Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare and Early Childhood Learning) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I make my remarks in this particular bill, can I also join members and senators in this place in wishing Canberra a very happy birthday. I went to high school in Canberra, both to Campbell High and to the fantastic Dickson College where I finished very early on in the years when the college system began, and Dickson College is still a remarkable place of education in this city.

Today I rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Further Streamlining and Other Measures) Bill 2013. The intent of this bill is to improve the administration of the Higher Education Loan Program in line with some of the proposals put forward in the post-implementation review on VET FEE-HELP in 2011. The post-implementation review made a number of sound recommendations—a number of these were introduced to parliament last year—seeking to further increase the number of registered training providers who are eligible to offer VET FEE-HELP courses.

The coalition recognises the important role that income-contingent loans can play in vocational education. Under the Howard government, income-contingent loans were extended to full-fee-paying students in higher education courses through FEE-HELP in 2005, and they flowed through to the vocational sector to vocational education and training—that is, VET—to VET FEE-HELP in 2008. Of course, income-contingent loans under the previous name of HECS in higher education courses have been around for some 25 years.

Access to FEE-HELP and VET FEE-HELP has enabled thousands of Australians the chance to access an education that they might otherwise not have been able to do. It has enabled them the financial assistance that they need to fund the course of their choosing. But the reality is that the take-up rate of VET FEE-HELP has been well below expectations. There is a range of requirements that providers must meet in order to be able to offer VET FEE-HELP courses. Regrettably, these requirements have proven too onerous for the vast majority of providers. Of the approximately 2,000 providers who offer diploma and advanced diploma courses only 112 are currently approved as VET FEE-HELP providers. This places serious limitations on the ability of students to access income-contingent loans to fund their qualifications, and, as we know, the cost of those qualifications is increasing.

In 2012, a quarter of 20- to 24-year-olds were not in full-time education or work. So many of these young people, who are not currently in work or training, come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and they struggle to afford to study at all. Access to income-contingent loans in VET or higher education qualifications is crucial to assist these young people in finding a course of study and a career path by boosting equity of access and affording them the opportunity for a better life. There is also an economic argument in favour of increasing access to income-contingent loans. Many of the courses that could be funded by FEE-HELP or VET FEE-HELP are in areas of skill shortages, and we potentially have a future workforce impeded only by the cost of study.

In addition to the acknowledgment made in the post-implementation review regarding the low take-up of VET FEE-HELP, a number of recommendations were made to improve the overall administration of the Higher Education Loans Program. As a result of these recommendations, this bill seeks to achieve the following. Schedule 1 of this bill allows for the automatic revocation of a provider's registration as an approved higher education or vocational education provider, where the provider has either had their registration cancelled by the relevant tertiary regulator or been deemed unable to operate by a court of law. Schedule 2 of the bill will see providers able to change their name where there is no change of legal entity. As the system currently stands, if a provider changes the name yet the legal entity remains the same, the provider is required to be reapproved as a new applicant. In order to ensure that students are not adversely affected, the minister is currently required to revoke the approval of the provider and reapprove the same entity with retrospective application. This is a practical measure, avoiding additional red tape for providers.

Schedule 3 will enable the minister to issue compliance notices to providers who are failing to comply. Currently the only courses of corrective action available to the minister are to either suspend or evoke approval of a provider or to withhold payment. This schedule provides an alternative measure, ensuring that providers have an opportunity to undertake corrective action and continue to operate without the sanctions that previously were the only available measure and were extremely harsh. Schedule 4 of the bill seeks to update the calculations of HELP repayment thresholds. This has come about as the Australian Bureau of Statistics has decided to publish the average weekly earnings data on a biannual basis, shifting from quarterly. This will ensure that individuals can repay their HELP debt based on more accurately calculated repayment thresholds in accordance with the ABS data. The final amendment will see an update of the qualification definitions in the act to echo changes made to the Australian Qualifications Framework.

So, while we welcome this bill and the amendments that it puts forward, I think it is necessary to acknowledge that there have been few such successful measures in the VET space achieved by those opposite. The broader system suffers from an incredible overload of bureaucracy and red tape. We on this side of the House have made it clear that reducing red tape for business and bureaucracy is high on our agenda. The national partnership on VET reform may well be considered to have failed, given the lack of sign-up by three key states. It would be impossible for anyone who enters into the administrative and compliance aspects of vocational education and training in this country to not be completely bamboozled.

