that students do not pay their dollars for something that will not give them the qualifications or the recognition domestically and internationally.

There has been a really big growth in the tertiary sector and it is a very big employer; it is a very big source of income for the Australian economy. With the growth in the international education sector, sadly, have come some immoral and unethical practices. We have seen that, and it is recognised throughout the community and the country. We want to ensure that those people involved have good regulation and that those who participate and work in the sector will work for ethical and moral institutions.

One really fantastic institution in the TAFE sector in my electorate is the Bremer Institute of TAFE, which has been operating for about 100 years. A perfect example of the contribution of this federal Labor government and the commitment to TAFE in my community is the $2 million that we have put in for capital infrastructure in our area. It is a perfect example of being hand-in-glove with good regulation and more money—you cannot have one without the other. The good regulation in this legislation comes with increased funding in the budget and in what we have seen in terms of on-the-ground assistance to TAFE. For example, the machinery shop which trains workers and apprentices in mechanical engineering and manufacturing in my home city of Ipswich at the Bremer Institute of TAFE has been improved dramatically by our additional funding. That is an institution governed by the regulatory framework that we have talked about in this legislation. That institute, based in Bundamba in my electorate, has over 15,000 students enrolled in the Western Corridor from Brisbane to Ipswich and beyond. It has a student satisfaction rating of 89 per cent, which is pretty high, and employment outcomes for graduates of the Bremer Institute of TAFE are 74 per cent. That is a good outcome, because not every degree, diploma or qualification is geared towards employment outcomes. Some of these courses are in English as a second language, and some are about enhancing people's capacities or improving their self-esteem, as well as other types of courses which do eventually lead to employment.

That institute is not one of the dodgy ones; this is one of the good ones. It is a publicly owned entity, it is government backed, it offers stability and continuity, it has been there for about 100 years and there are rewards after rewards that people can have by attending there. There are also awards and awards that that institution has received. The institution has helped people in my area and it has helped businesses in the Ipswich and West Moreton region to achieve their potential. It is based in Ipswich in South-East Queensland and is registered to deliver over 250 programs from Certificate I to associate diploma level. That is a good institution. It is tried and true. For 100 years it has been operating, and I think that is a fantastic testimony to a body that is enhanced by capital infrastructure and good oversight. We have heard members opposite and I heard the previous speaker talking about assistance to regional and rural students. I have an electorate that is based on Ipswich in the Somerset region and we have many students who travel from country areas to Ipswich. They actually go down to an area that used to be in my electorate but is now in the Lockyer Valley—the University of Queensland Gatton campus. They travel down there to learn about animal husbandry and veterinary science and, let me tell you, I know that it is now in the electorate of Wright, but this federal Labor government put in $47 million to help it relocate from Brisbane and its disparate locations to where it always should have been, the University of Queensland Gatton campus, the School of Veterinary Science. It is worth millions of dollars to the Lockyer Valley. The coalition never did it. They did not have the wit or wisdom to do it. It took a federal Labor government to do it in a regional and rural area in South-East Queensland. So we have got record investments in higher education.

The previous speaker had the temerity to say that what we did for allowances and support for universities and students was not achieving what we said it did, that in fact it was detrimental. Let me give you a couple of facts. I feel compelled to stand up for the local universities in my area and the local students and put a few facts on the table. It is a fact that we have had 837 local students receiving the Student Start-up Scholarship. We have also had relocation scholarship payments provided to 138 local students. We have had 625 young people benefit from the changes that we made to qualification for assistance for regional and rural students to get to university. Six hundred and twenty-five young people have benefited from the changes by now receiving the maximum payment of youth allowance, or a higher rate of youth allowance, or even a payment of youth allowance for the first time. Investment in regional universities has also increased with the government funding 10 per cent more student places since 2009.

There are interesting facts here which the previous speaker might like to know. This is the latest analysis from the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, and it was released on 1 June 2011. In just 12 months, the number of inner regional students receiving the youth allowance payment has risen by 4,250, an increase of 20 per cent. During the same period, the number of outer regional and remote students receiving youth allowance has risen by 2,150, an increase of 27 per cent. So the latest analysis confirms that this federal Labor government is delivering more support than ever before to regional students to go to university, and we remain committed to removing regional eligibility distinctions for the youth allowance from 1 January next year, and continue to support regional universities. As a result of our reforms, each year regional university students receive youth allowance and a paid-up scholarship worth $2,194, and the Labor government did that in 2011. Dependent students who move away from home to study typically receive more than $6,000 during a three-year degree to assist in relocation. We reversed the decline in regional university enrolments. We have made a record investment in regional universities and we have provided more financial support to rural and regional students than ever before.

Now I will not cop the nonsense from those opposite in relation to their scare campaigns on this because the facts do not bear out what they say. I have seen press releases and reports in regional newspapers, and I have got 12 newspapers that cover my seat in regional and rural areas so I see the press releases and I see the nonsense that they say. Country students need support to go to university and we have provided more than ever before. The independent umpire has given the verdict. What we have said has come true. We have provided more funding to regional universities, more funding to regional students and more assistance.

So let us not have those people opposite preen and pose and parade their support for regional and rural Australia, because it is a federal Labor government that has actually delivered. I see it in my regional and rural seat day after day after day: students going to university from backgrounds where their family never went to university, from places where they would never even consider the idea of going to university. They go to the University of Queensland Ipswich campus. They go to the University of Southern Queensland Springfield campus. They go to places that they never thought they would go to. Why? Because they want to achieve their potential and their goal to get a good job, and their families want that as well.

We are providing the support for them to do it, more support than those opposite ever dreamed they would do. Let us not get this nonsense, this absolute twaddle, from those opposite about this issue. They are talking rubbish and they know it in their hearts. I am sick and tired of seeing the media stories about it. The facts do not bear it out. We are the ones supporting regional and rural Australia, not the purveyors of nonsense opposite, not the so-called Nats, who allegedly stand up for regional and rural Australia. The LNP and all their counterparts in the other states should hang their heads in shame.

Teresa Gambaro (Brisbane, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Citizenship and Settlement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Higher Education Support Amendment (No.1) Bill 2011, which is designed to streamline measures within the Higher Education Support Act 2003 both to improve the efficiency and effectiveness and to ensure the ongoing integrity of the income contingent loan program for the higher education and vocational education and training sectors.

