Ross Hart (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the VET Student Loans Bill currently before the House. This bill will introduce a new VET Student Loans program to replace the VET-HELP scheme from January 2017.

Certainly, I agree with the major stakeholders that the existing VET FEE-HELP scheme requires urgent reform. Several improvements have been proposed with these bills: capping student loans, linking funding to student progress and completion, linking publically funded courses to industry need and skills shortages, and requiring providers to re-apply under new standards so only high-quality providers could access the loan system.

I particularly welcome the commitment made by the government in the second reading speech to establish a VET loans ombudsman, a proposal that Labor moved in the Senate almost a year ago. Funnily enough, when Labor proposed these very reforms prior to the last election, the Liberals could not criticise them enough. On capping student loans, the Treasurer said that it would pull the rug out from under the private education industry, whilst the minister for education stated that the policy was 'an ill-considered flat pack'. At the time, the minister further criticised a price cap, saying it would simply, in effect, establish a government sanctioned price. He is now himself proposing three different price caps: $5,000, $10,000 and $15,000. What we have now is a complete change of direction from the government—another backflip from the Liberals, who are trying to take credit for reforms that have been Labor policy for months.

However, I would also suggest that these bills do little, if anything, to provide redress for students who have been the victims of dodgy providers and those who have been left saddled with unfair VET FEE-HELP debts. The vocational education system has fallen into crisis under this Liberal government's watch. With five ministers in three years and a blow-out in the cost of the VET FEE-HELP scheme, it is clear that this government simply does not care about vocational education or, significantly, about TAFE.

In 2013, VET FEE-HELP loans were sitting at around $700 million. This has skyrocketed in the last two years to a staggering $2.9 billion in 2015, and it is estimated that up to 40 per cent of VET FEE-HELP loans will never be repaid.

We hear that some students have been tricked by unscrupulous providers into racking up massive debts. We also hear that thousands of qualifications in Victoria have been cancelled because they are not worth the paper that they are written on.

Where was the government when all this was happening under its watch? How can it possibly justify to taxpayers its failure to do anything about this until now?

With these bills before the House, given that the government has finally taken action, what the government faces now is the challenge of implementation. In particular, I look forward to seeing how the establishment of a VET loans ombudsman is to be achieved, given that there is no provision for that important office in these bills. It is absolutely critical that the ombudsman has the resources and the powers it needs to seek redress for students and to protect their interests.

I would also hope that the government ensures that students and reputable providers are treated fairly in the transition process. Just last week I received an email from a local vocational education provider who, under this legislation, will be precluded from applying as a VET Student Loan course provider. This particular provider has received several national awards that reflect their high standards of governance and their community contribution. They presently employ 64 staff and have around 1,200 VET FEE-HELP students enrolled in their courses. This legislation requires them—and another 12 training providers, acting as body corporates to a trustee—to almost immediately implement a change to their organisational structure.

I certainly understand that it is appropriate for accountability purposes to make such changes so as to restrict the operating entity to ensure that directors are liable for the administration of their operating entity and, hence, that an interposed trust is not an appropriate vehicle for governance purposes. Whilst I understand that some changes to the structure of the industry were raised some time ago, they have advised me that at no stage was this particular reform canvassed in any industry consultation and that such a change will have a detrimental impact upon their ability to continue to deliver quality educational services, or, in the alternative, will require a restructure of the business operating entity, requiring taxation and legal advice, and transfer of staff and assets—not to mention that staff redundancies might occur as current students complete courses, with the provider being unable to take on further students without restructure.

It must be of concern to all in this House that industry participants claim inadequate consultation on such a fundamental change in the operation of a business. It speaks to this government's failure to consult—or to inadequate consultation—that participants in this industry are able to complain that changes first proposed some years ago have not been adequately explained to the industry.

Labor understands the urgency of these bills. But yet again, as with the backpacker tax backflip, it is an urgency the government has brought on itself. We hope that the Senate inquiry into the bill will give the stakeholders a chance to properly examine these issues, because the government did not consult, or has not consulted adequately, with students or the sector on the details of these changes.

I am also particularly concerned that the creative and arts communities are being disadvantaged by the Turnbull government's cuts to the VET Student Loans program. Of over 70 creative arts courses previously eligible for funding through the VET Student Loans program, only 13 are now available, according to the government's new published criteria. In announcing the funding cuts, Minister for Education and Training Simon Birmingham stated that:

VET Student Loans will only support legitimate students to undertake worthwhile and value-for-money courses at quality training providers.

I would like to question the minister as to why the Liberals are effectively imposing a restriction based upon assumed 'value' or 'worth' of the creative arts in higher education for the community. I am genuinely concerned that the government's neo-liberal ideology is damaging for our community, and that this short-sighted and short-term thinking is indicative of a government that is out of its depth rather than embracing the cultural positives for the community associated with arts funding in all of its forms.