We in the coalition supported the extension of income contingent loans to the vocational ed sector, because we have a really strong record in making sure that those who would study vocational education as opposed to higher education—or, in the common lingo, TAFE and training versus university—should have access to exactly the same support, including financial support. But, if the government are serious about this, it has taken them a while to recognise the extraordinarily low take-up—112 providers out of 2,000 who are using the scheme. Although I do not have detailed information, I would suggest that in rushing through the initial piece of legislation there was a failure to follow up, there was a failure to listen and there was a failure to consult. And that failure is written large across the entire government. If the government had been tuned in to the needs of the providers of registered training, as they should have been, they would not have sat on their hands and said, 'Okay, three years later we'll just get the department to do a review and see what the review says.' So three years pass and no-one has any idea that the system is not working, even though the intention might have been good in the first place. As I said, this is the pattern we are seeing in the training arena from the current government time and time again.

We will be watching closely to see if the modest measures that will be achieved by this legislation, which of course we are entirely supportive of, actually make a difference. If they do not, I would suggest to the minister, who is a new minister in this space and a little more engaged than the previous one—and I do not mean that unkindly, but certainly the previous minister seemed to the sector to be rather hands-off—that the minister acts sooner rather than later to hang on to this valuable cohort of students and this valuable group of training providers.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Higher Education Support Amendment (Further Streamlining and Other Measures) Bill 2013. The previous speaker talked about the great record of the coalition. She should go north of the Tweed and see the terrible and appalling record of the LNP state government in Queensland. To localise this particular bill, there are two examples from my electorate that I will give the member for Farrer if she wants to have a look at the impact of both sides of politics on education. The University of Southern Queensland is the first, where the Education Gateways Program, the capital infrastructure program, is getting nearly $49 million of federal government funding. More university students than ever are being funded by the federal government, hitting the Bradley target of 40 per cent of people from low socioeconomic backgrounds getting into university. More young people than ever are going to university. The University of Southern Queensland in Springfield has a broader reach and larger footprint than ever before. It is going ahead in leaps and bounds.

Up the road, however—in fact, beside it—are the Springfield campus and the Bundamba campus of Bremer TAFE. That TAFE is funded almost exclusively by the state LNP government. What have we seen there? Cutbacks to services, cutbacks to courses and cutbacks to funding. We have seen more barriers, more obstacles, being put in place to young people—particularly those from low socioeconomic backgrounds in the Ipswich and West Moreton region—getting access to higher education. We have gotten lectures from those opposite about education funding. Go to my electorate and you will see the difference between what a Labor government will do at a federal level in terms of tertiary education and what a coalition government will do in terms of vocational education and training.

I say to the member for Farrer: have a look at what the Howard government did in terms of VET education and what they failed to do. We saw fewer students than ever before going to university under them. More than 190,000 students have gone to university under us—more than ever. Have a look at what the coalition government in Queensland has done. She mentioned—and this is referred to in the explanatory memorandum of this bill—the April 2012 COAG National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform. These amendments contribute to our commitment given under that agreement. Why do I mention that? It is because the LNP government in Queensland signed up to that national agreement on skills reform.

The legislation before this chamber makes further improvements to HELP, including VET FEE-HELP, that were signed up to by various Australian governments. In my home state, the minister responsible for employment, training and education, John-Paul Langbroek, has said, 'We're not responsible for training; we are not responsible for tertiary.' The LNP state government has got a task force dealing with the students who go to the sorts of institutions in Queensland that this legislation relates to. Students who go to those TAFE institutions are having the number of campuses cut by that task force from about 82 to 44. In my electorate, we are seeing barriers and obstacles put in the way of students all the time. Courses are being cut. Those opposite come in here and lecture us about what they are doing and say that they will keep an eye on us. Keep an eye on our record, because our record when it comes to tertiary funding is very good compared to that of those opposite.

