Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is a real privilege to follow Senator O'Sullivan when speaking on the Trade Support Loans Amendment (Improving Administration) Bill 2019. I know Senator O'Sullivan has done in his working life as much as anyone in this place to provide people in some of our most disadvantaged communities with access to training, real employment and careers. Many of us here maybe take that for granted, but he provided those opportunities to people who didn't have those opportunities before. So I open my remarks by acknowledging Senator O'Sullivan's real contribution in this area. It really is inspiring.

Another inspiring thing, which I was fortunate to be associated with in my preparliamentary career in the mining industry, is the provision of apprenticeships and training opportunities to people in one of the poorest countries in the world—Laos. In that environment there were hardly any training opportunities for young Lao people. The company I worked for there set up an apprenticeship training program at both of its mine sites. It put dozens of young Lao people through apprenticeship training programs. We saw how important it was to those young people in that poor country, how it transformed their lives and how it gave them skills, education and training that they could take forward for the rest of their lives and for the benefit of their people.

I stand in this place to speak on this subject because I'm extraordinarily passionate about the difference that education, training and apprenticeships can make to young people, whether they be here in Australia—in our regions, cities or the poorest and most socially disadvantaged areas—or in other parts of the world. It's absolutely fundamental that we provide our young people with those educational training opportunities.

I'd like to make another preliminary observation in this debate. When I was preparing these remarks I recollected a conversation I had with a good friend just after we had finished high school. That's going back 33 years, but I still remember this conversation. Thirty-three years ago, as I was about to attend the University of Queensland and take on a tertiary education, my friend, who didn't go to university, said: 'Paul, you know what? We need to reflect, as a society, on the fact that someone like you is going to university.' At that time university was free, so for two of my five years at university I had the benefit of a free education. My friend said that we needed to reflect on the fact that he was someone that wasn't going down the university path, and where was the support for him? I think one of the best things about this loan program is that it provides opportunities for people who aren't going to university to access quality training, to access apprenticeships and to actually get the support they need to obtain that education and training for the rest of their life. So it is a great honour to speak in favour of this legislation.

Before I speak in relation to the actual content of this bill, I want to address some of the remarks of Senator Ayres in this debate earlier. I have great respect for Senator Ayres and for the work he did prior to coming to this place, standing up for working people. When he says he is passionate about apprenticeships across our economy, whether it be in the regions or the cities, wherever it may be, I absolutely can see that passion when he speaks and when he addresses this chamber. However, it is difficult to sit by and listen to Senator Ayres blame this government for the current situation with respect to apprenticeship numbers. It's difficult to sit here and listen to that in the context where the greatest fall in apprentice numbers on record, in this country's history, occurred in 2012 to 2013, under a Labor government, when apprenticeship numbers fell by 110,000, or 22 per cent. That was under the previous Labor government. It is difficult to sit by and not respond to Senator Ayres's comments, when over just two years those opposite—many of them are still there—when they were in government gutted over $1.2 billion from employer incentives to take on apprentices. What was one of the reasons for this? The debacle, as Senator O'Sullivan referred to, of the VET FEE-HELP program. And it was an absolute debacle. We're still paying the costs of that debacle today.

Don't just take my words for it. I've got an article here from the University of Melbourne, written by Francesca Saccaro and Robyn Wright. Let me quote from this article:

Amendments to the HESA legislation enabled substantial growth in the number of approved VET FEE-HELP providers from 37 in 2009 to 254 in 2014, a huge increase in eligible courses and a massive increase in VET FEE-HELP loans by both private and public providers. Large scale business opportunities were seized. Private providers went 'public', selling shares which over time became worthless. The "no upfront fees" and "pay later" slogans—

This is how they were advertising those programs under Labor—

sometimes translated to "free courses", was an easy sell, especially to those who were cash poor and living for today.

They are not my words; they are those authors' words. Then they give a number of case studies of some of the absolutely abhorrent marketing techniques engaged in by some of these providers. Here are two examples. Example one: an older woman in her early 70s was at the Bankstown Central shopping centre, having lunch with her Bible group, when they were approached by a young man asking them if they would like a free laptop and a free diploma in community services. He assured them that though they had to sign up for a government loan they would never have to repay it, as they would need to earn over $50,000. This was a group of pensioners signed up for a VET-FEE program under Labor—a group of pensioners in a Bible study—an absolute disgrace, and they agreed they would never be earning that much. Of course they wouldn't be earning that much. They were pensioners in a Bible group. The whole group signed up and got their laptops. That's what happened under Labor. The whole group signed up and got their laptops under Labor.

