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

I am pleased to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Streamlining and Other Measures) Bill 2012. By the debate on the bill in the Federation Chamber today, we obviously flag that we in the coalition are not opposing the bill. I would like to make some remarks about the background, the implementation and some future steps.

This bill came about because of a post-implementation review on VET FEE-HELP which was undertaken in 2011, and this bill is the first stage of introducing some of these recommendations. The bill will amend the Higher Education Support Act to achieve the following: strengthen the quality of the Higher Education Loan Program schemes; improve information-sharing and transparency with the national education regulators; improve arrangements for the early identification of low-quality providers; and position the government to better manage risk to students and public moneys.

Schedule 1 of the bill aims to remove barriers to participation, boosting the take-up of VET FEE-HELP by quality registered training organisations. Schedule 2 will ensure that revocations of approval are undertaken in a timelier manner, ensuring that an organisation that has had its approval to offer VET FEE-HELP revoked cannot continue to offer VET FEE-HELP to students in the lag time between a minister revoking its approval and the actual revocation. Schedule 3 will see the consolidation of the four sets of VET—vocational education and training—guidelines into one, to be known as the VET Guidelines. This is purely a streamlining measure. Schedule 4 of the bill will adjust the specific date requirement for census dates, moving this to the guidelines. This will enable approved providers to have greater flexibility in offering courses and will minimise the administrative burden associated with this.

The government has in the case of this bill completed a regulation impact statement which I believe gives good background and context to the bill, and I wish to draw from that statement now:

Australia’s vocational education and training (VET) sector brings together students, registered training organisations (RTOs) governments, employers and industry bodies. There are approximately 5,000 RTOs ranging from public Technical and Further Education (TAFE) institutes, to private sector RTOs of varying size and scope. Large, broad-based TAFEs deliver the bulk of VET in the sector and in 2010 operating revenue for the public VET system was $7 billion. In the private sector small, specialised RTOs co-exist with large, multi-disciplinary colleges. There were approximately 1.8 million students enrolled in publicly funded VET courses in 2010, accounting for 74 per cent of VET students.

The Government works with state and territory governments to set national policy priorities, strategic directions and funding in VET. The Australian Skills Quality Authority is responsible for registering and regulating the majority of RTOs and accrediting courses in VET. The Government provided $1.7 billion to state and territory governments in 2010-11 to support skills and workforce development-related services. In 2011-12, this funding was increased by a further $1.75 billion over five years.

While not discounting the importance of the federal government adding to what is essentially state based funding agreements, what the coalition has been very critical of is the Australian Skills Quality Authority—ASQA—given that it is seriously under resourced. To make statements, as the government does, that ASQA is responsible for registering and regulating the majority of RTOs and accrediting courses in VET, and having just given the chamber a sense of the size of the VET sector, unfortunately shows that ASQA, which we have been told only has six active investigators on the case at any one time, has an enormous task. Not only that but also the states of WA and Victoria have not signed up to that regulator and therefore are continuing to do their own regulation whereby courses offered in those states do not have national delivery.

So, it is a confusing sector. It is characterised by this mix of federal and state funding. At times this government has been quite unfriendly towards private RTOs—certainly in the context of a cost-recovery model for ASQA—since every private RTO has to move through, registering, being monitored et cetera. That will place a large and sometimes impossible cost burden on small RTOs given the flexibility of the sector—and that is its great strength; they do need to be fit for purpose. So you have a small RTO in a niche area, the provision of that particular training and the need for that particular training to be turned on and off. We in the coalition believe that is something that we value. We therefore have to be very careful about anything that inhibits that flexibility and nimbleness. That was a little bit of an aside on ASQA but it is certainly central to the role of the VET sector.

I will take a couple of moments to talk about VET FEE-HELP. It is still not a term that is particularly well understood and I wonder if that is because not that many students access it, although people understand the old HELP scheme that applies to tertiary education. People of our generation certainly understand HECS, which is the old name for that scheme. VET FEE-HELP is quite complicated, both for the student and the RTO, but the principle is sound and it is obviously well supported by all parliamentarians.

To be approved of a VET FEE-HELP for students, RTOs must apply to the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education—the department—and satisfy a range of eligibility requirements under the act. RTOs must be a body corporate, must be listed on the national register, be financially viable and likely to remain so, carry on business in Australia with central management and control in Australia, offer VET-accredited diploma and advanced diploma courses, be a member of an approved tuition insurance scheme and have administrative procedures and the capacity to meet reporting requirements.

VET FEE-HELP does not regulate the setting of the tuition fees and it is available only for diplomas, advanced diplomas, graduate certificates and graduate diplomas. These qualifications are commonly referred to as higher level VET qualifications. To be eligible, a student must be studying an approved higher level VET qualification and be either an Australian citizen or a permanent humanitarian visa holder who is resident in Australia for the duration of the unit of study. It is not available to international students. Full-fee-paying VET students and some state subsidised students are eligible for a VET FEE-HELP loan. A full-fee-paying student is not funded by a state or territory government or the federal government.

Eligible students can take out a VET FEE-HELP loan to cover all or part of their tuition fees. When students take out such a loan the government pays the loan directly to the RTO and students repay the loan gradually through the Australian tax system once their income is above the compulsory repayment threshold set by the Taxation Office. For the current financial year, the repayment threshold is $49,095. Students can make voluntary repayments of their VET FEE-HELP at any time.

Students are not charged an administration fee as such for their loans but all students and fee-paying places under VET FEE-HELP are required to pay a loan fee equivalent to 20 per cent of the value of the VET FEE-HELP loan. That fee has been determined by the Australian Government Actuary to adequately take account of public debt interest expense above consumer price index and fair value impairment of loans. So students who access these loans to pay the tuition fees associated with the state government subsidised place in VET do not pay a loan fee; instead, they pay the costs associated with the impairment value of the subsidised loans and the public debt interest is shared equally between the government and relevant state or territory jurisdictions. That is how the system works. That gives some idea of the VET sector as a whole and also the perspective of the student.

As I said, the current legislation comes from a post-implementation review of VET FEE-HELP which was commissioned in 2009. The report found that VET FEE-HELP was administratively complex. It made 10 recommendations to improve participation by both RTOs and students. I will run through those recommendations in brief. They are:

Remove the requirement for RTOs to have credit transfer arrangements … in place with higher education providers to become an approved provider.

Continue to extend the offer to waive the 20 per cent student loan fee to state and territory government subsidised students as part of the VET reform package.

Investigate the cost, feasibility and desirability of expanding VET FEE-HELP to include certificate IV level qualifications …

Seek to simplify and streamline HELP legislation to better achieve VET FEE-HELP objectives …

Continue to consider the synergies between HELP requirements and the national and non-referring jurisdiction regulators to further simplify and streamline requirements and minimise duplicity.

Continue to prioritise improvements to simplify and streamline administrative compliance requirements to support a responsive VET sector …

Develop an engagement strategy to address participation issues for RTOs, students, peak bodies—

et cetera.

Continue to improve information provision, education and promotion of VET FEE-HELP and its benefits to students and the VET sector …

Monitor and undertake further research into funding and tuition fees, approved courses, completion rates, pathways, student experience and employment outcomes …

Continue to monitor and review VET FEE-HELP against its objectives and expected outcomes and undertake a subsequent formal evaluation when five years of information is available.

Those were the 10 recommendations from the post-implementation review.

The sense that one gets from those recommendations is: here is a system set up to support students in vocational education and training. Often, as we know, the courses are expensive, depending on the qualifications sought and the length of time it takes. Often the participants in the courses have been out of the workforce for some time. They may be young and not well-resourced. They may come from family backgrounds where financial support is hard to get. If cost is a barrier, then it is really important that we attract as many as possible to the option of VET FEE-HELP, and that is clearly not happening. So, to the extent that this will move the sector towards that, it is well supported by the coalition.