Members will be aware of my continued advocacy for this vital sector of the Australian education market. As a tutor at the Queensland University of Technology prior to entering the House I know how important and fundamental education is. I want to place on the record that I commend the outstanding work that is being done at the Queensland University of Technology Gardens Point campus and the Creative Industries faculty at Kelvin Grove. They are to be commended for the excellent work that they do. I have enjoyed working particularly with the QUT alumni at Gardens Point campus in recently honouring a former lecturer in the marketing department, Su Mon Wong, and establishing the Su Mon Wong Memorial Scholarship for Excellence in Marketing in the School of Business.

Appropriate education pathways are essential building blocks and opportunities for all Australians, both young and old. I am determined that this sector be supported and given all of the assistance that it possibly can be given. Quality education and research are crucial to our nation and our people's success in an increasingly interconnected and interdependent world. All Australians should be encouraged to pursue higher education and be supported in their endeavour to do so. That is why I support this legislation and will ensure that quality providers apply for and are able to offer those very important income contingent loans in the form of VET FEE-HELP. By simplifying administrative arrangements and improving risk management processes, the potential increased access to VET FEE-HELP is worthy of support.

The Australian vocational education and training system is extremely distinct in every regard—in its curriculum, provider, student fees and charges. The vocational education and training system provides students with the practical skills and knowledge that they need to go into the labour force initially and re-enter the labour force, either by retraining for a new job or upgrading their skills for an existing job. Since the 1990s, government policies have supported the development of a very competitive market in VET provision and today VET is provided through a national framework of many thousands of public and private registered training providers. I want to acknowledge the work that the VET providers do for state and territory governments. They run institutes of technical and further education and other government providers—for example, in the university VET campuses, agricultural colleges, community based providers, private providers, enterprises and also in the great work that some secondary schools do in this area.

While TAFE is now just another provider in the market, it is still the single largest provider, delivering exemplary services over the years. There are approximately 72 TAFE colleges operating out of a large number of campuses, and I want to pay tribute to the remarkable work that they do in my own electorate and I want to place particularly on the record the fantastic work that is being done at the Ithaca TAFE college in Red Hill and also the Gateway TAFE college.

The Australian Council of Private Education and Training, ACPET, is the main body responsible for all of the private providers and it represents more than 1,000 private organisations delivering a full range of higher education, vocational education, training and English language courses. Their leadership has always been valued by me, and I want to place also on the record the wonderful leadership of the national chair of ACPET, Kay Ganley—her business Charlton Brown is also based in the electorate of Brisbane—and the terrific work she has done, particularly in her advocacy work. I also want to place on the record the wonderful work that Michael Hall, the Queensland representative of ACPET, does in encouraging choice, innovation and diversity in Australian education and training for individuals and working proactively and cooperatively with government education training providers, industry and community groups.

I know that both Kay and Michael want to ensure that vocational, higher education and training services provide that choice, provide that diversity, that they are well targeted and widely accessible and that these courses are of very high quality. We need to make sure that all of our independent providers of post-compulsory education and training are supported, and I thank them both for the incredible leadership that they provide in this particular area.

On another indulgence, I want to mention briefly the leadership that ACPET showed recently, including with their National Disaster Scholarship Scheme that provided training assistance to individuals affected by major natural disasters that occurred recently, particularly in my electorate of Brisbane. The course scholarships were made available through the generosity of ACPET, the member colleges and the institutions and they have been made available since 2009 in response to the Victorian Black Saturday bushfires.

The scholarships provided tuition support for the completion of an Australian based vocational education qualification at both certificate and diploma level and they cover a whole range of study areas and occupations. Scholarships were awarded on demonstrated financial need, technical ability and interest in the nominated course of study. Those interested, particularly if they are wanting to take advantage of these scholarships, should also contact my Brisbane office. I want to pay tribute to the sector for bringing up those scholarships at a time of great need.

Returning to the bill, it has been reported that, because of these thousands of diverse providers entering the market, combined with the growth of the sector generally, there is an increased risk of unethical providers operating in this space. Because of these risks, we need to be satisfied that our safeguards and mechanisms for provider approval are robust, and to my mind the bill the government has presented achieves this though the fit and proper persons test.

Registered training organisations must meet a number of eligibility requirements to be approved as a VET provider: they need to be a body corporate whose principal purpose is to provide education; they need to be an RTO as listed on the National Training Information Service; they need to be financially viable and to remain financially viable, and they must offer VET accredited diploma and advanced diploma courses with credit transfer arrangements or VET accredited graduate certificate and graduate diploma courses; they must be a member of an approved tuition assurance scheme and hold a guarantee or an exemption from tuition assurance requirements; and they need to have administrative procedures and capacity to meet reporting requirements. These are all very important criteria of approval to ensure that the VET network remains strong, competitive, fair and flexible.

There have been an incredible number of reforms—and previous speakers spoke about those earlier—over the last 15 years and they have created strong foundations for the sector, but according to Skills Australia in their discussion paper Creating a future direction for Australian vocational education and training, aspects of the sector's performance over the last several years have been variable. Enrolment growth has been slightly at less than an average of one per cent a year in the last five years and apprenticeship completion rates are not satisfactory. Public confidence in the quality of provision has been shaken by improper activities in the delivery of programs, particularly to international students. We have some challenges before us and we have areas that need to be corrected and improved upon, but the future does look bright. With better provider approval processes it will certainly increase the number of students accessing fee assistance, and the coalition are very supportive of this measure. At a time when all Australians are facing very tough economic realities, including increases in groceries, utilities, rents and mortgages, any assistance that we can provide to those who really need fee assistance and help in accessing it is very welcome.

Tuition fees for publicly funded courses can vary enormously from course to course, across providers and even across jurisdictions, thus making the case for increased access to income contingent loans to the VET sector very important. It could be argued, as it is with higher education, that there are private rates of return to VET that make student charges justifiable. Consequently, VET students should have access to income contingent loans because upfront fees may be acting as a terrible barrier for them to pursue VET participation.

