Cathy O'Toole (Herbert, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Finally we have seen some action taken to address this very serious issue. After months of Labor lobbying the Turnbull government, after months of students lobbying and after what feels like a lifetime of lobbying from TAFE, the Turnbull government has finally listened to our calls and is finally doing something. Protecting our students should not have taken this much effort and lobbying. The evidence of unscrupulous marketing tactics used by some dodgy registered training organisations is overwhelming and disgraceful. Action needed to be taken to protect the reputation of our vocational education and training system, and that is what the Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2017 seeks to provide.

Education, and especially vocational educational training, is vital to the future of our country. We know that the jobs of the future will require new skill sets, and that can only be achieved by a strong and well funded vocational education and training sector. Identification of transferable skills and gap training will be essential in a fair transition for workers into new industries. As demand grows, there is always a growing potential risk that our higher education and TAFE systems could be targets for unscrupulous providers.

As a former TAFE teacher and curriculum designer I am proud to say that Australia has one of the greatest higher education systems in the world. I am particularly proud to have James Cook University in my electorate. It is ranked No. 1 in the world for two separate studies in the area of tropical sciences. This is something that no other university in Australia can lay claim to. Townsville is also home to Central Queensland University, where great educational facilities and programs are being developed and delivered. Ensuring our students have access to quality education is critical, and protecting our students from dodgy operators is also crucial to our ongoing success in providing quality education and training programs.

I have had students from former dodgy operators in the North coming to my office in tears because, through no fault of the students' own, an operator had closed its doors and simply disappeared overnight. These students are scared that they will have to start their courses again, as they do not know how to transition to another provider, if, in fact, they can. Some are angry about the extended periods of unpaid work experience and others are incredibly distressed about what it means when they have been accessing VET FEE-HELP. One student who came into my office had been trying for 12 months to get the last component of her Certificate III in Community Services—the field placement component—completed. She had been working for most of that 12 months in a voluntary capacity and she had a paid job waiting, but, sadly, she needed her completed qualification. It took me half an hour on the phone, with her in my office providing information, to sort out the mess that she was in. That was only possible because I have knowledge of the vocational education training sector. Her field placement was organised for the next week, her certificate is now completed and she is in paid work. No student should have to come to their local federal member to sort out a problem of this nature, because it should never happen in the first place.

Students who access VET FEE-HELP pay a 25 per cent loan fee, meaning that if they defer their fees they effectively defer 125 per cent of the cost of their course.

In many cases, the costs for full-fee higher education programs can range from $18,000 to $35,000 per year. Students who are willing to take on a debt in the hope of achieving a good job and a better life need every assurance and protection from the government. We need to provide these students with the confidence that there is a robust and rigorous higher education regulatory system.

Let me give you another example. As the CEO of a community managed mental health organisation with an office on Palm Island, I had staff and a person who was using the service signed up by a dodgy operator. The person that we were supporting in that service had an acquired brain injury and a complex mental health condition, and he had not been to high school, yet he was able to be signed into a double diploma of management and welfare work that he would be required to complete online. He was offered a free laptop and free internet, but sadly the internet provider that he was given did not operate on Palm Island. The staff working for me were also signed into the same dual diplomas.

When I asked the provider how they would do their four-week field placement, he informed me that Woolworths had offered spaces. There was no consideration for relevancy or the context of the learning environment, their accommodation or the fact that they would be away from home. This provider had simply gone to Palm Island and sold training qualifications to the locals with the offer of a free laptop and internet and no checks on educational history or capacity to undertake diploma level training. The students had no idea of the cooling-off period or the debt they were incurring regarding their VET FEE-HELP either.

For all of those students who have contacted my office and are victims of dodgy operators, I am proud to support the Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2017. These are great examples of why I welcome any additional focus on greater scrutiny being placed on the background of organisations who wish to operate in our higher education sector.