The coalition are always well and truly supportive of endeavours to reduce red tape. The consolidation, for example, of the four guidelines into one set is a practical measure that will assist providers. Streamlining of the approvals process for low-risk providers should increase the number of VET FEE-HELP eligible providers, ensuring there is greater access to income-contingent loans for students. I think that is a very sensible approach. I would love to see how it actually works in practice. I do not see it anywhere else in the government's administration of any of its employment services or other contracts under the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. We have so often seen the one-size-fits-all approach, which places an impossibly high regulatory burden, I think, on organisations and sometimes individuals who, by any common sense assessment, would be considered low-risk. So, if there is going to be scope within this for the government to identify low-risk RTOs and say, 'You don't need the heavy-handed treatment. You don't need the compliance that costs your organisation so much that it perhaps cannot even operate,' then that is a good thing. But I am cautious because there is no evidence on the ground that that is the approach the government or its departments take in practice.

We in this place are all, I know, firm believers in the need for accessible and affordable education. The fact that VET FEE-HELP has the ability to bring vocational education opportunities to all Australians is very important indeed. But, again, far too many are being denied these opportunities, with only 39,124 students accessing VET FEE-HELP assistance in 2011. Only 112 registered training organisations offer VET FEE-HELP, of the more than 2,000 that could do so. In Tasmania and the Northern Territory there are no RTOs offering VET FEE-HELP. Not only do we need to ensure that students can both access and afford their education but we also need to do more to raise quality and remove poor performers and poor providers from this space.

I touched on the impossible task of ASQA earlier in my remarks. I continue to be alarmed at reports of students qualifying with certificate III level qualifications in as little as two weeks. While these students, being under the qualification limit, will not be eligible for VET FEE-HELP, the issue of quality is not just confined to those lower courses. We absolutely need a first-class world training system, and we on this side of the House recognise that we need graduates with transferable skills and graduates that can meet the skills of the future and embrace them. Vocational education is critical to this end. It must provide students with a comprehensive education which meets the needs of industry both now and into the future.

I might just touch on an initiative of the former coalition government, the Australian Technical Colleges. These worked in conjunction with industry to deliver world-class vocational education. These were centres of excellence, providing skills in demand. The current government chose to abolish these centres—instead offering a trade training centre to every school. Regrettably, this has not eventuated, and those that have been built are paltry in comparison to what could have been achieved had the Australian Technical College model been persisted with.

We all should be concerned when government policy simply results in bricks and mortar. As I travel the country in my shadow ministerial role in this portfolio I am confronted by a lot of facilities—whether they be trade training centres; Australian Technical Colleges in mothballs, sadly; TAFEs, where training could, for example, be happening over the summer break for maybe nine to 12 weeks but everything is closed up; schools that are offering a course that those students do not happen to want; or remote facilities a long way from any town but presenting options that the local community is not responsive to. It is not a question of capital assets and infrastructure. It is not a question of more buildings. It is a question of a better bringing together of the assets that are on the ground and better streamlining of the process by which we move the ideal candidates from school into vocational education qualifications and to a real job in the real economy.

This bill is part of a series of measures resulting from the post-implementation review. The government in its regulation impact statement—which I congratulate the authors of, because it was well done and it was sound—received a clear and absolutely unanimous message from the sector that:

… in order to improve participation in VET FEE-HELP, the Government must implement simpler and more streamlined policies and processes … During consultations, stakeholders strongly supported the changes proposed in the redesign. In particular, there was wide ranging support for the modifications to streamline administration and enhance the quality and accountability framework.

But many stakeholders were concerned that they would not actually have time to implement the changes. So what was recommended to government—and what they are beginning to bring forward with this legislation—was a staged approach, with the initial priority being to:

… implement legislation amendments necessary to strengthen the HELP scheme’s quality and accountability framework. During the passage of legislation, both approved VET FEE-HELP providers and applicants would be kept abreast of their obligations and responsibilities under the proposed amendments and given sufficient time to make any operational changes necessary to meet these requirements.

Stakeholder implementation concerns would be addressed and sufficient time for further stakeholder suggestions and feedback would be considered. That is not the government's statement; that is the statement that I have drawn from the regulation impact statement.

We will be watching closely to make sure that that actually happens in the real world. For that reason, primarily, I flag that we will refer this to a Senate committee. I do not think it needs a long and tedious deliberation, but I would like small RTOs, which I think feel a bit battered and bruised by this government's approach to what they do, to have the chance to have their voices heard. I am not confident that they have already had that. Stakeholder consultation, as we in this place know, can involve talking to peak bodies. Talking to a couple of big representatives does not always drill down to the many different local outlets working on the ground in the small towns and how the real world works for them. In the real world, for them as private providers the overwhelming issue is the cost of compliance and the amount of money that the government is going to ask from you so it can make sure that you fulfil the government's requirements. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is terrible if it gets out of hand. I think that the examples I have given before show how in many instances it has got out of hand.

The regulation impact statement acknowledges that the redesign of VET FEE-HELP will result in costs to stakeholders for staff training, the updating of promotional material and the aligning of administrative systems. However, these costs are expected to be directly offset by the benefits that will accrue from more streamlined administrative and reporting policies and processes. I do not think that is a short, direct cause and effect relationship. Costs are going up: staff training is expensive, promotional material has to be new and aligning administrative systems can be a huge expense when you are fiddling with your existing IT. The government says that costs will be directly offset by the benefits. Yes, costs may be partly offset by the benefits, but it may well take time for those benefits to come through the system, because those benefits presumably will be higher enrolments of students. RTOs are not going to change the way they do business and move into this slightly different world only to have the same number of students; the effect on them would be quite severe. This will only work if participation increases. There may be a lot of factors impacting on that. We need to see what they will be and we need to take this carefully. For that reason, as I said, we will be referring this legislation to a Senate committee.

The intent of this legislation is sound. The reasons given by the government and by the parliamentary secretary in her second reading speech make sense to the coalition. As always, the devil will be in the detail and the implementation. But at this stage I commend my remarks to the Federation Chamber.

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

I speak in support of the Higher Education Support Amendment (Streamlining and Other Measures) Bill 2012. I will deal with what is contained in the bill, then deal with the government's response in relation to higher education needs in this country, whether they be the needs of universities, TAFEs or RTOs, and then with some of the remarks of the member for Farrer in relation to our record on this issue.

This legislation includes a number of measures that will improve the Higher Education Support Act. It will amend the act to provide better administration of the Higher Education Loan Program, commonly known as HELP, particularly VET FEE-HELP. It comes, as the member for Farrer said, as a result of recommendations that were made in the Post implementation review of the VET FEE-HELP Assistance Scheme: final report in 2011 and through a COAG process, the National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform, that took place in April 2012, particularly the redesign of VET FEE-HELP.

I mention the April 2012 process because of what has happened in Queensland, my home state, in relation to employment and training. I wonder why the current Queensland government actually went to those COAG meetings, because the Queensland LNP government has gutted and destroyed the training employment that was taking place, including getting rid of the very successful Skilling Queenslanders for Work program. It did that subsequent to the COAG meetings that were a prelude to this legislation. That program was $248 million of money well spent that the Queensland government got rid of on 16 July 2012. A report by Deloitte Access Economics on 23 July—a report commissioned by the Queensland government—said that a program that was supposed to create 26,000 jobs every year actually created 57,000 jobs, including 8½ thousand people who would not otherwise have got employment and would bring in the Queensland economy by 2020, $6.5 billion in revenue, including about $1.2 billion in state government taxes.

So it is interesting that the prelude for this legislation in April was attended by the Queensland government. At the same time as they were going through the process of saying, 'We'll sign up for this particular arrangement with the federal government,' they were determining to get rid of jobs training, which impacted my electorate, particularly in the Ipswich region, to the tune of about $5.4 million worth of funding under Skilling Queenslanders for Work, the Ipswich City Council, Harvest Rain, Riverview Neighbourhood House, the Salvation Army and any number of other local organisations that were skilling people and training people through registered training organisations and the like.

This was a meeting that the states turned up to. There was a COAG national partnership agreement in April 2012 which was geared towards making changes to the VET FEE-HELP. There are a number of amendments in this legislation that improve quality accountability of the whole framework and governance in relation to this, including implementing a risk management approach to approvals and administrative compliance. There is also an improvement to the government's capacity, in the event that any provider is not doing the right thing and public moneys are at risk, to step in on behalf of not just taxpayers but also the students who are using that service. The bill provides for a decision to revoke or suspend the approved provider to take effect from the day that the notice is registered on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments.