Here's the other example: in March 2014 a group of senior citizens from Bankstown, all from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and with little English, were talked into enrolling in computer classes with Unique International College in Granville—absolutely unique—and Aspire College of Education in Parramatta. It turned out that there was no computer class, and they were all enrolled in different diploma courses and had filled out forms to take out VET FEE-HELP. This was under the previous Labor government. Senator Tim Ayres didn't mention it in his comments, but this is what happened under the previous government. They were each offered a free computer iPad or $1,000 cash—'There you go'—by taking out the loan. They were told, 'There's no need to come to class,' but if they wished they could come and free lunch would be offered.

There's apparently no such thing as a free lunch, but under Labor these unscrupulous marketeers were out there offering a free lunch. But there was no free lunch for the Australian taxpayer. They alleged, in Aspire college, that they had a canteen that could accommodate a couple of hundred people, and, on the day, it was packed with senior citizens enjoying their free lunch. That's under the previous Labor government. We didn't hear that from Senator Tim Ayres, not at all.

If those listening to this debate want to be reminded of the legacy of these rorts under the previous Labor government, they should go to the StudyAssist helpline. Those poor people who maybe still have some of that Labor legacy debt coming from that failed scheme can go to the StudyAssist website, and they'll find a number of notices from some of those dodgy education providers. The StudyAssist government website says: 'Notice for former students of Smart City Vocational College Pty Ltd'. It states:

If you were enrolled into a course with Smart City Vocational College Pty Ltd (Smart City) and commenced studies between—

two nominated dates—

… you may have had your VET FEE-HELP debt removed.

Why? It continues:

This decision was made by a delegate of the Secretary of the Department of Education, Skills and Employment under sub-clause 46AA(1) of schedule 1A of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 because it is considered reasonably likely—

Under Labor's previous program—

… that Smart City (or its agents) engaged in inappropriate conduct in relation to the person's unit of study or course.

It's an absolute debacle, an unmitigated disaster. Just like the pink batts public policy debacle and the changing the rules with respect to boat arrivals from offshore public policy debacle, this is another public policy debacle under Labor.

There are pages of these institutions. I'd forgotten how bad this was, and clearly those opposite have as well because they don't deign to even refer to it in their comments: 'Notice for former students of Australian Institute of Professional Education Pty Ltd'. They can get their fees refunded as well. Why? It says:

… because it is considered reasonably likely that ASCET (or its agents) engaged in inappropriate conduct in relation to the person's unit of study or course.

Under Labor's failed scheme. Here's another one: 'Notice for former students of ASCET Institute of Technology Pty Ltd'. It's the same thing, and: 'Notice for formers students of The Australian Academy of Business'. There are pages of these rorts. It's an absolute public policy disaster and a disgrace.

I will not sit here and be lectured by those opposite with respect to what is or what is not effective and efficient vocational educational training, because those opposite were absolutely clueless when they were in government. You actually weep tears when you think what good that money could have been applied to with a well-run, efficient policy with the benefit of those hundreds of millions of dollars which were squandered under those opposite instead of lining the pockets of every rogue and dodgy marketeer signing up 70-year-old pensioners in Bankstown city hall, for goodness sake!

The coalition is quite prepared to defend its record in relation to these matters. In 2019-20 the coalition is investing over $3 billion in vocational education training—not in dodgy schemes, where courses aren't delivered, but in real, practical schemes which will deliver skills and jobs for young people. This includes: $1.5 billion given to the states and territories every year through the National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development; $1.1 billion to fund the government's own skills programs, including employers incentives and support for apprentices; $175 million to the states and territories via the Skilling Australians Fund to support increased apprenticeships and traineeship numbers; and $2.3 million to Tasmania to support increased apprenticeships and trainees needed for the Battery of the Nation initiative, the renewable energy sector and related sectors. These are schemes delivering real training and real jobs to young people in this country. When I look at those schemes I can't help but return to the lost opportunity of those hundreds of millions of dollars which were squandered under the previous Labor government and the difference it could have made to young people's lives if that program had been efficiently and effectively managed.

This legislation deals with quite a technical matter in relation to ensuring that when an apprentice is perhaps overpaid in certain circumstances, an instalment of TSL, that money can be offset against future payments instead of having to be repaid. It is quite a simple piece of legislation. It corrects something that has perhaps caused an administrative burden which is not necessary. I applaud the legislation, and I applaud what the government has achieved in the vocational education and training space.