The moment you decide that only wealthy people can afford to be trained in the performing arts because certain areas will not be publicly supported, you have effectively decided that merit does not matter or that particular artistic areas are less worthy. The government should not be dictating to the arts community which higher education courses should or should not receive funding on the basis that artistic endeavours are too esoteric to lead to employment. It is creative and artistic endeavours that are crucial for facilitating the innovation and new ideas that drive economic growth and industry achievement. This Prime Minister lauds the idea of Australia as the 'innovation nation', but with policy such as this before us I wonder if he knows what it takes to be truly innovative. The tests that this education minister is using to decide which course are 'worthy' of government support are, I believe, quantitative in measure. This seems certainly true of arts and creative courses.

I would like to take a moment to highlight the fact that some of our greatest thinkers and some of the greatest innovators of our time—individuals whose contributions to science, technology, engineering and mathematics have underpinned some of the most important discoveries of our time—were first and foremost creatives whose innovations stemmed from their artistic pursuits. Sir Isaac Newton, for example, regarded as the modern father of what we now know as physics, was set on his path to learning not through science but with a Bachelor of Arts degree, which he earned in 1665. In fact, Newton owned more books on humanistic learning then he did on maths or science. An interesting fact about Albert Einstein, surely one of the greatest thinkers of our age, is that he was an amateur musician. He declared:

Life without playing music is inconceivable to me ... I live my daydreams in music. I see my life in terms of music. I get most joy in life from music.

Futurist Nikola Tesla dedicated his scientific work to finding ways in which the earth's energy sources could be made available to all. He believed that:

… we can water the energies, such as positive mental energy. They are in the music of Bach or Mozart, or in the verses of great poets.

And of course there is Leonardo Da Vinci, whose pursuits in science, invention, architecture, sculpture, anatomy, geology and engineering are among the greatest examples of the creative spirit driving innovation. It is exactly this type of innovation that the government may stifle with its cuts to the VET student loans program.

I recently had the pleasure of attending Junction Arts Festival in my electorate of Bass. Situated in and around Launceston, in public and private spaces throughout the community, this annual five-day event is a mix of performance and visual art. The festival revenue is generated through sponsorship and government funding, with a particular focus on free audience experiences. The positive social impacts of participation in the arts in regional communities are many. Accessibility to the arts has been identified as a key driver for social cohesion in communities such as my electorate of Bass and facilitating the retention of young people in our community. Events such as the Junction Arts Festival provide the spark which engages young people into a career in the arts or other creative and innovative industries. Junction is a perfect example of how investment in the arts and creative industries can facilitate social cohesion, innovation and economic drivers in local communities.

But events such as this cannot flourish unless they are appropriately supported by government. The loss of federal government funding for some 60 arts diplomas as the result of these changes to eligibility will be a significant detriment to individuals looking to pursue a career in the artistic or creative industries. The Liberals have deemed a variety of courses—such as screen acting, art therapy, jewellery making, social media marketing, animation, dance and many others—as lacking employment opportunity and therefore not worthy of subsidising. This is hugely insulting to educational providers, arts festival and arts program coordinators and indeed the wider arts community in Australia as a whole. Talented students with the passion and drive to pursue creative careers, especially those students from disadvantaged backgrounds, will be left without any access to study in their chosen field, limiting their employment opportunities and ability to contribute to their community. I am thinking in particular about the thriving arts community in Northern Tasmania. It has events such as Junction, Ten Days on the Island and the Festival of Voices; professional companies such as TasDance, Stompin and Design Tasmania; exhibition centres such as QVMAG, the Academy Gallery and our many National Trust sites; and myriad niche artists and boutiques that are absolutely unique to the region.

Without adequate support in their educational endeavours, the very people whose passions and talents are the driving force behind our artistic achievements will lose the opportunity to share their skills and knowledge with like-minded individuals and the wider community, meaning the creative industries and the arts will inevitably struggle. VET, TAFE and apprenticeships are crucial to jobs and our economy.

I would add myself to the list of those are worried about the questions being asked by the Assistant Minister for Skills as to whether the national partnership for skills was even needed in the future and her plans to meet with the states to determine 'whether there are reforms to VET that warrant a new agreement'. Given that the current national partnership expires in the middle of next year, leaving over $500 million a year of government funding essentially up in the air, it is extremely concerning to me that the minister is seemingly unclear on the need for a new agreement to keep supporting TAFE. Labor knows that TAFE is the backbone of our apprenticeship and technical skills education system, which is why we took a TAFE funding guarantee to the last election. There are 28,000 people in Tasmania currently enrolled in TAFE. We need to support our TAFE system.

See this speech in context