There are some improvements in terms of streamlining and alterations to the HELP schemes through reducing administrative requirements on applicants and providers. There are some further amendments which meet the commitments that were made under the COAG agreement I referred to, particularly in relation to certificate IV-level qualifications and particularly among categories of VET courses that are eligible for VET FEE-HELP.

It is interesting. We had a recent meeting at the University of Queensland Ipswich campus, where I recall evidence coming from DEEWR that students who do certificates III and IV are just as likely to obtain good quality jobs as those students who have bachelor degrees. That was interesting evidence, particularly as there have been efforts by this government to get more students involved in the health sector and the social and community sector in the Ipswich region, as it is growing at a very fast pace.

The background to this particular legislation is, as many people would know, that FEE-HELP and VET FEE-HELP are available for approved higher education and VET FEE providers to enable students to meet their tuition fees so that they do not have to pay up-front. We provide loans for them, which assist them so that there are no financial obstacles or barriers in their way. Those loans enable students, particularly those from low socioeconomic backgrounds, to access higher education at institutions such as Bremer TAFE, located in Bundamba in Ipswich, in the same way as the assistance we provide through HECS and arrangements to universities, such as the University of Queensland Ipswich campus and the University of Southern Queensland at Springfield—both located in the electorate of Blair.

We on this side of the chamber strongly believe that every Australian, whether they live in the electorate of Blair or they live in Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane, should get access to good quality education at university or TAFE so that their skills, talents and abilities can be improved and they can improve their financial security, their productivity and their capacity to meet challenges—not just nationally but in terms of their family's future. I am pleased to see that, with respect to higher education in my electorate—and this legislation is improving it dramatically—the census data shows that an extra 996 students have access to higher education in the Blair electorate. That is because we have some tremendous universities, TAFE colleges and other registered training organisations in the electorate of Blair.

Skills Australia acknowledges that by 2025 a third of all jobs will require a minimum of a bachelors degree qualification. To meet the demand of the high-skill, high-wage workforce in the future, we want to make sure that everyone can get access to those types of training organisations. More young people from regional and rural areas, people from migrant backgrounds, Indigenous people and those from suburbs such as Brassell, Raceview and Springfield in my electorate should get access to the kinds of opportunities that kids who live in Toorak or Vaucluse have for higher education.

I am pleased to see that this government has provided a massive increase in not just funding in the tertiary sector; there are also an additional 150,000 or more students attending university under this government. We have committed $4.454 billion through the Education Investment Fund and we have provided significant funding in not just the university sector but also the TAFE sector. I think the setting up of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency was a good thing to streamline and strengthen higher education regulation. We have provided $38.8 billion in higher education investment over the next four years, including $8.4 billion for the Higher Education Loan Program, and there is about a billion dollars worth of federal government funding for what I would describe as equity in access measures. We have seen $765 million of funding for infrastructure in my electorate. We saw about $2 million for the Bremer Institute of TAFE—the first time any significant federal government funding was provided since the election of this government. Certainly, the previous government had a blind eye when it came to TAFE.

I recently had the opportunity to meet with the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Southern Queensland, Professor Jan Thomas, whose university received $49 million from the federal government to expand and enrich their student participation program in collaboration with a number of regional and metropolitan TAFEs in Queensland. That expansion will mean that there is a considerable flow-through effect to TAFE courses and TAFE colleges throughout Queensland. It is a massive injection of funds that this federal government has put in. In contrast, the LNP government in Queensland is proposing, through a recommendation of their task force, to cull TAFE colleges and campuses around Queensland from about 82 to 44. Bremer TAFE in Ipswich, in my electorate, is certainly in the sights of the LNP government.

One of the things that the University of Southern Queensland is doing through establishing the Queensland Tertiary Education Participation Network is partnering with TAFE colleges all around Queensland to cater for local workforce demands. The funding that is being provided by this government and the construction of what they call the Education Gateways—EDGY—Building at the university's Springfield campus is a significant capital investment from this federal Labor government in partnership with the University of Southern Queensland. The University of Southern Queensland's brand promise is: fulfilling lives. I think that is a terrific motto and a catchy motto, but it is what this parliament should be all about: fulfilling the lives, educationally, of young and old people, whether that is at university or TAFE. We have seen a student-demand driven funding system. The cap on student places was removed at universities and there was the opening of opportunities for many young people, as well as older people, to participate in higher education.

I had the opportunity recently to attend the University of Queensland college, a preparatory college at the University of Queensland Ipswich campus, to address the students and be at their awards night. I thank local organisations such as the RSL, the Ipswich City Council and the Edwards family for their contributions, scholarships, bursaries and awards that were given to students in order for them to go through college and university to do the kinds of courses they would like to do, particularly in the areas of nursing and the allied health profession, which are run so well at the University of Queensland. A TAFE qualification or a university qualification is a ticket to greater career choice and highly skilled and highly paid jobs. We are transforming and modernising the focus of government on skills and training.

The member for Farrer was quite critical in her comments of what we are doing with trade training. She took the opportunity in her speech to criticise the federal Labor government's commitment to trade training. This is a critical aspect; it is not just registered training organisations, universities or TAFEs but trade training as well. We have made a commitment. I see that on the ground in my electorate—the $2.5 billion program for trade training centres to help students and, particularly, schools to upgrade their trade training facilities—where there is a partnership between St Edmund's College in Ipswich, Ipswich Girls Grammar School and Ipswich Grammar School for a $3 million trade training centre. You can see it there, built by Hutchinson Builders, doing remarkable trade training in Ipswich. I suggest the member for Farrer has a look and sees what a good trade training centre will do.

However, I forget that those opposite opposed the $2.5 billion program tooth and nail and had the temerity to describe the centres as 'glorified sheds with lathes'. If they went to see the trade training centre at Ipswich they would see that it is far from that—it is fantastic. I was there with the then minister responsible, Simon Crean, on the occasion when he opened it. But trade training centres are not just located for private schools. We will see $5 million for the Ipswich Region Trade Training Centre which will be established at Ipswich State High School in Brassall. That is a partnership with Rosewood State High, Lowood Grammar and Bundamba State Secondary College. We will see another $2.99 million for the Riverview Springfield Trade Training Centre, established primarily at St Peter Claver College in Riverview.

We now see the fruits on the ground across the country. The member for Farrer must be politically blind and naïve to think that trade training centres are not making an impact on the lives of young people at schools. She must be politically blind to say nothing about what is happening in Queensland with the gutting of trade training and funding for skilling Queenslanders for work. She must be politically blind to oppose so much of what we are doing. I am pleased though that they support this particular bill. It really is a novelty to see those opposite say yes for a change because, when it comes to skills and training and higher education, their attitude is often to just say no. Or, indeed, when they were in power they tried to impose Work Choices on the higher education sector. I am pleased to commend the legislation to the House.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Streamlining and Other Measures) Bill 2012. The government has created this bill to introduce what it terms 'timely improvements to its Higher Education Loan Program—HELP—and VET FEE-HELP in particular'. According to the explanatory memorandum, it is acting:

… on the recommendations arising from the Post Implementation Review of the VET FEE-HELP Scheme Final Report September 2011 and its commitments under the April 2012 COAG National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform …

The bill is set out in three parts. Firstly, it amends the Higher Education Support Act by applying indexation to the maximum levels of expenditure for the grants and other scholarships that are available from the Commonwealth. In order to avoid regular amendments to the act, the bill will enable the minister to index these maximum level expenditures by legislative instrument. Secondly, it seeks to amend the Australian Research Council Act 2001—ARCA—by indexing the appropriated levels of expenditure under this act and add the final year of the budget forward estimates. And, lastly, the final part repeals the existing division 180 of the Higher Education Support Act, which allows for the departmental Secretary to disclose non-personal information to the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency—TEQSA—and the National VET Regulator for the performance of their duties or exercise of their powers.

In its place will be a new division that expands the distribution of non-personal information to state and territory agencies, higher and vocational education providers or groups and other bodies as determined by the minister through legislative instrument. The reason given for this expansion is that there are currently a large number of requests from these bodies for information to enable them to accurately assess and monitor the effects of funding.

