Skye Kakoschke-Moore (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Hansard source

My colleague Stirling Griff has already outlined many of the concerns the Nick Xenophon Team has about this bill; concerns which have grown over the past few weeks since the bill was first due to come before the Senate. But I couldn't not make my own contribution, given the impact these reforms could have on important sectors which I hope to help advance during my term. These are sectors which I do not want to see diminished. The VET Student Loans reforms before us have been described as 'bungled and rushed,' and, 'inequitable, discriminating against women and disadvantaged groups, and in complete contrast to the government's innovation agenda'. If these descriptions are true, then these reforms have gone far beyond what was needed to help stop the rorting of VET-FEE HELP, and instead seem like a savings measure which will be to the detriment of all Australians.

Senator Griff has summarised these concerns and outlined the need for a delay to the commencement date of the reforms. I find it hard to believe that, with just four weeks left before the new scheme is set to start, there is sufficient time for applications to be submitted and processed, for course information to be issued, for an opportunity for students and training providers to actually plan for 2017, and so on. It seems that this will be a logistical nightmare, particularly for the Department of Education—the same department which did not pick up that some providers went from loans of $200,000 to $2 million, almost overnight. Even if the department can work through the enormous administration task, the scheme remains flawed. I pause here to note that these flaws have been raised by the opposition leader, Bill Shorten, directly with Prime Minister Turnbull. Yet we stand here today knowing that this legislation will still pass with minor amendments—because the major parties have done a deal. Rather than act to help prevent a flawed scheme from being included, it seems Labor consider it sufficient to note the issues and then take a step back, as if that will somehow get them off the hook if and when the problems materialise in the future. The provisional approval process, completion rates based on incorrect data, lack of guarantee of enrolment beyond 30 June 2017, loan caps which are inappropriate for adequate course delivery, and important courses omitted from the eligible course list are just some of the notable flaws.

Turning now to the course list, I will touch on a couple of areas which will be disadvantaged due to the omission of courses—courses producing graduates who are currently employed at the coalface of mental health: addiction treatment providers, and those working with victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse, with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations in prison, and with returned veterans, as well as with refugees suffering PTSD. Courses related to these areas are not on the list. Despite the government's commitment in these crucial spaces, it has omitted courses that are having transformational outcomes; not just for the people with whom they work but also for the graduates themselves. Graduates of these courses often come from disadvantaged backgrounds, and are entering the workforce—sometimes after long-term unemployment—by having overcome significant hurdles, making a positive impact on the lives of other Australians.

Let me give you some examples, Acting Deputy President Reynolds. Sandrine works with people with acquired brain injuries in the Community Re-entry Program at Flinders University in South Australia. She was previously unemployed and is now working in addition to undertaking further study in a Masters of Counselling and Psychotherapy. Bek works as an art therapist in the Community Re-entry Program, which is for people with brain injuries, and as a private practitioner with people with complex mental health conditions. She has had recent experience with breast cancer, and reports that art therapy helped her to cope and that it is helping other cancer patients, too. Janet works at the repatriation hospital, providing art therapy for people with persistent, long-term mental health conditions. She has a history of mental health issues herself and, in addition to helping others, it helps her function. She was previously long-term unemployed. Alison provides art therapy services to clients of two national employer assistance programs. She is supporting her husband, who has a disability and is on a disability support pension. I could go on and on, but I think the point is already obvious: despite these outcomes, courses including art therapy and transpersonal counselling are not on the list.

Recognition of art therapy around the world as a unique and valuable field in the healthcare arena is growing. It is practised in a variety of settings, from mental health clinics to schools, prisons and senior living centres. In the US, art therapists have become commonplace in veterans' hospitals and medical centres. In the UK, arts programs are routinely integrated into healthcare programs. In my home state of South Australia, one training provider, the IKON Institute of Australia, will cease to be able to operate if the proposed course list comes into effect. A full-time and contractor workforce of around 50 people will no longer have employment. And there are many more examples of training providers expecting to close as a result of these reforms. IKON was one of the first 20 VET-FEE HELP providers in Australia. It has an impeccable history with zero non-compliances. Its statistics show that 87 per cent of IKON graduates have attained employment. Significantly, 88 per cent of IKON students are female. This reflects the community service and health sectors, of which females comprise 68 per cent and 77 per cent respectively, according to the national Workplace Gender Equality Agency.

The current course list only covers eight health and 13 community service qualifications—that is six per cent of the 347 qualifications. There are no accredited training courses for helping professions, but there are 157 qualifications in the engineering and manufacturing fields, which are male-dominated sectors. Also missing are all the vocational performance-skills-oriented courses such as dancing and acting. The government has shown a clear lack of understanding of the importance of vocational training, of face-to-face learning and of regular practice in small classes in developing creative arts students. There is also a lack of understanding, again, that not all students need a university course or are even suited to university teaching and learning methods.

By leaving these courses off the list, the government has created fee barriers that will deter students from different cultural and economic backgrounds from accessing training. Elite training institutions, such as NIDA and the Western Australian Academy of Performing Arts, deliver vocational training, are responsible trainers of artist talent and are valued by the sector. Much like the helping professions that will be impacted as I have already outlined, the negative impact on arts training is occurring because the selection criteria used to determine the eligible course list are flawed.

The government has chosen to restrict the course list to courses that are on at least two state and territory training subsidy lists or are STEM related. This method relies on skills shortage lists and employment measures that do not take into account the characteristics of arts and employment. They do not seem to factor in future needs or developing treatment methods, such as art therapy, appropriately. The Department of Communications and the Arts was apparently not consulted.

The Department of Employment's statistics, which show that health care and social assistance are projected to make the largest contribution to employment growth over the next five years, appear to have been ignored. Whether it is creative arts or helping professions, there seems to have been a failure to recognise and value the people who work in these sectors and those who aspire to work in these sectors. I fear we may just find ourselves in a position where we cannot appropriately service the needs of Australians and have stifled our artists and creatives because, much like their inability to recognise rorting in time, the government could not recognise our future needs in time either.

The government says it has a responsibility to ensure that taxpayer money is well directed and spent in a way that offers the greatest benefit to the Australian community, so it must recognise that at the heart of vocational education and training are the futures and careers of Australians, particularly young people. If you hold the future of anyone, but especially a country, in your hand then you should take great care of it and not rush through what can only be described as unfair, inequitable and flawed policy. Thank you.