This legislation, as I said, is a result of COAG's national partnership agreement and is pursuant to recommendations made in the final report of the implementation review of the VET FEE-HELP assistance scheme back in September 2011. It also includes other amendments. What this is about is enhancing the quality and accountability of the whole education framework that underpins HELP by making sure that there can be an automatic revocation of providers in circumstances in which there is a risk to public moneys and a high risk to students. We are going to make sure that those educational institutes have integrity and character and can deliver what they say they can. We are going to strengthen the compliance framework underpinning HELP by making sure that a minister can provide a compliance notice to the provider of education services.

Why is this so important? It is important because these income-contingent loans are paid to those institutions to help eligible students with their tuition fees to make sure they can get assistance to get through those courses which will give them an opportunity in life and give them a leg-up to make sure they get financial security and achieve all they want in terms of their dreams, aspirations and goals. For kids from poorer backgrounds that is particularly important. If you are a kid from Basin Pocket and you went to the local state primary school, Ipswich East State Primary School, and your parents had never gone to high school or never gone on to university, the idea that you might be able to go somewhere like Bremer TAFE and get a trade or qualification is really critical. This is what this is about.

I mention that particular national partnership agreement on skills reform because this legislation comes out of that. What happened in Queensland as result of that? Guess what? There was a program in Queensland that was geared to helping students and geared toward helping the training of young people particularly—8½ thousand of them, according to the Deloitte Access Economics report in July last year—that actually provided assistance to those people who never would have got a job but for the Skilling Queenslanders for Work program put in by the previous Labor government. They put $90 million towards it. Fifty-seven thousand people got jobs as a result of that program. The Queensland government, a week before the evaluation report came out—this is the government that signed up for the national partnership agreement here in April last year—decided they would get rid of this. They got rid of a program a week before the report came out.

They spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a report and guess what that report says? It says that 57,000 Queenslanders got jobs in vocational education training by the skilling that the previous government had undertaken. It said there was an additional $6.5 billion in state gross product and gross domestic product to 2020; an additional $1.8 billion in consumption in Queensland and Australia to 2020; an additional $1.2 billion in state tax receipts to Queensland by 2020. That is for $90 million of job training, particularly for disadvantaged people.

That is why we provide FEE-HELP and VET FEE-HELP. If we have institutions that are not providing the services, we should clamp down on them. That is what this legislation is about. But why would you close down good institutions that are providing help for young people, particularly disadvantaged young people in my community like BoysTown, who were getting about $154,000; the Salvation Army Canaan School for Training and Development, who are getting $395,000 and $120,000 for two programs; or Worklinks, who got $128,000 for another program; or Riverview Employment and Learning Program through the Riverview Neighbourhood House Association, $147,000; or, indeed, Ipswich City Council, which also got $45,500 for its community literacy program; or Harvest Rain Adult Literacy Project, who got $95,000 for its community literacy program? Why would you close it down? Not a peep from those opposite about those sorts of programs. These are good programs. These people would never, ever get compliance notices by the minister under this legislation before the chamber, but the coalition in Queensland took the opportunity to close down the funding to good providers, taking away billions of dollars from the Queensland economy to save $90 million. The minister has the temerity in Queensland to say that he is not responsible nor is the government of Queensland responsible for training. He has got it in his title! Yet he takes the money away. They are persecuting working-class people in my community, putting barriers and obstacles to training in their way.

Good providers will not be affected by this legislation before the chamber. If they are bad providers, then they have compliance notices. We are improving the system, and what the Queensland government should do is reverse these stupid cuts that impact adversely on the Queensland economy and on people in my community. When it comes to Bremer TAFE, they should re-employ those people, put those programs back in place, and get with the program that we need to undertake to make sure that people get jobs, that the economy in Queensland remains sound, and that the unemployment rate can be reduced. So far, we have seen it go up—up, up and up—under the LNP government, all for its obsession for so-called cuts. There has not been a peep, a word or a whisper from any of those opposite. We had sanctimonious unction from the previous speaker about this sort of thing. Come to my electorate and see what your comrades and colleagues in the LNP are doing.

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his contribution. I call the member for Stirling—Riverina. I apologise.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Canberra celebrations have been all too much for you. Congratulations, too. It was a wonderful function this morning and I know you participated with the member for Canberra. Indeed, today is a very important day for Canberrans. Canberrans also understand the need, the necessity and the importance of higher education. Canberra perhaps has more people with degrees per capita than any other capital city in Australia. We know how important a good education is; it is the great enabler.