The coalition recognises that the number of registered training organisations—RTOs—in Australia's vocational education and training—VET—sector has mushroomed. There are now around 5,000 of them, ranging from public technical and further education institutes to private-sector RTOs of varying size and scope. We are sympathetic to the need to simplify administrative arrangements. In order to improve access to vocational education and training the government provides support through the VET FEE-HELP Assistance Scheme, as part of a wider Higher Education Loan Program, to ensure that students are not put off from enrolling in courses by the financial barriers associated with upfront costs.

The problem with the current VET FEE-HELP Assistance Scheme, however, has been limited the extent to which it has improved access to vocational education and training participation. That has led to the supply of graduates with high-level VET qualifications not keeping up with growth in demand from industry and businesses, which is why Australia has noticeable skill shortages in some industries. What concerns me is that it is students from regional and remote areas, including my electorate of Paterson, who are disproportionately missing out on these opportunities. Students in my electorate know that individuals who achieve high-level vocational and education training qualifications are more likely to be employed in full-time permanent jobs and enjoy higher weekly wages.

A major reason for this failure has been the complex administrative policies and processes that training organisations face in becoming registered. Despite being the largest state there are only 28 registered training organisations that are eligible to offer VET FEE-HELP in New South Wales. The bill therefore faces the challenge of finding the right balance on two different issues. The first is on the issue of privacy. The second regards the issue of maintaining the standards of programs that registered training organisations offer while ensuring that there are the proper and effective safeguards for students and public moneys with the administrative burden that registered training organisations face. Clearly, the need for this bill has shown that compliance with current administration is too burdensome and needs to be adjusted.

On the issue of privacy the coalition believes that a greater ability to monitor and assess the effectiveness of higher and vocational spending is worthwhile. However, the challenges that privacy presents should not be taken lightly. It is important that the proposed greater access to this information is not abused. The balance between effectiveness and protecting privacy is a difficult one at the best times. However, the coalition notes that the legislation has amendments that include new sections which create offences where information is disclosed other than for permitted purposes.

The government states that the proposed amendments are 'reasonable, necessary and proportionate to achieve the legitimate objectives'. We on this side of the House also recognise that there are protections in place against the misuse of disclosed information. With the government conducting a consultation process which revealed that most stakeholders are not seeking to oppose this bill, and because the bill is administrative rather than one of major legislative challenge, we are not inclined to oppose it. However, we will reserve our final position for when the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Employment, to which this bill has been sent for further inquiry, reports back. The coalition will be looking closely at what the committee says regarding not only the implications for privacy in this bill but also the financial implications, which are estimated to be an additional spending of $828.59 million over the forward estimates, as well as the potential for reduction in red tape. Higher education, including vocational education and training, is vital if Australia is going to remain competitive in the global economy.

I take the opportunity at this point to congratulate WesTrac for the establishment of a new facility in Tomago. WesTrac knows how vital it is to have highly skilled workforces. WesTrac not only has 5,500 customers in NSW and the ACT, and over 14,500 in Australia, but it also employs 4,220 people, including 624 apprentices and an additional 893 contractors, across Australia. The WesTrac Institute was established with the Caterpillar Institute in Western Australia in 2000. Their stand-alone WA institute was established in 2008 and their stand-alone New South Wales institute at Tomago in the Hunter Valley was established in 2008 as well. These institutes are testament to WesTrac's commitment to high-quality training that the industry needs. They offer specialised training in the mining, construction and transport sectors, all at an investment of a $12 million build cost.

In 2005 I visited the original WesTrac Institute in Perth. I was so impressed with the quality of training and the opportunities provided I was determined to have an institute in the Hunter to address the skill shortage that we face. I worked with the then minister for training, the member for Goldstein, Andrew Robb, and WesTrac's Jim Walker in 2007 to achieve a federal grant of $9 million, of which $3 million went to the Western Australian institute and $6 million to the new New South Wales institute at Tomago. The institute employs 35 training and administrative staff in 14 classrooms, two workshops consisting of nine bays and two computer labs running programs from 40 days to three years in duration.

The institute offers courses in certificate I Automotive; certificate II Automotive Mechanical; certificate III Automotive Mechanical Technology; certificate III in Engineering-Mechanical Trade; certificate I in Transport and Logistics, Warehousing and Storage; certificate I in Warehousing Operations; certificate II in Transport and Logistics, Warehousing and Storage; certificate II in Warehousing Operations; certificate III in Transport and Logistics, Warehousing and Storage; certificate III in Warehousing Operations; certificate IV in Transport and Logistics, Warehousing and Storage; and certificate IV in Warehousing Operations.

WesTrac Tomago now has 75 first-year apprentices, 55 second-year apprentices, 59 third-year apprentices and 50 fourth-year apprentices—totalling 239 apprentices at the Tomago institute. They also have eight school-based trainees. These figures include the 39 2012 first-year apprentices currently being institute trained, with predicted figures for the 2013 intake of 84 apprentices and a growth of school-based trainees, automotive, to commence in 2013 with an intake of 16.

Apprentices that will be institute trained predicted for 2013 are: 45 first-years—and that figure includes apprentices to be institute trained out of the 2013 intake of 45, of which 39 will be on plant and six will be on road transport; 45 second-year apprentices; 49 third-year apprentices; and 12 school-based trainees. At the WesTrac Western Australian institute, they have 146 first-year apprentices, 112 second-year apprentices, 72 third-year apprentices, seven fourth-year apprentices and 73 have just graduated in 2012 in their fourth year. I look forward to watching this facility grow and help reduce our skills shortages, particularly in the Hunter. It is producing tradesmen who will be job steady and job ready, satisfying the needs of our local market.

I will now turn to higher education. In my region of the Hunter, we have one of Australia's finest institutions in the University of Newcastle, which has campuses in Callaghan, on the Central Coast, in Port Macquarie, in Sydney, in the Newcastle City precinct and even overseas in Singapore. According to the Times Higher Education World University Rankings, it was ranked in the top three per cent of world universities this year and is one of Australia's top 10 universities for research and funding. As it will for other Australian universities, this bill will have an impact on Newcastle's future in terms of funding. For example, a record $14 million is granted by the Australian Research Council for 38 of the university projects across health, science, engineering and education departments.

The year 2015 will be an important year for the university, as that is when it will celebrate its 50th anniversary. It will be a year when people in the Hunter will remember the determined campaign by their forebears to create a local university. According to the university's website, just five full-time students were enrolled when classes began, and study concentrated on science, mathematics and engineering. Now there are over 30,000 undergraduate and postgraduate students taking courses in five different faculties of the university.

Universities are not only learning centres; they can also act as drivers to rejuvenate local economies. My region has before it an opportunity to rejuvenate its major centre, Newcastle, by greatly expanding the university's footprint there by creating a downtown campus. The member for Newcastle, Sharon Grierson, said that she would secure federal funding for it, but there was no mention of the higher education infrastructure program that Newcastle University had hoped to take advantage of in this year's 2012 budget.

Prior to that we were told the proposed university CBD campus had progressed to the second phase of approval under pre-existing funding, with final announcements to be made in July. However, despite this, July came and went and still the member for Newcastle, Sharon Grierson, is waiting for the federal funds. But we should not be surprised—for neither has the member for Newcastle received anything towards the infrastructure grant for the Federal Court that she has repeatedly asked for. It is a great example of the ineffectiveness of local ALP members in the face of the federal ALP, which takes for granted what have been 'safe seats' in the Hunter. For while a conga line of trains brings the coal to Kooragang Island to be shipped from the world's largest coal export port of Newcastle, the profits, rather than being invested in our region, are being fast-tracked out of the Hunter and into other states.

According to the Newcastle Herald, after three years of waiting, Newcastle City Council has drawn up contingency plans for its surplus buildings in the civic centre in case the University of Newcastle's proposal to expand its inner city operations does not attract any federal funding. This will provide an opportunity for the Newcastle university to go it alone on the expansion; however, I point out that this development should not be reliant on just one institution. I would like to see greater competition between universities and vocational education and training providers within the Hunter. The city centre of Newcastle should be transformed and the first step should be the removal of the rail line to the foreshore. This would set the scene for the city centre to come alive again by including thousands of students living and learning downtown while attending a variety of learning and training institutions to be located there.

