Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Hansard source

I just indicate for the benefit of the chamber that I have been a supporter of a national vocational education system since Paul Keating's efforts. I was working in the office of the Victorian education minister at the time, Joan Kirner. So this has been a long-cherished objective of many—to build a national vocational education system. I understand there is actually a working group; it is not just a question of the South Australian Premier. The vocational education ministers have actually established a working group, and I believe the Commonwealth may well be involved with that as well.

Senator Birmingham interjecting—

You are not involved? It is just the states? I understand there is a working group, but it will not happen if (1) you cannot organise a proper funding regime and (2) you cannot demonstrate capacity. This is what really disturbs me about these provisions. I am still not satisfied that the capacity is there. I am not criticising individual officers—we have got officers in the box here at the moment. This is not a suggestion about their personal integrity or abilities, but I am just saying that the Commonwealth bureaucracy does not seem to me, at this time, to have the capacity. This is part of the problem we have had with this arrangement, not to mention the problems with ASQA not being fit for purpose.

These proposals that we have before us will provide greater opportunities to extend the reach of the Commonwealth—I acknowledge that—but it is only to the 260 VET FEE-HELP providers. I reiterate that the fact that we have had 18 pages of explanatory memorandum and 13 pages of amendments dropped on us in the manner we have means that one cannot be confident that these measures are going to be able to do the job. The Labor Party will be supporting these amendments, but with a caveat that these provisions have been put together in such a rushed manner that one cannot be certain that they are going to do what the government is seeking to be done, even if we take at face value the minister's good intentions in the matter.

While I am on my feet, I want to acknowledge the minister's efforts yesterday in calling together a conference to discuss these matters last night. I approached the minister and I indicated that he acted very promptly to at least get a conference of senators to allow us to consider these matters in more detail. I acknowledge that that action was entirely appropriate. It is just that it is not adequate to deal with the questions that we have before us. But it was certainly a better approach than we have seen from your junior minister, publicly announcing these at a press conference and seeking senators to go along with that, without any discussion or opportunity to go through the detail in any manner.

You have indicated that these measures are not intended to apply to TAFE, but that is not the way I read the amendments. TAFE is picked up in these questions. Can you confirm that? While I am on my feet, the second area that I would ask you to consider is clause 36(5), which allows the secretary to suspend a provider's approval. I just want the government's response formally on the record about the secretary's capacity to suspend a provider. There are provisions for the Commonwealth to establish a plan for the provider if there are problems, but the amendments do not seem to allow for the re-crediting of VET FEE-HELP funds and the wiping-out of student debts. Can you please explain to the chamber how it is that students could actually have their debts wiped off, forgiven, under these arrangements, where it is demonstrated that there has been malfeasance by a provider? Thirdly, what is the retrospectivity in regard to these measures for students who can now demonstrate that they have been badly treated and abused? What recourse do they have?