In 2005 income contingent loans, known as FEE-HELP, were made available to domestic students paying full fees in non-Commonwealth funded courses at universities and eligible private higher education providers. Expectations were that, with the introduction of FEE-HELP, there would be an increase in the uptake of full-fee places. This was introduced by the coalition government, of which I was a part. Under the reforms in 2007 extended student assistance was provided to those studying at diploma, advanced diploma, graduate certificate and graduate diploma levels, just as the requirements are with the Higher Education Contribution Scheme. The requirement was for students to repay the loan once their income exceeded a minimum repayment, currently just under $45,000 per annum. Unfortunately there are far too few Australians who have been able to access VET FEE-HELP to date. Departmental figures show that, in 2009, only 5,262 students received income contingent loans under this scheme. It is understandable, I suppose, as there are only 50 registered training organisations eligible to provide VET FEE-HELP.

Less well stated, but potentially implicit in the reasoning for targeting diploma, advanced diploma, graduate certificate and graduate diploma courses, is that professional and associate professional occupations are expected to be the areas of greatest labour market growth in the future. Predictions are that there will be labour shortfalls in these areas if current levels of supply of qualifications are maintained. Therefore, by providing students with financial support needed to undertake studies at this level, VET FEE-HELP can potentially help finance this demand. That is why I am very happy to support this bill. Every day in my electorate of Brisbane people tell me of the very great difficulty they face in sourcing and retaining appropriately qualified and experienced staff. Indeed, from my own experience as a small business operator I can attest to the trials of negotiating the human resources merry-go-round that exists out there. That is why we need to do so much better in this area. I am committed to ensuring that all Australians have access to quality training to make sure that they have the real world skills needed. This commitment goes hand in glove with the coalition's long-held goal to ensure that all Australians who want a job can get a job.

Over the years we have seen Labor waste the opportunity to provide meaningful skills access to Australians. What is a tragedy, today, is that 40,000 people aged 15 to 17 years of age—that is nearly five per cent—are not in education, training or work. And nearly one quarter of people aged 15 to 19 are currently looking for full-time work. We really need to do much better. It is a function of many variables, notably major demographic changes and the ageing of the population, but it is also partly due to a shrinking pool of skilled-up job seekers available to take up job opportunities and it is certainly a function of the government's failure. The skills shortage is of great concern to me and my coalition colleagues. I recommit myself to ensuring all I can do as the member for Brisbane to help businesses struggling to find staff with the skills that they need. We need workers in Australia to have better skills and to utilise them more effectively in workplaces and businesses. The VET sector provides that certainty and particular support, and we should all work towards that aim. I support this bill and I hope that more students will take advantage of the VET FEE-HELP scheme.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to support the remarks of my friend and colleague the member for Brisbane. Ms Gambaro would remember back in her earlier parliamentary incarnation as the member for Petrie in 1996 that one of the key priorities of the Howard coalition government was to restore public confidence and commitment to vocational education and training. At the end of the Hawke-Keating era of Labor governments there was the Dawkins review and the rhetoric about the way funding was allocated. Vocational qualifications had been very much relegated to being second-class qualifications. All that the former Labor government could talk about were university degrees, as if those were the only postsecondary education pathway that people could consider.

I was thrilled at the renaissance in vocational education and training. There were innovations in apprenticeships by broadening the base of those qualifications beyond the traditional trades. What a renaissance that was in vocational education and training under the Howard government. I am pleased that that leadership has caught on. It seems to have infected the newer Labor government and it is pleasing to see that this Labor government is turning its mind to issues that seemed all too tedious for the last Labor government in Canberra.

So I am pleased to be able to support the Higher Education Support Amendment (No. 1) Bill 2011. The coalition has no amendments, is supportive of this bill and recognises a number of positive measures that the bill seeks to implement. The bill aims to achieve better outcomes for higher education and for people studying under vocational education and training providers by providing flexibility in the 'principal purpose' requirement for the recognition of bodies corporate as higher education or VET providers. This is a good thing because it is a clear statement that we have no place for those who think they can offer courses, particularly to overseas students, in the guise of education for what are really shopfronts for visa factories. These diminish the quality of education in Australia. Education is still a very key export for our nation, despite it running into very stiff headwinds at the moment, and I will touch more on that shortly.

There are also measures that aim to reduce the risk of undesirable providers through the introduction of a fit and proper persons test for the management personnel of these bodies and the introduction of conditions for their recognition. The bill also aims to simplify and streamline administrative arrangements for VET providers to facilitate access to FEE-HELP and VET FEE-HELP income contingent loans—a measure of the former Howard government. These loans are a mechanism available to full-fee-paying higher education and eligible VET students in full-fee paying and some government subsidised higher level courses. There is also a measure in the bill to assist the government in meeting its 2010 budget commitment to provide the National Entitlement to a Quality Training Place with the support of a VET FEE-HELP income contingent plan.

We are also aiming to improve access to VET FEE-HELP by removing financial barriers to higher education and ensuring that those who plan to undertake a VET qualification can access student loans to assist in the financing of their course. The minister also has a power in this legislation that can be exercised by regulation to establish criteria for deciding whether the management of a registered training provider meet the fit and proper persons test. So there will be more activity to tease out precisely what that means to ensure that people are eligible to be approved as higher education providers or VET providers. I have touched on the introduction of the contingent loans for the vocational education training sector—a measure from the Howard government years and one that has been carried forward by this bill. This is a good measure because a number of people do feel that the cost of pursuing a vocational education qualification or a higher education course is a barrier to their participation. Here we see an income-contingent loan that would take into account all or part of the student tuition fees. This is important because that income-contingent loan in this financial year only begins to be repaid when the eligible person has an income in the order of—as I look quickly through my notes—the mid-$40,000s, if I recall correctly. That is a point in time where the financial benefits of those that have achieved a qualification are starting to be realised—it is $44,911 for 2011—and it recognises that, as the taxpayer and the broader community make a contribution through government and institutions and providers of vocational education and higher education, the individual who is benefiting from that investment also receives a personal benefit.

There are a lot of statistics around that show that the enhanced lifetime income of people carrying forward qualifications of the kind this bill seeks to address are quite substantial, and a modest return of that personal benefit in the way of repaying an income-contingent loan is, I think, a sensible and measured way of recognising the duality of benefits in that the nation and the economy benefits from a higher qualified workforce and a more educated community but the individual also receives considerable personal benefit, and that partnership is reflected in the funding arrangements of the courses that are undertaken to achieve that position.