One of the proudest achievements of the Howard government was the establishment of the Higher Education Endowment Fund as a perpetual fund for the Australian university sector. It had an initial contribution of $6 billion. This was something that the Hunter institutions could have taken advantage of but, unfortunately, this government saw fit to discontinue it in December 2008 and wasted the proceeds. This was an example of the coalition's commitment to higher education, not for just one year but for year on year. It gave certainty to universities—certainty that this government has chosen to take away. With the winds of economic uncertainty seemingly approaching and the government struggling to fund other priorities as it sorts out its debts and deficits, it will be a decision that our universities will come to rue.

Newcastle has a new Lord Mayor, Jeff McCloy, who is determined to pursue educational growth opportunities for Newcastle and indeed the whole of the Hunter. He is determined and has a mandate to revitalise and grow the city of Newcastle. This is but a part of that revitalisation. Hopefully, this year after the next election he will be joined by Jaimie Abbott, the Liberal candidate for Newcastle, who shares not only his passion and vision for Newcastle but also a determination not to take the area for granted, as Labor members have done since Federation.

I reflect on Newcastle even though it is outside my seat because it is where the young people from my electorate of Paterson largely go for their higher education. A vibrant Newcastle means a vibrant Hunter, and that makes good sense in every way.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am glad we were both able to stay awake during that contribution by the member for Paterson. By crikey, that was absolutely amazing! It was written and paid for by the Liberal Party but actually mentioned nothing about the Higher Education Support Amendment (Streamlining and Other Measures) Bill 2012—not a thing.

Mr Baldwin interjecting—

I was here the whole time.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Paterson will leave the chamber quietly.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Paterson once again just waffled away and forgot the many things that happened during his time in the former Howard government. They want to forget the dark years when education and training were almost made horrible words. They did not want to talk about it and they did not want to do anything about it. We saw the cuts in education.

The member for Paterson said we have a skill shortage in certain areas. When they were last in government we had skill shortages across every area because they never invested any money at any time in education to support that. As we said when we came to government, it is going to take time—and it is taking time—to address the widespread skill shortage that is a hallmark of the Howard government. As the member for Paterson said, it is only in certain areas now as we are still working to support people who want to take on higher education.

I am very pleased to support the Higher Education Support Amendment (Streamlining and Other Measures) Bill 2012 because education is one of the Gillard government's priorities. We have been taking action to ensure Australians have every opportunity to fulfil their potential and succeed in life. This bill will result in measures to deliver improvements to the HELP schemes, schemes like FEE-HELP and VET FEE-HELP, and make them more accessible by creating a more transparent and responsive administration of the Australian government's Higher Education Loan Program.

The bill acts on the recommendations from the VET FEE-HELP Assistance Scheme final report 2011 and on the arrangements from the April 2012 COAG meeting, which led to the National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform. The higher education support amendment will allow the government to strengthen its ability to better protect public funding by managing risk and to better protect students by strengthening the suspension and revocation provisions for approved providers. It will make sure that decisions to revoke or suspend low-quality providers, made under the provisions of the act, can take effect on the day notice is registered on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments, offering increased protection to students.

The legislation will allow for enhancing the quality and accountability framework. These new requirements will assist the minister by allowing the minister to consider investigation reports from the national non-referral jurisdiction education regulators when making a decision to approve, revoke, suspend or suspend approvals under HELP schemes.

Other measures of the bill will improve the responsiveness and flexibility of the tertiary sector's ability to deliver education and training by moving census date requirements into the legislative guidelines. This will allow the industry to be more responsive to students and the sector's needs by offering rolling enrolments without arduous administrative requirements. The bill will see a managed trial of the VET FEE-HELP specified certificate IV level qualification by amending the definitions of a VET course of study. The Higher Education Support Amendment (Streamlining and Other Measures) Bill will assist with the streamlining and strengthening of administrative procedures, ensuring a more effective and efficient system resulting in reduced complexity and duplication, by consolidating three sets of legislative guidelines into a single set. That will reduce red tape, which we know the education sector fully supports. This will make it a lot easier for providers to understand and clarify their obligations and responsibilities by further streamlining information. The improved deregulation powers will permit the minister and the secretary to delegate powers to an Australian Public Service employee. So regardless of which department has responsibility, the schemes, programs and funding requirements under the act will be able to be continued uninterrupted.

This bill intends to reduce more of the administrative burden placed on providers, and encourage the uptake of the scheme by more quality providers, by streamlining the approach to approvals and administrative compliance for low-risk applicants and providers already approved under the schemes. The amendments will allow the minister to determine a category of providers and financial reporting requirements for low-risk VET FEE-HELP applicants and approved providers.

Only Labor, and a Labor government, will continue to build confidence and fairness into the education system. We already know that the Liberal Party's attitude to higher education is that it is a privilege and that students should not complain about fee increases. It is no secret that the Leader of the Opposition wants to charge students more for university degrees and to introduce a cap on places. But, as with so many areas of the opposition policies, he has failed to release their higher education policies for scrutiny and costings, probably because he knows it is going to contribute to the $70 billion black hole in their costings at present. What we know from leaked reports over the last couple of months, from multiple sources in the coalition, is that they are looking for a 25 per cent increase in university HECS fees, pushing higher education beyond the reach of students from poor backgrounds, and particularly those from regional Australia. Other details of the opposition's plans suggest that HECS fees will jump 10 per cent in the first year of price deregulation, should Australia be forced to suffer under a coalition government. This should not be a surprise at all, because the Leader of the Opposition was the chief draftsman of the coalition's 1993 Fightback! policy—a policy which sought to wind back HECS and return to a system under which only the rich could afford full fees and would be able to attend university. When the coalition came to power in 1996, they almost doubled HECS directly.

Opposition members interjecting—

You would not want to talk, given your history on education in regional areas. The evidence is already available to see what an Abbott government would do with education. Just have a look at what they have done in Victoria. I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker Owens, that in your home state there are a lot of people reeling from the attacks that they get from Liberal-National governments on education. What we see in the state is a glimpse of what we will see should we be forced to have an Abbott-led coalition government. In Victoria alone, $481 million has been cut from education. That is stripping schools of the opportunity to pay for things like excursions, pencils for children from low-income families and uniforms. Taking their pencils is just appalling, but that is what happens when you get an LNP or Liberal-National government. Every TAFE across Victoria is suffering because of the $300 million that has been ripped out and the sacking of staff.

Mr Tehan interjecting—

Have a look: the member for Wannon sits there, smiles and laughs. He must be really proud to go to TAFEs in his electorate and see the damage that has been done. GOTAFE, or Goulburn Ovens TAFE, over in my electorate, is a great TAFE that has been building and building and building. There is a bloke there who shares the same last name as the member for Wannon. There is only one difference: he cares about education and this clown does not. He wants to grow the TAFE, bring in more courses—

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I just want the member for McEwen to refer to me by my proper title. His uncouth way of referring to me, I find, is against the standing orders, and I would like him to—

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Wannon is entirely correct in what he is saying, and I ask the member for McEwen to be more careful with his language, please.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly will. The member for Wannon, who comes in here and carries on, just sits there shyly. I remember we had the debate—

Mr Tehan interjecting—

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Wannon will have his chance to speak in the debate shortly. I ask the member for McEwen to continue his remarks but not in a way that invites interjections from the member for Wannon.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I understand the embarrassment that they face opposite because of what they are doing with education. They have scrapped the school start bonus in Victoria. These are Liberal-National governments. The bonus was designed to help parents out to meet the cost of uniforms and the expenses of taking kids to school. The National Party, of course, do not resist their senior partner. They are the little lap-dogs there, because it is directly in regional areas that these offences on TAFE are happening. I think it was the Minister for Higher Education and Skills in Victoria, Peter Hall, who said that TAFEs were a little empire-building program—an empire-building program that is cutting the skills shortages and delivering education in regional areas where people live.

In 2003 the Victorian government did a parliamentary inquiry into how to keep kids in regional areas, because they are the future of the communities. It found strongly that educational opportunities in local communities were the key to that. That is why we have been doubling the investment in education infrastructure. That is why we have the Building the Education Revolution program, which has delivered in every single school. In my area we have an $11½ million trade training centre. That is delivering right across the bushfire-affected areas and surroundings to keep those kids in their communities and stop them having to travel to Melbourne.