I take issue with the previous speaker, the member for Blair, for his criticism of the shadow minister and, as he called it, her being sanctimonious on the issue. I listened very closely to the member for Farrer, my neighbouring electorate colleague, and I did not think she was sanctimonious at all. In fact, I thought she gave quite a good account of the bill. You would almost think that the coalition was not supporting this legislation from the way the member for Blair has just carried on. Once again, like so many Labor members opposite, he has tried to introduce state issues into what is a federal matter. If he wants to talk about state matters, he only needs to think about the Victorian election in November 2010, New South Wales in March 2011, Queensland in March 2012, the Northern Territory in August 2012, and Saturday's Western Australian election to see that many of the things that his government offers are not in the best interests of this nation and are being rejected by the voters at the ballot box. He should be very careful when he tries to introduce those state issues into what is a federal matter.

The federal matter before us is the Higher Education Support Amendment (Further Streamlining and Other Measures) Bill 2013. You would almost think that we as a coalition were opposing this bill from the sentiments that the member for Blair expressed and the condemnatory way—the virtual assault—in which he described the things we are proposing and the sorts of things that state governments are doing. These are not even in line with what this legislation is about because those are state matters.

A post-implementation review of vocational education and training—the Higher Education Loan Program: VET FEE-HELP—was undertaken in 2011. This bill seeks to introduce some of the recommendations made. This bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to enable the strengthening of compliance and accountability frameworks for VET FEE-HELP and FEE-HELP loans. The amendments also improve transparency between the tertiary education regulators and allow for more efficient administrative arrangements when changing business entity names of approved providers. So, there, I agree with what is proposed. The coalition is in support of what is being proposed. I am really at a loss to understand why the member for Blair continued his rant in the way that he did.

In 2005, income contingent loans were extended to full-fee paying students in higher education courses through FEE-HELP under the Howard coalition government. In 2008, income contingent loans were extended to the vocational education sector in the form of VET FEE-HELP. These loans ensure students wishing to pursue a vocation can be provided with financial assistance similar to that on offer to university students through the Higher Education Contribution Scheme. The Howard Liberal-Nationals government recognised the importance of vocations and higher education and of enabling people to have the assistance they require, through tertiary and vocational supporting programs, to get the best job and realise their full potential. Certainly it was done then. The Labor government now says it is doing the same. When it comes up with a proposal or a plan that the coalition can see will be beneficial to those people looking to better themselves, we are in agreement with it. The loan may cover or partially cover the tuition costs for the VET course, however, VET FEE-HELP is not available for Certificates I to IV and students are required to repay their loan once their income exceeds the minimum repayment level, which is $49,096 for 2012-13.

In order for students to be able to access these loans, their registered training organisation needs to have approval to offer VET FEE-HELP. The eligibility criteria for offering VET FEE-HELP includes a provider being a body corporate with the principal purpose of offering education, proving their financial viability, having central management based in Australia, offering VET accredited diploma and advanced diploma courses, with credit transfer arrangements in place, and being a member of an approved tuition assurance scheme, or have exemption from this requirement. Of the 2,000 or so providers who offer diploma and advanced diploma courses, only 112 are currently approved as VET FEE-HELP providers. That was certainly brought out in the speech earlier this afternoon of the member for Farrer, the shadow minister. As a result, the take-up of VET FEE-HELP has been low, with only 39,124 students accessing VET FEE-HELP assistance in 2011.

Given that the intent of extending income contingent loans to the VET sector was done largely to alleviate the inequity of access, it is apparent there is considerably more work to do. In addition there are some major areas of skill shortages which could be addressed by ensuring that the organisations which offer these qualifications are VET FEE-HELP eligible. When I speak of inequity of access, that is certainly a factor in regional areas. Because of a lack of all sorts of services and support programs students in regional areas have a more difficult job of actually gaining tertiary education and better vocations than do people in metropolitan areas and people in your own electorates and here in Canberra. That is why I know the shadow parliamentary secretary for regional education, Senator Fiona Nash, has been so strident in her advocacy for independent youth allowance. Whilst that is not part of this bill, it is something that is important and imperative for regional students.