The issue that the bill will also hopefully assist with is that not enough Australians have been able to access VET FEE-HELP to date. Some of the figures that have been available through the department communicate that in 2009 only a little over 5,000 students received income-contingent loans under the VET FEE-HELP scheme and only 50 registered training organisations were eligible. So if you were lucky enough to be in the catchment of one of those RTOs then an opportunity would be there. If you were unfortunate enough not to have an eligible RTO within a reasonable distance then there was an impediment to you accessing that benefit and that opportunity.

It is also important to ensure that there is an increasing participation and to recognise what the barriers might be to participation. In my own community, down in the wonderful Mornington Peninsula on the outer urban fringe of Melbourne, our postsecondary education participation is approximately half the metropolitan average. That is quite a striking figure when you imagine there are some outstanding postsecondary education providers in our community—and the member for Chifley is standing on his feet to commend Chisholm and Monash, I am certain.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House.

The bells having been rung—

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! A quorum not being present, the sitting will be resumed at 13:00.

Sitting suspended from 12:53 to 13:00

The House having been counted and a quorum being present—

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the few minutes left I will conclude the topic on which I was speaking before the quorum was called downstairs. Aspiration is as crucial as having access to the finances to pursue post-secondary education. In the community that I represent, where we have half the representation of our young people in post-secondary education compared to the Melbourne average, there are other issues at play. One of them is to get the message clearly, strongly and consistently across to all young people that their postcode does not determine their potential and that the delicious possibilities available in post-secondary education could well be theirs, and we have a task not only to make sure that financial barriers are removed but that aspiration for post-secondary education is a belief and commitment that all young people share. It is also a pathway in which we need to invest.

I thank you for your forbearance in giving me another minute of time.

Proceedings suspended from 13:01 to 16:0 2

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today in support of the Higher Education Support Amendment (No. 1) Bill 2011. At the outset, I would like to thank the minister and his office, particularly Mr Tim Friedrich, for listening and for fixing an unintended consequence of changes that were made to the legislation in 2007, I think. The particular amendment that I would like to talk about is the more flexible 'principal purpose' requirement which has enabled a training provider in my electorate to continue to operate. It is a business that offers training and should continue to operate. Sharp Airlines is a growing provider of regional aviation services and started primarily as a trainer of pilots, but as the business grew it branched into providing air services between Hamilton, Portland and Essendon airports. It also now flies to Adelaide, Launceston and even Flinders Island. The airline does a lot of other mining routes as well. It is fantastic to see a regional business such as this expand, but one of the things that occurred during this expansion was that the provision of services along these routes took over and became a growing part of the business. Sharp still continues to provide excellent training for trainee pilots, but the principal purpose of the organisation became the delivery of air services.

Under the legislation as it previously stood, all of the trainees who came from across Australia to Hamilton to train to be pilots could not get access to VET FEE-HELP. Following that, Helen Sobey from Sharp Airlines came up for a meeting with Tim Friedrich, the minister and others. The minister, his office and the department listened to the case that was put forward and, hence, we have this more flexible 'principal purpose' requirement in the bill. I would like to place on record my appreciation for this being included in the bill. If it had not been included, there was a possibility that Sharp Airlines may have reluctantly had to look at relocating in order to get access to VET FEE-HELP. That would have been a real shame not only for Hamilton but also for the family business itself.

It is very good to see that the unintended consequences in this situation have been addressed. I think the lesson for all of us as decision makers in this building is that when we legislate we should always think of the unintended consequences. When we put forward laws from Canberra we should especially realise that what may be suitable for training providers in our big urban centres or capital cities may not always fit with what is happening on the ground in regional and rural areas. I think for that reason we have to be very careful about mandating absolutely specific requirements. We should always be prepared to say that we might need particular flexibility. So it gives me great pleasure to see that in this bill that is what has been provided. I know that Sharp Airlines are very appreciative that the minister has gone down this path. They feel that they have been listened to in this circumstance. That is very good and they are grateful.

I will go into a little bit of detail regarding the more flexible 'principal purpose' requirement to get on the record what the government has done. The amendment adds to the current principal purpose provisions to allow the minister the discretion to approve a body corporate as a higher education or VET provider where the principal purpose of that body may not be education—and/or research in the case of higher education providers—as long as its other purpose or purposes do not conflict with its principal purpose. The minister may suspend or revoke a body's approval as a higher education or VET provider if any of the body's other purposes conflict with its principal purpose, or if the body no longer has education—and/or research, in the case of higher education providers—as its principal purpose.

The following amendments are made to section 16-25, in relation to higher education providers, and to clause 6, in relation to VET providers, and are similar amendments to ensure consistency between the respective provisions. Once again, I think the government has acted in good faith in making this amendment. As the member for Wannon, as a member of the coalition and as someone who led a delegation to the minister, I support this change.

Broadly speaking, we also support the streamlined measures that are introduced through this bill to the Higher Education Support Act 2003. The intention is to simplify administrative arrangements relating to VET providers to ensure that quality providers apply for and are able to offer income-contingent loans in the form of VET FEE-HELP. The bill also seeks to improve risk management processes ensuring VET FEE-HELP approved providers are fit and proper people. I think we are all in agreement that we need this to be the case and that we do not want to see an instance or instances whereby some of those who are providing VET training may not be doing so for particularly wholesome reasons. So this is a good change.

The bill is intended to increase access to VET FEE-HELP by removing financial barriers to higher education, ensuring those who wish to undertake a VET qualification are able to access student loans to fund their course. I go back to one of the amendments which have been made which will enable young potential pilots from around Australia to go and train in Hamilton to become pilots and get assistance for doing so, whereas under the previous legislation that was not the case; only those that had the income could do so. This is a change for the better.