But the Liberal-National government in Victoria see fit to cut that, and in fact they have even cut the school bus routes between rural communities. It is an absolute joke that they can sit there and talk about education while at the same time they have cut $481 million out of education and stopped the schools rebuilding program. In fact, Minister Hall has been to a school in my electorate, Sunbury College, three times to do an emergency audit on school facilities. I said before and I will say again that you can go 100 times but just going and visiting is not going to fix the problem. You actually have to inject the funds to fix the maintenance issues that are regarded as urgent. Woodend Primary School is another one that was listed to be rebuilt under the former Victorian government. The LNP got into power and cut it. The school has no proper disability access. In fact, the pole for the basketball ring fell down—fortunately, during the school holidays—because it had rusted through and because the Liberal and National parties have stopped school maintenance and investment in infrastructure. Again we see the big smile there from the member opposite. I will not name him, because we know how precious he is. They think it is funny. It is not funny.

Mr Tehan interjecting—

I would refer you to what most people do, but it would be unparliamentary to swear.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for McEwen will not answer the interjections. Please continue.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Certainly, Deputy Speaker. We also have Gisborne Secondary College, another school which was promised to be rebuilt. That has been scrapped because those opposite have absolutely no interest in or care for education. They are quite happy to take the idea that you have to be rich to afford to go to university. This government sets out its agenda, and it has been delivering on that agenda, for how we will make sure that every kid gets every opportunity to take those opportunities and reach their maximum potential. Those on the other side consider that the only way you can have potential is to have deep pockets. I wish this bill a speedy passage.

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

I too rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Streamlining and Other Measures) Bill 2012. This bill will introduce a number of measures to help streamline the Higher Education Support Act 2003. The bill reflects the federal government's important initiative to extend the FEE-HELP system to VET and TAFE training for the first time. This will enable students to defer their vocational training costs until they earn sufficient income. This will enable more students to study at local TAFEs and VET providers throughout the country. That is important because, with the record low unemployment rates we currently have in a very strong economy, we know that vocational training is important to this economy to enable us to expand its productive capacity. Vocational training is critical to meeting that skills gap, and building on FEE-HELP will drive that.

I am saddened at the devastating budget cuts announced by the Baillieu government back in May. They have decided to rip some $300 million out of our vocational training system, which will principally hurt our TAFE colleges and our community not-for-profit organisations that provide opportunities for people wishing to gain access to vocational training.

On Thursday of last week I was particularly concerned to have word passed to me that the Otway Community College, located in the Colac Otway Shire in the heart of Colac itself, was about to place itself into voluntary administration because the cuts that the Baillieu government was proposing were leading to that institution running out of the critical cash it requires to be able to maintain its presence. The Otway Community College has been providing vocational training and resettlement opportunities in the Colac Otway Shire for more than 30 years. This is an organisation that provides training to the most disadvantaged, often to people who otherwise would not be able to access vocational training. The nearest training provider to the township of Colac is the Gordon Institute of TAFE, which is an hour to the west.

If you are a single mum—perhaps a teenage mum—a refugee or someone who has been unemployed for a long period of time, finding the capacity to drive to Geelong, some 100 kilometres away, is impossible. The township of Colac and many other townships like Colac throughout Victoria are simply too small for TAFE providers, so we require community colleges, such as the Otway college, to provide vocational training to people in these communities. In talking to a number of key stakeholders, it is absolutely clear that the Baillieu government's cuts to vocational training have driven this decision that the board had to make under our corporations law. An organisation that has been providing vocational training in Colac for more than 30 years to some very disadvantaged people has had to close the doors as of five o'clock last Thursday night. This organisation employed some 80-odd people, equating to about 40 effective full-time employees. This organisation provided training opportunities to some of the most disadvantaged.

Having said that, there is in my view one person who can address this issue, and that is Ted Baillieu. The Premier of Victoria must fess up, man up and acknowledge that the $300 million vocational education cuts that he is imposing on the sector have placed the sector in an insecure financial position. It is leading to TAFEs having to close campuses. It is leading to private sector providers having to close their doors. It is leading to community colleges, like the Otway Community College, becoming financially insecure and unstable and having no choice but to place themselves into voluntary administration.

I want to go through some of the cuts that the Liberal government of Victoria is imposing on the sector. Firstly, if you look at certificate II in business administration or customer services, the fee that will be given to training providers has been slashed from $6.45 per student hour down to $1.50. Such types of cuts are unsustainable and are designed to ensure that we see what is happening before us today, which is TAFE campuses closing and cuts in the number of courses provided across Victoria.

In my community there is also a TAFE college, the Gordon college, which has been educating people in the Geelong district for 130-odd years. It is a very proud organisation. It has provided training opportunities for people in Geelong and across the western district for a very long time. The callous TAFE cuts that Ted Baillieu is imposing on this organisation are likely to see some 43 courses cut—that is what will happen under Ted Baillieu's funding model; that is what it will mean to this organisation. I suspect that when we do a headcount of that organisation in terms of the number of people that that organisation will employ when these budget cuts have been fully implemented, we will see 130 to 150 fewer people employed in the Gordon college and providing training opportunities to the Geelong community.

Coming back to the Otway Community College and the cuts that the Baillieu is imposing on this sector, previously the way that providers were funded to provide training opportunities for people was quite simple. You did a census of the number of people that each course was going to train. Then there was a weighting system. Then a number of dollars were provided per person per contact hour. Normally, depending on the nature of the course, that would be somewhere between $6 and $11 per training hour per student. As I said earlier, that is being cut down to $1.50. And instead of providing that money upfront on the number of enrolments, they have changed their policy settings so that that money will be provided at the conclusion of the course.

Otway Community College and some other TAFEs service low-socioeconomic communities in particular. They train people who have been out of the workplace for a very long time or people who are not suited to remaining in school, because they are a single mother or whatever, and who may well be dipping their toes back into the water of vocational training for the first time in a long time. It may well be that they do not have the wherewithal to remain at that institution and complete that qualification at their first attempt. It may well be that they take a number of attempts to complete their qualification.

Changing the funding policy in a very simple way from upfront funding to funding on completion is going to savage the budgets of institutions that are working hard to service those demographics, which will be more challenging. It may well be that for a course to be viable 12 or perhaps 15 students are needed. That is what might be needed to get enough money in the door to be able to employ a trainer or a teacher—someone who can work with that cohort. If at the completion of the course those 12 or 15 students who are needed to make it sustainable for that organisation to train them has become four or five there will be a massive consequence for the budget of those training organisations. That is the particular concern that has been raised with me by people from the Otway Community College. That is the change that has had the biggest impact. The reduction in the hourly rate will have an impact in the not-too-distant future. All organisations in the training space in Victoria will have to address that.

It is no wonder that we are seeing massive community reaction to the Baillieu government decision. People are angry about this. Regional and rural Victoria will suffer the most as a consequence of these budget cuts. I remind those who might be listening that Jeff Kennett, when he was the Premier of Victoria, described regional and rural Victoria as the toenails of the state—those were his words. He was reported at the time to have made that comment. Ted Baillieu was then the President of the Liberal Party in Victoria. It seems to me that his great mentor, Jeff Kennett, has had a quiet word to him and suggested that the TAFE sector is worth going after and that it is worth imposing these budget cuts on that sector. Ted Baillieu is following his master down the same track that he himself went down in the early nineties. Vocational training is very important to our economy. I call on Jeff Kennett to talk to Ted Baillieu and make the point that he has gone too far, that Mr Kennett's comments when he was Premier that the regions were the toe nail to the state were inappropriate, that he should not follow him down that path and should reverse these budget cuts, restore the funding and give regional and rural Victoria and the suburbs the opportunity to access vocational training. It is too important for our economy.

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

I rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Streamlining and Other Measures) Bill 2012 but, if you had been listening to events in this chamber over the last half-hour, you would think that we are not debating a Commonwealth bill. You would think what we have been listening to is the member for Corangamite and the member for McEwen reading from the script of the opposition Labor Party in Victoria. They have hardly touched or mentioned the bill before us. All they have been doing is getting the talking points from the Labor opposition in Victoria and reading them verbatim.

