Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Hansard source

I now move opposition amendments (4) and (5) on sheet 1937 revised 2 together:

(4) Schedule 1, item 25, page 22 (after line 25), at the end of Subdivision 128E-B, add:

128E-40 Reversal of STARTUP-HELP assistance: accelerator program course objectives not met

(1) An amount of *STARTUP-HELP assistance that a person received for an *accelerator program course with a higher education provider is reversed if the *Secretary is satisfied that the course has not met its stated objectives.

Note 1: For example, a course may not have met its stated objectives if the course has not developed a person's skills, capabilities and connections for the purposes of startup businesses: see paragraph 128B-25(1)(a).

Note 2: For the consequences if an amount of assistance is reversed, see sections 128D-5, 128D-10 and 137-17. See also paragraph 128B-1(1)(c).

(2) Without limiting the matters that may be included in the STARTUP-HELP guidelines, those guidelines must set out:

(a) principles and procedures that the *Secretary must follow in deciding whether the stated objectives of an *accelerator program course have been met; and

(b) procedures for a person who is, or has been, enrolled in an *accelerator program course to make an application to the *Secretary for an amount of *STARTUP-HELP assistance to be reversed under subsection (1).

(5) Schedule 1, item 73, page 34 (line 5), at the end of the definition of reversed in subclause 1(1) of Schedule 1, add:

; (f) section 128E-40 (accelerator program course objectives not met).

This relates to the really important issue of ensuring that, if an accelerator course does not stack up and if an accelerator course does not—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Henderson, I'm just going to interrupt you before you speak to your amendments to make sure that leave is granted for you to move them together, which I presume it will be. Leave is granted. Please continue.

Amendments (4) and (5) on sheet 1937 concern the ability of students to access a refund. We think this is critically important. So this provision provides that the debt for an accelerator program course with a higher education provider can be reversed if the secretary is satisfied that the course has not met its stated objectives. We propose these particular amendments because there is such high risk involved with these accelerator courses because they are full-fee-paying courses.

As I mentioned earlier in this debate, the universities are doing a first-class job at delivering a very broad range of courses—accelerator courses, activator courses, incubator courses, co-working spaces and mentoring programs—which are mostly delivered at no cost to the student. So, if this scheme is going to be rolled out, we want to make sure that the universities are held to account.

I will say that we have had some discussions with the government in relation to this particular amendment, and, from our discussions, I am concerned about any suggestion that this should be discretionary. Of course, this is very much in the hands of the secretary of the department, so we want to make sure that, if a student is charged $11,800 for a course, an enormous amount of money which, of course, will be indexed—and then who knows? With the way things are going, it could end up being a $20,000 debt for the student. We want to make sure that, if that course is not fit for purpose and doesn't meet its objectives, the student has an important opportunity to seek to obtain a refund.

This will be safeguarded by the Secretary of the Department of Education. We recognise that, in determining the merits of a refund, there need to be proper principles in place, so that is why, in clause (2) under amendment (4), we are proposing that the guidelines must set out the principles and procedures that the secretary must follow in deciding whether the stated objectives of an accelerator program course have been met and that there are procedures for a person who is or has been enrolled in an accelerator program course to make an application to the secretary for an amount of STARTUP-HELP assistance to be reversed.

We very much hope that this provision is not needed by any student. Assuming that any university does go ahead and deliver a Startup Year course, we very much hope that these courses are of the highest quality and that the universities will work exceptionally hard to make sure that they deliver real value for money. But, as we know, through the consultation process and the concerns that continue to be raised by a number of universities, the value to students is very much at issue. Despite the rhetoric from the government and despite the universities indicating they support the Startup Year program in principle, so far we have seen no evidence that these courses are going to deliver value, and therefore we want to make sure that the universities are held to account for the way in which these programs are delivered.

This is a really important safeguard. This is about putting students first. Frankly, as I mentioned, we very much hope that students don't need this recourse and don't have to go through the rigmarole of applying for a refund and needing the secretary to make the appropriate assessment in relation to a course. But this is a safeguard of last resort, and it's very, very important, when students are facing cost-of-living pressures as they are, remembering, of course, that most students who will embark on a Startup Year course, if any do—and, as I said in my speech in the second reading debate, currently I don't think there is any merit in any student doing a Startup Year course and incurring such enormous debt with such little discernible value. Perhaps the universities will deliver some courses that present that value, but, if they do, we want to make sure that students are protected. I really hope and trust that we can attract the support of the Senate in adopting this particular amendment. As I said, this is a recourse of last resort. This demonstrates the opposition's concern for the cost-of-living crisis that so many students are facing.

This also reflects our deep concern about the enormous acceleration in student debt—another 7.1 per cent increase in student debt from 1 June. We expect there'll be another very significant increase next year—at least three per cent, maybe four per cent. All in all, under Labor, more than three million Australians with a student debt are looking at an increase in their student debt, by reason of the indexation which applies, of some 15 per cent. In the last decade, principally under the coalition, the average indexation rate was two per cent. It was moderate, it reflected a strong bipartisanship that we've always had for the HECS-HELP scheme and it was fair. But this is not fair. When you couple this with the fact that the HECS payment system is antiquated and needs urgent reform—particularly when students are paying down their debt, those repayments are not being realised in real time and students are being indexed on the higher rate from 1 July, the beginning of the financial year—then we think this is really, really important.

I hope, Minister, that you might support this. This will demonstrate that the government does care about student debt. Your support, Minister, for this provision would demonstrate that the government is putting the needs of students first, with respect to those who do a Startup Year course that doesn't measure up. We hope and trust that this particular amendment does attract the support of the Senate.