Income-contingent loans were extended to the VET sector in 2007 under the former coalition government. It is good to see that both sides have been able, in government, to continue to progress the changes which were made to the sector in 2007—changes led by the coalition government at that time. The extension of student loan assistance from the university sector to the VET sector with student loans available for diploma, advanced diploma, graduate certificate and graduate diploma courses, was a very positive move. It was recognition that, while we need students in our tertiary institutions, in our universities, we also need to ensure that students who want to do, for instance, aviation training are able to afford to do so and to be able to relocate where necessary to do that training. The loan may cover or partially cover the tuition costs of the VET course, a sensible addition, and students are required to repay their loan once their income exceeds the minimum repayment level of $44,911 for 2011—once again, a very sensible provision.

Regrettably, too few Australians have been able to access VET FEE-HELP to date, and I think the hope from all sides is that we will see more Australians accessing VET FEE-HELP. It is important, as I stated before, that we can position students, no matter how they are seeking to skill themselves—whether it be in universities or through vocational education or training—so that they can afford to do so. So hopefully we will now see greater access to this. One place where I am sure it will happen is that we will see an increase in the aviation sector.

DEEWR figures show that in 2009 only 5,262 students received income-contingent loans under the VET FEE-HELP scheme. These are the most available figures at the moment, but hopefully we will see that number increase significantly. There were only 15 registered training organisations that were eligible. Once again, I think that through these amendments, and in particular the one that I detailed specifically earlier in my speech, we will see the number of RTOs that are eligible expand.

The minister will specify by means of 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. Once again, I think this is a sensible addition. It is another safeguard to make sure that the VET provider wants to provide education and training in the vocational sector—that that is what their intent is.

So the coalition remains supportive of income-contingent loans. Once again I express my appreciation that we will now see this being able to be offered to students who seek to learn how to fly. As our need for air services continues to grow, with the expansion especially in our resource sector, and the needs of our commercial airlines continue to grow, we are going to need to continue to process pilots and to be able to train them up. The changes in this bill will enable that to happen. I think that on the whole everyone in this House will finally benefit from that change, because a dearth and shortage of pilots is not something that the nation needs. We need to be doing everything we can to encourage aviation training. Once again I would like to place on the record my thanks to the minister and his office for having listened, for having made the amendment that they have made in this bill and also for following on from the good work that the Howard government did in introducing this VET FEE-HELP.

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Higher Education Support Amendment (No. 1) Bill 2011. What I like about the bill comes from a personal background of involvement in education and training. In a number of areas that have occurred over probably the last decade, RTOs, or registered training organisations, are now taking a real and serious place in the delivery of skill development and knowledge impartment. In order for Australia to be successful within the world in which we live and in the industries that we will be shaping and developing as the future continues to appear over the horizon, I believe that the lifelong learning stance that I have taken on many occasions—in my previous role as an educator and as Pro Chancellor of Edith Cowan University, but more recently in the fields of health—is important. This legislation enables us to position the way in which we develop skills for the workforce far better than we have, to some extent, in the past. The flexibility provision within the bill is a tremendous opportunity to move and to give those who make the decisions in the provision of training and higher education and in the VET sector the capacity to respond—to respond to industry needs and to respond to the emerging needs of new fields that continue to arise out of the way in which our society moves.

Recently, on being elected to the seat of Hasluck, I met with all of our RTOs, people from the VET sector and people from the secondary school sector—recognising that some are in competition with each other for available funding—to talk about how we provide for an emerging need for workforce skills within the rapidly developing economy of this country particularly in Western Australia. Those workforce skills are needed to support not only the resource sector but also the front-line companies and businesses, including the public sector, which provide services to it. What I appreciated from the discussion is the rich thinking and depth of thinking that has occurred among the RTOs. Certainly all of them expressed the need to have some flexibility in the way they attract students in what they see as a continuum, a lifelong journey—so age was not a factor from their perspective.

How do we provide the best possible education and training within existing institutional arrangements? Out of those discussions has evolved a tremendous agreement that they want to be leaders in the work within the electorate to provide opportunities for training, for educational pathways. But they also looked at the question: how do they link with all the institutions that this act covers in an effective way of ensuring the points are a connection into the lifelong learning pathways and the skilling pathways required? Some innovative thinking has arisen in that group.

What I do like about the legislation is the propensity for flexible arrangements, enabling an institution to provide the type of training and, as my colleague talked about earlier, giving it the capacity to train pilots. The HESA values the access to higher education provided under the HECS-HELP and the VET FEE-HELP initiatives. Certainly young people within the electorate partake of the Commonwealth programs that have been put in place by successive governments.

One of the things I do want to support very strongly are the pathfinders, and I mean 'pathfinders' in two senses—those who are educated, skilled and trained for the opportunities in a career but also the institutions which provide the knowledge needed for the innovative and knowledge society. There are some challenges for us in the way we have to think—we have to think outside the square. We cannot always make assumptions that the current training we provide will meet tomorrow's future. In this sense, I often look at this sector and wonder whether we are teaching our young people, the future of our nation, with yesterday's curriculum and with today's teaching staff. These are some of the challenges that we have to think about and this bill provides for that. We need to look at the universal pathways that need to be joined together in the complexity of the provision of training and education, but we also need to think outside the square. And I do like, as I said, the provision of flexibility in the recognition of bodies corporate as higher education or VET providers in the 'principal purpose' requirement. I think that gives tremendous capacity to providers to look at the future, to look at 2030, and say, 'What is it that we really need to start thinking about in the way in which we skill the workforce?'

The universal right to an education is absolutely paramount. The other aspect we have to build into that is capacity building for the future. I want tertiary education to be a factor that is important in the lives of all Australians, so that at different points in their career they can turn to the right training organisation and seek to gain qualifications, skills and knowledge that they can apply in the pathways they are following. I honestly believe that by 2030 we will be part of a global society, a global world, a global economy, in which the transferability of skills will be universal. I like the fact that this bill is encapsulating that possibility. I compliment the government for bringing forward these amendments to the act. Sometimes we need to take stock and look at what the inhibitors and barriers are and then work to remove them collaboratively. That is why the coalition, those of us on this side, support this bill—it does provide that possibility.

This bill seeks to simplify administrative arrangements for vocational education and training providers and ensure that quality providers are able to apply for and offer FEE-HELP and VET FEE-HELP places to students. That is critical if we are going to develop the capacity of our future nation. I also believe that the intent to provide the Commonwealth with a better process to manage provider risk, with a subsequent increase in provider approvals, will lead to a rise in students accessing both fees. That augurs well for the future. It gives our training providers added capacity and gives industry some assurance that the providers that they engage with or have their young people skilled through are providing standards that the industry is looking for.