I say to the member for McEwen and the member for Corangamite: if you feel so strongly about what is happening in Victoria go to the Prime Minister and say to her, 'Stop cutting the GST receipts for Victoria. Stop cutting the federal government money that should be supplied to Victoria so that they can afford some of these services.' It is all very fine for them to get up here and to read out the talking points from the state Labor opposition but, if they are serious about it, they should do something about it. Victoria is being dealt with unfairly by this federal Labor government. It has had its GST receipts cut, and they will continue to be cut. I have not heard a mention, a peep, a squeak, from the member for McEwen or the member for Corangamite on this. It is about time they stood up for their state if they are serious about having this issue addressed. Stand up for your state, say to the Prime Minister, 'The state you call home—although you call South Australia home as well when it is convenient—needs you to do something to make sure that it is not treated badly when it comes to how GST receipts are issued to the various states.'

If you are going to come in here and talk from the talking points of a state opposition, at least have the decency to say that you are going to try to do something about it. There are some facts that I did not hear from these members. I did not hear that over the next four years the Baillieu government is going to put an extra $1 billion into the TAFE sector in Victoria. That is right, the Baillieu government is going to put $1 billion of extra funding into the TAFE sector over the next four years. I did not hear them mention that fact at all.

I did not hear the member for McEwen 'fessing up that he was a member of the Bracks-Brumby governments—an upper house member—and he was a part of the process which has led to Victoria being on an unstable budgetary projection. I have not heard the member for McEwen 'fess up to this. I have not heard the member for McEwen 'fess up to the fact that they have completed a desal plant, the contract of which was signed by the Bracks and Brumby governments, which means that the Victorian taxpayer has to pay for water even though it is not needed from that desal plant.

The economic mismanagement which occurred under the Brumby and Bracks governments, sadly, is now being felt in Victoria. The member for McEwen was a part of that. He should at least have had the decency to fess up and own that. He also talked about the BER and about how successful it has been. I would not have addressed these issues—I would have been quite happy to stay on the bill before us—but, given that the member for McEwen went there, we need to get on the record just how misleading what he said was.

Let us look at the BER. I have a wonderful example of it in my electorate at a school just outside Hamilton which had a BER project. I will give you just one example of the type of waste that occurred. It is a small example but it shows you the utter, utter disrespect the Gillard government has for taxpayers' money. The school wanted a new water tank and they wanted the water tank to coincide with the colour scheming of their BER project. One Friday afternoon the water tank was dropped off in front of the school when the school was closed and there was no-one there. The colour coding that they wanted for the tank, which fitted with the school and its wonderful natural environmental background, was green. Instead, they got a bright orange one. So they rang up and said that they would like a green one, and a green one was delivered.

But I will give you an example of the contempt. When the orange one was dropped off, it was dropped off on a Friday afternoon when there was no-one there. There was a strong wind blowing that day. The tank was not put upright, it was put on its side and it started blowing down the road. So, one of the neighbours near the school had to ring up the school council president and say, 'Do you realise that the tank that has been dropped off as part of your BER project is blowing down the road?' So, the school committee had to push the tank back out to the front of the school.

Then, when the green tank—the one that had been requested—arrived the following week, they said to the people who dropped it off, 'Do you want the orange one back? Because we don't want it.' They said, 'No, we don't care what you do with it.' A $9,000 or $10,000 tank and they said, 'No, we don't care what you do with it.' So the school got their green tank, which fitted and was what they had ordered, and were left with a bright orange tank, which they did not want, and the contempt to the taxpayers' money was, 'We don't care what you do with it.' That is the BER. The way it was implemented is a gross waste of taxpayers' money. I hope that puts at rest the member for McEwen and the member for Corangamite for the moment—although I would be happy to engage with them further on this debate if they want.

Now, I turn to the bill before us, the Higher Education Support Amendment (Streamlining and Other Measures) Bill 2012. The bill contains amendments to the Higher Education Support Act 2003 that will position the government to deliver timely improvements to Higher Education Loan Program, HELP, schemes, particularly VET FEE-HELP. The amendments will enable the government to act on the recommendations arising from the post implementation review of the VET FEE-HELP scheme final report of September 2011 and its commitments under the April 2012 COAG National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform, particularly the redesign of the VET FEE-HELP. That is from the introduction to the explanatory memorandum from the government.

In principle, the opposition has no difficulties with the bill, although what we have said is that we would like a Senate committee to look at it and to give us further advice on the bill. The type of advice we would like is on where the bill could potentially create some red tape issues.

I will go to two points in the regulation impact statement which need to be looked at. The regulatory impact statement says:

There was very limited support for the introduction of a reporting requirement for contact hours, as stakeholders identified that a range of variables can result in the same course having different contact hours depending on student choice.

The government has said that it 'will consult further with stakeholders on the reporting of contact hours'. We would like to know what this consultation will be and what it will actually lead to. It says under 'Future directions':

Stakeholders identified additional areas for improvement, including the introduction of a mentoring program for prospective VET FEE-HELP applicants undertaken by current VET FEE HELP providers.

It goes on to say:

While the Government has taken these suggestions for future directions on board, it has no plans to implement these in the immediate future.

I think we need a decent explanation as to why.

They are the types of issues that we need to look at, because we have to make sure when we are implementing legislation that the legislation is actually going to do what it sets out to do. Sadly, as we have seen from this government time and time and time again, so often when it comes to implementing legislation it gets it wrong and so often there is a need for amendment after amendment and sometimes there is a need to actually get rid of the legislation—full stop. Sadly, though, the government often fails to recognise that need.

When it comes to this sector I would like to place on the record the sad, sad state of affairs with the abolition of Australian technical colleges. In 2006-07 we had the introduction of the best vocational training institutions that you could see. Two of these were in my electorate—one in Hamilton and one in Warrnambool. Local industry were behind them. When you went and visited the apprentices who were part of the programs that were being run by these Australian technical colleges, you saw that they could not have been happier with the courses and the facilities in which they were undertaking their training. They felt proud to be doing what they were doing in those institutions. They felt a worth, which meant that what they were doing was equal to what other students who were going to go down the tertiary path were doing.

What happened to those Australian technical colleges? They had the funding ripped out from underneath them. So it is all very well for the member for Corangamite to come in here and talk about having funding ripped from the sector; he had funding ripped from an Australian technical college in his electorate—and, once again, we did not hear boo from him on that issue.

So what now is at stake for the former Australian technical colleges in Warrnambool and Hamilton? The one in Warrnambool, sadly, looks like it will disappear because it has now been subsumed by the local TAFE there. We have to ensure that we can get that technical college back to where it was. The Hamilton ATC has continued to operate, although it does not have any ongoing funding from this government. At the moment it is scraping by in the hope that a coalition government will get back into power and be able to address this area of ongoing need so that we have technical training which is of a standard which means that those people taking part in it feel a real pride in the path that they have taken.

It is my wont and my hope—and something that I will be strongly arguing for—that if we form the next government as a coalition we will look over time, as the budget allows us, to reinstitute those Australian technical colleges. I witnessed what they were doing in Hamilton and Warrnambool, and that is the type of approach we should be taking with this sector.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill today. The coalition supports this bill in principle, but obviously the Senate committee needs to look at the detail to make sure that in implementation it will do what it sets out to do. Also, the coalition will not stand by and listen to speaker after speaker attack the state governments when those opposite are responsible in many instances for the lack of funding they have currently.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I start my contribution to this debate on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Streamlining and Other Measures) Bill 2012 by sharing with the House the experiences that we have had in the Shortland electorate with the Australian technical colleges. I know that the member for Wannon is a new member. In the Shortland electorate there were to be two Australian technical colleges. There was the Hunter or Newcastle ATC and one for the Central Coast. Negotiations took place for many years about getting that one happening. The one in the Hunter, far from having the support of industry and business, could not organise, as part of their work training, one job for the people who were enrolled. They had great difficulty. I had parents coming to see me. The tools that were being used were donated and, believe it or not, the parents went along on the weekend and built the workbenches. Is that a successful system delivering to young people who need to train and get qualifications to go out into the workforce? Or is it just a system that is duplicating the TAFE system which in New South Wales has worked brilliantly and provided brilliant vocational education to young people and not so young people for many years? I know that the parliamentary secretary who is sitting in the chamber with us tonight was a former TAFE teacher and gave many years to ensuring that young people had opportunities in life.