The reforms proposed in this bill rightly acknowledge that there has been a surge in applications from vocational education and training providers to become higher education providers. The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency has described the number of applications as a surge, with more than 70 per cent of new applicants to become registered higher education providers having previously been vocational education and training providers. These higher education providers, which are almost entirely private providers, once registered, can then apply to the department for access to FEE-HELP. And this is where the dodgy providers have been rorting our system. An audit report has been provided which says that the Australian tax office was handing out thousands of tax file numbers directly to providers. The Government Actuary has identified nearly $1.2 billion in VET loans that were inappropriately issued, and it is likely that unauthorised access to tax file numbers has been a significant contributor to this situation.

It is unconscionable that this has occurred, and that is what this bill seeks to put an end to. The provisions in this bill will stop providers being able to access tax file numbers from the ATO in the future, and it is also designed to prevent providers from completing any component of the student's request for Commonwealth assistance. I strongly support this vital change, and I am also strongly supportive of the range of civil penalties that have been included for all providers who choose to breach provisions.

The three major changes that this bill seeks to rectify are correctly identified across a number of acts and will strengthen the regulation of the higher education system. Schedule 1 amends the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 to strengthen a range of provisions including updating the fit-and-proper-person test provision, changes to reporting requirements, and providing additional powers to the Secretary of the Department of Education and Training to share information with the Overseas Students Ombudsman and other agencies.

Schedule 2 amends the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 to strengthen processes around assessing provider history, extends the fit-and-proper-person test for providers at application and also makes a number of technical amendments.

The amendments in Schedule 3 to the Higher Education Support Act 2003 will strengthen student protections by prohibiting unscrupulous marketing practices and barriers to withdrawal from study. The amendment bill also changes the definition of 'genuine student' for the purposes of accessing FEE-HELP, improves compliance arrangement and provider application requirements and increases financial viability and financial transparency agreements.

This protection is vital to students in Herbert, where a number of students were not fully aware of what they were signing up to except for the marketing tactic of a free iPad or laptop. As I have demonstrated earlier in this speech, that is exactly what has been happening in my electorate of Herbert. Consequently, I am pleased to see that providers of this nature have gone. But, sadly, they have left behind devastated students in their wake.

Whilst I am strongly supportive of a robust and rigorous higher education regulatory system, I want to note a few sections in this bill that I am concerned about—especially under the Turnbull government. In particular, sections 16 to 60 and section 26. Sections 16 to 60 are new provisions that may allow the minister unfettered power to decide which courses are funded and which are not. I am confident that if the minister for education were the Hon. Tanya Plibersek MP in a Shorten-led government, I would know that funding for quality education and funding for students to access education would be in very safe hands. Sadly, that is not the case right now, as we have an LNP Turnbull government and the Minister for Education and Training is Senator the Hon. Simon Birmingham. Quite frankly, this government's track record regarding meaningful industry consultation, funding for education and the general attack on students concerns me greatly.

There is also section 26, which means that students who fail units of study may lose their eligibility to access FEE-HELP. Adequately addressing this section will require very good consultation with students and well-thought-out consideration before decisions are made to penalise students. My experience has taught me that there are often many significant and valid reasons as to why a student has failed a subject. There could be serious financial stress, family issues, unemployment and the list simply goes on. A student cannot have financial assistance one day and none the next and perform well under assessment conditions. This could further add to any stresses currently occurring in that person's life. As a government we should be working to ensure that everybody has the ability to access further education, and consultation will be critical to this section.

The objective of this bill is to strengthen application standards for providers in higher education and to strengthen provisions for the FEE-HELP loan program, which is critical in protecting the integrity of our higher education system. Labor will always protect our education system. As elected representatives it is up to us to ensure that our proud tradition of an excellent higher education sector is protected, and, as such, we must enact legislation that does just that. I am proud to support this bill to ensure that no-one is ever a victim to a dodgy private training provider again.

See this speech in context