I do acknowledge the variety that is now starting to become evident in the courses offered by RTOs. In Western Australia I went to WesTrac and had a look at their training program and their training facilities, and I was absolutely ecstatic to hear that the students going through that program of training are being employed not only by WesTrac but also, equally, by employers who see the quality of the program as meeting their needs within the resource sector. I talked to a couple of lecturers, and they really appreciate that skills they acquired within the industry can now be taught through technology that was not around when they went through their training—for example, the use of simulators that enable young people, or even those returning for second chance education, to better hone their skills to the levels required. If this bill gives that latitude and that flexibility to those who govern these institutions, then again I want to acknowledge that that is a highly beneficial aspect of the bill.

All of us in this House want to see a vibrant, rigorous process of education and training and see our capacity to be competitive in global markets continue to evolve. But, even more importantly, we want our competitive companies to transcend the boundaries of sovereignty, to transcend the countries in which they had their origin. If we think of companies like Rio Tinto and BHP, they no longer operate within the borders of this nation—they in fact operate in a borderless society in which the skills and the capacities of their staff, their workers, are of a standard that enables them to provide the workforce that generates not only profitability for the companies but also the avenues to refine, sharpen and hone skills that make this country highly competitive. The access to the fees help that is available is tremendous. Income contingent loans were extended to the VET sector in 2007, and that was a tremendous move in building the opportunity for developing capacity. These programs provide a loan, for all or part of the student's tuition costs, which has to be repaid once the student exceeds a set level of income. These programs accord access to anybody meeting the criteria, and students then have the opportunity to undertake a training program that meets their needs and that also makes them competitive in the talent pool.

A number of students in Hasluck access FEE-HELP to continue their tertiary studies. That warms my own sense of commitment to learning and the acquisition of skills because I know that those students will continue into pathways that will lead them to incredible opportunities. If I could turn back the clock and undertake the type of training and education that is now available within the tertiary and training sectors, I know my capacity would have been extended far beyond what I have now reached. Certainly, all of us in this House acknowledge the fact that our contribution to future generations through support for this legislation provides pathways that will be very rich and very focused on making our nation greater within the commercial, business and workforce sectors in a way that will generate the wealth and income that we need to support the way of life that we have become accustomed to in this nation. To that end, the simplification of the administrative requirements, in delivering efficiencies to both providers and the Commonwealth and improving the Commonwealth's ability to manage provider risk and increase the rate of provider approval, increases the number of students able to access income contingent loans through quality providers in both the higher education and VET sectors.

This also allows for diversity in the future. When we think about what our parents have seen in the past—the development from horse and cart to space travel—the new skills and knowledge available now, which have been compressed into a decade, are equal to what all of us have acquired in our lifetime. This bill gives training and higher education providers an opportunity to respond flexibly to the future and deliver the courses required to skill all Australians.

I acknowledge the bill and I support the amendments within the bill.

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (No. 1) Bill 2011. The main purpose of this bill is to streamline measures to the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of FEE-HELP and VET FEE-HELP, the income contingent loans applying to the higher education and VET sectors.

FEE-HELP is available to eligible full-fee-paying higher education students, while VET FEE-HELP, which was introduced by the coalition government, is available to eligible full-fee-paying and certain state government subsidised VET students studying in higher level education or training. VET FEE-HELP provides a loan for all or part of a student's tuition costs. As such, it provides assistance and an incentive to students who may not have taken up further higher education and higher level skill qualifications to do so by reducing the financial barriers to those studies. VET FEE-HELP is a contingent loan scheme for the VET sector and it is part of the higher education loan program. Currently, there are approximately 90 VET providers that have been approved under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to offer VET FEE-HELP to eligible students.

This bill is intended to ensure quality education providers are able to apply for and be approved as VET providers under the act so that they are able to offer VET FEE-HELP assistance. In addition, the administrative requirements are intended to be simplified to improve the Commonwealth's ability to manage provider risk. It is essential that there is a proper approval process to ensure that education providers maintain appropriate standards and conduct themselves in an ethical manner. With an expected increase in providers, this will be an issue that will need to be properly managed by the government. The risk of undesirable providers entering the market is intended, though this bill, to be managed in part through the introduction of a fit and proper person test for the management decision makers of these bodies. This bill also provides flexibility in the principal purpose requirement for the recognition of bodies corporate as a higher education or VET provider but does not, however, specify how this requirement will be met.

It is important to return to the fundamental reasoning behind the VET FEE-HELP assistance scheme. This scheme was established to provide opportunities for more Australians to pursue new careers or lift their qualifications without facing the financial burden of having to pay upfront tuition fees. In 2009, a total of 5,262 students accessed VET FEE-HELP assistance, including 890 students from low socioeconomic areas. The VET FEE-HELP statistical report claimed the majority of assisted students were female and half were under 25 years of age. Younger students do not generally have the finances to be able to pay their tuition fees upfront. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that our young people are taking advantage of being able to study certificate and diploma level courses with part or full income contingent loans. The most common qualification being attained by these students is the Diploma of Accounting. Around 79 per cent of VET FEE-HELP students are applying themselves to the diploma level of study, with the remaining opting for certificate level programs.

In 2009, $25.5 million of VET FEE-HELP assistance was accessed by students and, as a result, 526 VET FEE-HELP assistance students were awarded a diploma or high-level qualification. The most common field of education in 2009 for VET FEE-HELP assisted students was society and culture, undertaken by 1,382 students. Most of these students were enrolled in the Diploma of Children's Services. The second most common education field was management and commerce. It was undertaken by 1,338 students, so it was a very close second.

The Gold Coast Institute of TAFE is one of Australia's leading vocational education and training providers and TAFE is the largest provider in the Gold Coast region with six campuses, including the Coolangatta campus, which is within my electorate of McPherson. TAFE is recognised as an innovative leader in the provision of education and training services to local, national and international clients, and TAFE makes a very valuable contribution to the Gold Coast. A number of Gold Coast TAFE courses offer flexible learning options using online flexible or blended learning study options allowing students, if necessary, to study outside their required work hours.