Schedule 1 of this particular bill is intended to bolster the accountability frameworks for FEE-HELP and VET FEE-HELP. These amendments specifically will enable the automatic revocation of registered training organisations' approval as a higher education or vocational education provider when any of the following have occurred: the relevant tertiary regulator has ceased the provider's registration; a court has made an order to wind up a provider; or ASIC has determined they can no longer operate. Until such time as all paths of appeal have been exhausted the provider will continue to be registered.

The proposed amendments in schedule 2 of the bill would allow the minister to change the name of the entity for HELP purposes through one legislative instrument, but only in cases where there has been no change in legal ownership. Currently, if a provider changes their name yet the legal entity remains the same, the provider is required to be re-approved as a new applicant would be.

In order to ensure that students are not adversely affected—and this is most important, because the last thing we need is for levels of bureaucracy to be affecting students when they need to get on with the job of learning—the minister is currently required to revoke the approval of the provider and reapprove the same entity with retrospective application. Therefore, the entity would no longer be required to reapply and go through a duplicate approval process, which is currently the case.

Schedule 3 of the bill will enable additional flexibility for managing provider noncompliance. Currently, the act has limited options available for the management of noncompliance by providers. As it stands, the only options available to the minister are to either revoke or suspend the approval of a higher educational or VET provider or to withhold provider payments. These actions may be excessive for many administrative breaches. Under these amendments, there will be provision for a provider to be given a compliance notice which specifies the breach, the corrective action required and the time frame for this to be undertaken.

Schedule 4 of the bill seeks to update the calculation of HELP repayment thresholds. This has become necessary as average weekly earnings data is determined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics data. This data was published quarterly; however, it is now published biannually.

Schedule 5 of the bill deals with other amendments and will see the consolidation of provisions related to the government's ability to seek information from relevant tertiary education regulators in the one division. These will improve the transparency—and we all want greater transparency—with the relevant tertiary education regulators and enhance arrangements to identify at-risk providers. Additionally, there have been changes to definitions to incorporate changes to the Australian Qualifications Framework. These changes will help to enhance the quality and accountability frameworks underpinning the higher education loan program, will enable the government to better manage risk to students and public moneys and will effectively and flexibly respond to low-quality providers.

When it comes to enabling universities and other support mechanisms for students to gain better vocations, I am on record thanking and praising the government for initiatives which have helped Charles Sturt University, whose Wagga Wagga campus is in my electorate. I attended the opening of the life sciences hub along with the Parliamentary Secretary for Higher Education and Skills, the member for Cunningham. It is a tremendous facility and it will do so much not only for this nation but for regional Australia and for the Riverina electorate.

At the moment, there is a push in Wagga Wagga for a rural medical school. I know that the relevant ministers are well aware of this, and it is something I will certainly be pushing. I know how important these rural medical schools are to the recruitment and retention of doctors in regional areas. There are proposals being put forward by the University of New South Wales and Charles Sturt University. I am in support of those proposals. A collaborative effort, a whole-of-government approach, is something that would be very beneficial to Wagga Wagga, to the Riverina, to country New South Wales and to the nation. I thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. The coalition supports this legislation.

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the outset, I acknowledge the comments of the member for Riverina, who has demonstrated his passion for his constituents with his ability to speak for an appropriate length about an issue of importance to him and to the chamber.

I was pleased when I was an academic at the ANU to work alongside Bruce Chapman, one of the architects of HECS, who put in place a truly world-leading piece of policy. It is easy to forget now that HECS, now known as HELP, has become so much a part of our social fabric. The notion of income-contingent loans was one in which Australia was stepping out as a world first. Milton Freeman mentioned the notion of income-contingent loans in the 1960s but it was Professor Chapman who really picked it up, put flesh on its bones and suggested it as a way of ensuring two big things.

The first was that, because with a university education there is the private benefit to the student as well as the public benefit, they should contribute a little bit back into the public purse. University education boosts earnings significantly, and HECS, now HELP, recognises that private benefit. But, secondly, it was the recognition that we needed to expand the sector. We needed to ensure that university education was not something just for elites but was attainable for all Australians. The only way of getting those additional resources into the sector was to ask students to give a little bit back.