The Rudd and Gillard governments have ensured that we have an ATC on the Central Coast which is working effectively. We have devolved the responsibilities to the high schools. I am on the northern part of the Central Coast. Each of the schools has those services. The other ATC would have been situated at the other end of the Central Coast if an agreement could ever have been reached. It is now operating in areas where young people can actually access it as opposed to having to travel a couple of hours to get to the ATC. It has been combined with the trade training centres, and we have centres of excellence. Three high schools on the Central Coast are really delivering quality vocational education to young people rather than a mickey mouse ATC which was seeking to duplicate the state system because the then minister did not like the state governments.

The member for Wannon would have been very interested to learn that the ATCs did not work at all effectively in my electorate and in the regions I represent. They were fraught with problems: getting employers to offer the training, having the equipment they needed to deliver the services and finding somewhere to situate the ATC on the Central Coast. That is hardly something to boast about as a great achievement of the former, coalition government.

I also heard the member for Wannon complain about the BER program. It seems to me as though he would have been happy if none of the schools in his electorate received funding through the BER program. Once again, I have had a totally different experience within my electorate. Principals of schools have said to me that it is a once-in-a-generation program and that it has transformed the face of the schools in my electorate, and I know that is the case in the electorates of many of my colleagues. I see my colleagues over there agreeing with me. Now there are students in very state-of-the-art classrooms as opposed to being in demountables with mould and mildew on the walls and the carpets. It really has made a big difference. Anyone who knows anything about education knows how important the learning environment is. When students are in very poor and sometimes unhealthy learning environments, their ability to access quality education is impinged on the poor quality of their surroundings. Far from being critical of the BER, I would have thought that the member for Wannon would have consulted with his schools and discovered that they are very appreciative of all those new classrooms and other facilities that they received.

I just needed to deal with those issues that were raised by the member for Wannon in his contribution to the debate before I touched on the legislation. I note that he has agreed to support it in principle and says that the opposition will support it in principle, but there is a big 'but' there. There is always a 'but'. There is never opposition that is constructive; there is never a situation where the opposition will say, 'This is actually good legislation.' They always look to find a reason to say no. This is the most negative opposition that I have ever encountered. I have been an opposition member and I know that you quite often can find fault with legislation, but you must also accept that some legislation deserves the support of the opposition. I have been in the situation where I have supported government legislation and recognised the fact that there is value in the legislation before the parliament.

This bill would introduce a number of measures to strengthen and streamline the Higher Education Support Act and it will result in more effective and efficient administration of the Australian government's Higher Education Loan Program, particularly VET FEE-HELP.

While I am talking about VET FEE-HELP, I would like to quickly transgress and talk a little bit about TAFE. TAFE is a provider of quality vocational education. In New South Wales it has been the source of establishing a strong trade base within the state. It has provided vocational education to tens of thousands of young people over the years. I have been devastated in recent times to learn that the TAFE system in my state of New South Wales has come under attack. TAFE in New South Wales is such a valuable asset. When I hear of course after course closing, I think of the implications for Australia as a nation. If we do not provide adequate and proper training to those people who want to be involved in vocational education, then as a nation we will suffer, and there is no better provider of vocational education than TAFE.

Within New South Wales $116,000 is being slashed from TAFE, as well as 1,800 jobs. TAFE fees will increase by 9.5 per cent. Overall, if you look at education as a whole in New South Wales, there is going to be a three per cent cut in education funding. This is a four-year freeze by the state government, and the impact this will have will be irreversible. All those young people will be denied the opportunity to train, and for us as a nation it will lead to a further shortage in trades. I might add that a large part of these cuts are impacting on apprenticeships.

Members of this House will be aware that we have a skill shortage in Australia. That skill shortage needs to be addressed, but you do not address a skill shortage by slashing, burning and cutting, by not providing education and by not supporting a system that has worked so very well for us as a nation over the years. It is not only in New South Wales that this is happening. I am very aware of New South Wales—it is my own home state, and I have been closely connected with TAFE throughout the region. It is also happening in Victoria and Queensland.

This really needed to be put on the paper, and I could not let the opportunity pass me by whilst talking to this bill, which introduces a number of measures that will strengthen and streamline the Higher Education Support Act. The bill implements recommendations arising from the Post Implementation Review of the VET FEE-HELP Assistance Scheme—Final Report, 30 September 2011. The bill also enhances the quality and accountability framework underpinning the scheme through strengthening suspension and revocation provisions—decisions to revoke or suspend an approved provider will now be taken back to the day the notice is registered.

These are all very important aspects of the legislation: accountability, integrity and transparency of the HELP scheme. We really need to ensure these are in place. The bill will provide a risk management approach to approvals and compliance, and the approach will reduce the administrative burden. The prescribed 20 per cent rule for census data will also be moved to the legislative guidelines. The bill will strengthen a number of definitions and it will further streamline the administration to produce, duplicate and increase efficiencies. These are all very important aspects of this legislation, and they are all aspects that members of this House should support. They should not just support them in principle; they should support the fact that we need to have transparency, accountability and integrity. I have great pleasure in supporting the legislation before us tonight.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Higher Education and Skills) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank everybody for their contributions to the debate on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Streamlining and Other Measures) Bill 2012. The Higher Education Support Act 2003 provides the legislative authority for the Australian government's Higher Education Loan Program—HELP as people have referred to it—namely, FEE-HELP and VET FEE-HELP. These schemes assist individuals to access higher education and higher level vocational education and training by removing the upfront financial burden associated with studying by allowing students to defer payment of upfront tuition fees.

This bill will enable the government to act on recommendations made in the Post-implementation review of the VET FEE-HELP Assistance Scheme: final report of September 2011 and on its commitments made under the April 2012 COAG National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform. The amendments in the bill position the government to deliver timely improvements to the scheme and in doing so create a more accessible, transparent, responsive and robust tertiary sector. The amendments enhance the quality and accountability framework underpinning the scheme through new provisions. These allow the minister to consider information from the national and non-referring jurisdiction education regulators when making a decision to approve, revoke or suspend an education provider under the HELP schemes. The amendments also strengthen the government's ability to protect the integrity of the schemes and minimise risk to student and public moneys. Specifically, the amendments enhance the existing provider suspension and revocation provisions for approved providers. Further, the amendments enable the tertiary sector to deliver education and training in a more responsive and flexible manner by moving census date requirements to the legislative guidelines. This will allow the sector to be more responsive to student and industry needs without onerous administration. The bill also allows for the managed trial of VET FEE-HELP for certificate IV-level qualifications. Finally, the amendments strengthen a number of provisions to better support access to and administration of the schemes. The amendments reduce complexity and duplication by consolidating three sets of legislative guidelines into a single set of guidelines. Importantly, the amendments will also allow the minister to determine a category of providers and financial reporting requirements for applicants and approved providers that represent a low risk to the government.

Improving access to tertiary education, including vocational education and training, is a hallmark of this Labor government. Streamlining and improving access to VET FEE-HELP is just one of a range of reforms the Labor government is driving to help more people get the skills they need to improve their job prospects and get better pay, a more rewarding career and a better future.

Obviously, as some of the speakers have indicated in this wide-ranging debate on this bill, this approach is in stark contrast to the efforts of some of the Liberal state governments, which are intent on cutting funding to public vocational training providers, cutting staff and closing facilities that are for many communities, particularly regional and rural communities, the only places local people can get a vocational education or learn a trade.

While the Liberals in Victoria damage their public provider, the federal Labor government has invested $224 million in Victorian TAFEs over the last four years to upgrade facilities and equipment in 19 institutions across 37 campuses. This is on top of the $360 million in funding provided on average each year. As we now know, the Baillieu government's cuts to TAFE in Victoria reflect the approach the Liberal government is taking in New South Wales and potentially in Queensland—we are seeing a similar attack in those states on education services.

As another example of this government's desire to help rather than hinder Australians get the skills they need I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

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