The Gold Coast Institute of TAFE eligible VET FEE-HELP courses include the Diploma of Education Support, which gives successful students the qualifications necessary to work as an education support worker, a teacher's aide or assistant, a support worker for children with disabilities or as an education assistant. Each of these areas of employment require quality trained individuals, and there are many schools, organisations and businesses on the Gold Coast that desperately require skilled workers in these areas.

There is also a demand on the Gold Coast for enrolled nurses, and the Gold Coast Institute of TAFE offers VET FEE-HELP for the Diploma of Nursing for enrolled division 2 nursing. Successful graduates can work as endorsed enrolled nurses in private and public hospitals, aged-care facilities, hostels or medical centres—all of which are high-demand positions on the Gold Coast. It allows successful students the ability to be employed in various healthcare environments around the country. There are currently discussions underway in relation to formal training for surf craft manufacturing with a view to developing an apprenticeship. We are hoping that this will be based in the Gold Coast. During the lead-up to the 2010 federal election the coalition promised $500,000 to develop appropriate training for surfboard manufacturers and board shapers. This was not matched by Labor; however, the need for formal qualifications in this industry sector remains and must be addressed as a priority. To date the Gold Coast TAFE has shown a keen interest in supporting this industry and the Coolangatta campus is a viable option for training delivery.

Within the electorate of McPherson the King's International College at Reedy Creek has been providing eligible VET FEE-HELP courses in nursing. In addition to nursing, it offers a Diploma of Accounting and a Diploma of Community Services Work. The progressive action of King's since 1996 has allowed the college to update and expand its programs in growth areas by offering training that is practical, workplace relevant and meets current statutory requirements. The Gold Coast TAFE and the King's International College are just two examples, but there are many others on the Gold Coast. We need to ensure that students are able to access training and gain these qualifications to fill the need for skilled staff in the industries that require them the most. The VET FEE-HELP income contingent loans encourage students to undertake these studies and gain employment in their chosen fields without an unnecessary financial burden at a time when they can least afford to pay.

This bill is particularly important to the Gold Coast because education as a whole, and higher education in particular, is one of our main industries, as well as being a significant contributor to the local economy. I believe that it is fair to say that the Gold Coast is well on the way to becoming an education city. In my electorate of McPherson on the southern Gold Coast, in addition to the TAFEs and privately operated training colleges, including those registered training organisations that are already recognised VET FEE-HELP providers, we have two universities. At the southern end of the electorate we have the public Southern Cross University and at the northern end of the electorate we have the private Bond University. However, the Gold Coast is a region with low higher education participation rates, as illustrated by the data from the 2006 census, where only 18 per cent of the Gold Coast population aged 25 to 34 were degree qualified compared to the national average of 29 per cent. Considerable work needs to be done to meet the Bradley review target of a future skilled workforce where 40 per cent of Australians between the ages of 25 to 34 will hold a bachelor's degree by 2025.

Today I would specifically like to speak about Bond University and FEE-HELP. When Bond University opened 21 years ago it was the first private university in Australia and it was modelled on the traditions of the world's most elite educational institutions. Bond has produced some 16,000 graduates since its establishment and this has been achieved with minimal public funding, as more than 90 per cent of the university's total income is derived from student fees. In 2010 Bond University had an average of 4,365 students on campus, made up of approximately 66 per cent Australian students and 34 per cent international students.

As I have already said today, the Gold Coast has low participation rates and Bond University and Southern Cross University are actively working to address this issue locally. Bond takes part in the state low-SES schools initiative by providing academics to work with local schools in tutoring in science based subjects and by assisting with advice on tertiary education. In addition, Bond has signed a memorandum of agreement with the Gold Coast City Council, under which the university and the council are working together to address low higher education participation rates and low aspirations of children in the Gold Coast region.

In addition, Bond University has in place an annual scholarship program that compares favourably to the Go8 universities. A total of 10 per cent of the revenue is redirected to fee scholarships, and a range of corporate and foundation funded scholarships are being developed in addition to this. These scholarships are merit based and therefore support access and equity to students who might otherwise not be able to afford a place by helping them gain admittance on the basis of merit. Bond University places are not subsidised by the government and full tuition fees are charged semesterly on a subject-by-subject basis. Without access to FEE-HELP students wishing to undertake study at Bond are required to obtain personal finance or sponsorship programs. Bond University prides itself on being a not-for-profit organisation. Tuition fees are re-invested back into the university enabling Bond to offer world-class campus facilities, state-of-the-art learning resources, a lower student-to-staff ratio and access to Australia's leading academics and corporate achievers. FEE-HELP makes private education like at Bond University more accessible than ever, encouraging quality access to higher education for all Australians.

The Bradley review recommended that, to support the expansion of the system, Commonwealth supported places should be uncapped and made available to private providers. Bond University is also saying that the difference between the tuition cost and the Commonwealth supported places funding should be the student contribution, which could be funded through FEE-HELP. I support this view, and I support this view very strongly as a way forward.

The coalition remains supportive of income contingent loans. It is vital that individuals have the support they need to increase their skill levels to ensure they remain employable within the workforce. I support measures to support and develop the education sector.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to be able to rise in the chamber this afternoon to support the Higher Education Support Amendment (No. 1) Bill 2011. I think all of us realise that our youth are our country's future and that education gives young people the best opportunity of getting a good job and making a contribution to society. It is therefore vital that youth right around Australia are encouraged as much as possible to take advantage of the many educational opportunities available to them in this country, and that the education they seek and receive suits them in the direction in which they hope to travel during their working life. It is, of course, good for them and it is good for the community when our young people achieve a good education.

Young people who wish to improve their qualifications and gain better skills need support, as much as the community is able to provide, from their families as well as from society at large. Also they need financial support through loans from the government, and that is the subject matter of the Higher Education Support Amendment (No. 1) Bill 2011.

I think most of us would know—those of us who are parents and those of us who are not—that the journey towards gaining a post high school qualification is not always easy and requires commitment and discipline. I think society is becoming increasingly complicated and, while there are more choices and opportunities for young people than previously existed, I suspect that society also poses many challenges that were not confronting young people of earlier eras. The cost of education—and parents would know this all too well—can often feel like a bottomless pit for students as well as for their families. Not only do students often have to pay the cost of tuition; they also have the cost of textbooks and other equipment directly utilised in their education such as calculators and, if someone wants to be a carpenter, then hammers and drills, or aprons and kitchen utensils for chefs, and all other sorts of tools of the trade that are specific to the various courses in which students are enrolled.

In addition, particularly for those who live away from educational institutions, there is the problem of the costs of accommodation, food, transport and so on. All of these costs mount up and it is important that a society provides as much assistance as it reasonably can to benefit students because it is an investment in the future. Properly educated students mean a properly educated workforce and that, of course, means that we are a society which is much better able to compete in the world of the 21st century. In the past, financial assistance has come through programs such as Austudy for tertiary students and many in this country have benefited from that support and gone on to have successful, busy and rewarding careers. It was a sensible, successful move by the former Liberal-National Party government to recognise that not everyone is destined for a career that requires tertiary studies and that those who do not wish to undertake studies through university should have equal access to financial support as they go through obtaining their educational qualifications. It is relevant to state that too many times in our community parents have stressed that it is important for students to get a university degree—any university degree—even one that might not lead to many career opportunities. We have undervalued trade training and we have undervalued encouraging young people to undertake technical education. But through the initiative of the previous Liberal-National Party government, the VET FEE-HELP system was born and that assists those eligible students who are undertaking an approved course, through an approved VET provider, by paying for all or part of their tuition and course costs.

Obviously, this is a loan which needs to be paid back, but only when the student moves into the workforce and is achieving an annual income of $44,911. This is an indexed figure as at 2011, so this year. This ensures that the loan used to acquire improved qualifications does not become a burdensome bill but one that has a delayed repayment trigger that comes into play only when the graduated student is able to afford repayments. These loans now extend beyond support for university courses, to make loans available for diploma and advanced diploma courses, as well as graduate certificate and graduate diploma courses.

Some members have quite accurately expressed in this House the concern that many students in rural areas have reduced access to the support programs that are intended to boost the skills of Australia's youth and to assist those young people get into meaningful jobs in the workforce. I think that as an equity measure you would agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is important that remoteness or extreme distance from a tertiary or vocational training centre ought not to be a determining factor as to whether a young person is able to undertake the necessary education. Those who live in rural areas, as opposed to those who live in the cities, should not be disadvantaged in the pursuit of the training, the study and the jobs that they wish to pursue.

Much has been said in this place about this anomaly and that the government needs to look at this seriously, and I am pleased that the minister is here as the minister should investigate what the community is saying, what members have said and look at what changes she is able to make to encourage and support all of our young people regardless of whether they are in metropolitan, country or regional areas. I know the minister is very well intentioned in this area and I can see her nodding at my suggestion.

As I said before, not everyone is destined to follow the once-traditional path of entering university after the completion of the senior years at high school, and vocations that require a different set of skills—hands-on skills—are a legitimate career path and the courses and education opportunities available now ensure that those taking those other pathways are well trained and well prepared for life and have the skills to provide their goods and services in the community.

This bill aims to tweak the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to improve the operation of the VET FEE-HELP system; that is, the vocational education and training part of the Higher Education Loan Program, or HELP. The changes afforded by this bill intend to introduce a number of modifications to the act that help to simplify the administrative arrangements for the providers of VET courses and also to improve the risk management processes associated with identifying and monitoring VET providers to ensure that the providers are 'fit and proper' to provide the tuition to an acceptable and professional standard. I must say that I was surprised to see that only 50 VET providers had previously been approved, and part of the aim of this bill is to increase flexibility. This is very positive.

The bill aims to reduce the difficulties for some in accessing financial support for their education. The changes have as their fundamental purpose the support of young people and boosting the availability of skilled workers in Australia. Unfortunately the latest figures from 2009 from the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations show that only 5,262 students were assisted in this program and that there were, as I said a moment ago, only 50 registered training organisations. So access to services in this important and valuable sector is lacking and needs to be improved.

I refer now to the opening of the Sunshine Coast Technical Trade Training Centre in my electorate of Fisher. I was privileged to be present, and Senator Claire Moore was there representing the government, at the opening of this important trade training centre. It is a centre that gives instruction to students from high schools in pursuits that are important for a coastal area that is so dependent on construction. It will again rely even more on construction as the pressures of the global financial crisis submerge and as the economy is restored. The courses on offer were not available when many people were going through high school—building and construction, civil engineering and sustainable energy. The programs at the trade training centre are delivered by a partnership between the Sunshine Coast Institute of TAFE and the University of the Sunshine Coast. The building has a wonderful design and it is a credit to all of those who are involved. It is already providing a wonderful opportunity for young people as it enables them to commence developing their skills in preparation for their life after school while they are still at school.

The $2.551 million centre is provided from the Trade Training Centres in Schools Program, and, most importantly, it is a partnership among four local schools—Beerwah State High School, Caloundra State High School, Kawana Waters State College and Meridan State College. The fact that these four schools are working together probably made their application so attractive. The centre provides an alternative school-based pathway for learning and is a sensible community asset that provides students with a practical educational initiative. Some 60 students from year 11 are enrolled at the centre presently, and of course this figure will increase over coming years. I commend all those involved in the centre and also the students. I have to say they looked particularly smart in their uniforms and work boots during the official opening, but they did begin to shiver towards the end of the ceremony as the main work area, with its high ceilings and cement floors, was not exactly the warmest place on the Sunshine Coast on that particular day.

In summing up, I do support this bill. It is a good bill, a commendable bill, and I thank the Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare for introducing it. It is a bill that seeks to streamline measures in the Higher Education Support Act 2003. It is important to encourage young people, and supporting this bill is another opportunity to do that.

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take this opportunity to thank both the Deputy Speaker and all members who have contributed to this debate. It is nice when we can enjoy those warm moments where the House comes together to commend a bill and we can all agree that it is a positive step forward.

As has been outlined both when I introduced the Higher Education Support Amendment (No. 1) Bill 2011 and in contributions since, the bill will improve the efficiency and effectiveness and maintain the ongoing integrity of the government's income-contingent loan programs. We have had a good debate from members on both sides. I thank members for their contributions and take this opportunity once more to commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.