So now, when we look at policies in which Australia is leading the world I think we should also look to the HELP policy—a policy which has proven its worth and is now being adopted by a suite of other countries around the world. The UK, Germany, Israel, Thailand and Chile are all adopting or looking at adopting the HELP policy. I suspect that will be the case down the track with policies such as plain packaging of tobacco and putting a price on carbon pollution—we are moving with other countries in the world to put in place policies that future generations will thank us for. What we are doing with this policy is ensuring that the thresholds are indexed at appropriate levels. When HECS was originally introduced, repayment did not start until you reached average weekly earnings. That was based on the simple notion that you should not have to pay back your HECS debt until your university education had begun to pay off in earnings for you. When the Howard government came to office, that model was changed and the repayment thresholds were brought down substantially. I am pleased that now the HECS repayment threshold have been restored so that they are around average weekly earnings.

This bill is a part of a major university investment by this government. Since Labor has come to office there have been more than 150,000 extra Australians studying at university and total funding for the sector has been increased substantially. At the Australian National University, just to pick one of the many excellent universities in my electorate, there has been an increase in enrolments from 6,350 students to 7,086 students, significant investment in education and significant investment in improving access to youth allowance and the quality of student learning and living areas through our investment in housing. That matters, because high-quality university accommodation improves the learning experience.

Recently, we had the ANU alumni awards recognising extraordinary alumni. I acknowledge Alumni of the Year joint recipients Anne Gallagher and Martin Parkinson; Vice-Chancellor's Special Commendations Adam Ford, Danny Bishop and Chris Duffield; International Alumnus of the Year Cheong Choong Kong; Young Alumnus of the Year joint recipients Sebastian Robertson and Jennifer Robinson; Student of the Year joint recipients Katrina Marson and Ray Lovett; and Student of the Year finalists Aditya Chopra, Julie Melrose and Georgia Majoribanks.

In closing, I also note some important reforms being put in place by the government in teacher education courses. This government recognises that it is important to improve the academic aptitude of new teachers. When I was at the Australian National University I did work with Chris Ryan looking at the academic aptitude of new teachers and those entering tertiary education, and what we found was deeply disturbing. From 1983 through to 2003 the share of teachers who were in the top fifth of their class measured on literacy and numeracy had halved. Over the same period, the share of teachers who were in the bottom half of their class had doubled. So we had seen a fall in the academic aptitude of new teachers from the 70th percentile to the 62nd percentile, and we had seen a fall in the academic aptitude of those entering teacher education courses from the 74th percentile to the 61st percentile. It is a development that had also been seen over that period in the United States and it is a development that concerns this government. Literacy and numeracy does not guarantee you are going to be a great teacher but, all else equal, we want those who are at the whiteboard to have strong literacy and numeracy standards themselves. So, as the minister has announced, we will be putting in place literacy and numeracy testing, a more targeted admission process for teaching courses and more assistance to help all teachers over every stage of their career, recognising that there is no more important job in Australia than teaching students, particularly disadvantaged students. With those remarks, I commend the bill to the House.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all honourable members who spoke in this debate. The Higher Education Support Amendment (Further Streamlining and Other Measures) Bill 2013 provides legislative authority for the Australian government's Higher Education Loan Program, or HELP. FEE-HELP and VET FEE-HELP assist individuals to access higher education and higher level vocational training by providing students with income-contingent loans to assist them in paying their tuition fees. By accessing HELP, students do not have to make any loan repayments until their income reaches a minimum threshold—currently $49,096.

This bill builds on the amendments made in the Higher Education Support Amendments (Streamlining and Other Measures) Act 2012 and supports recommendations made in the Post implementation review of the VET FEE-HELP assistance scheme—final report September 2011. The amendments follow extensive stakeholder consultation and contribute to commitments made under the April 2012 COAG National Partnership Agreement on Schools Reform.

The amendments will enhance the quality and accountability framework underpinning HELP by providing for the automatic revocation of providers in specific circumstances where there is a risk to students and public moneys. This will occur only after all appeal and review mechanisms have been finalised. The amendments will also enhance the government's ability to protect the integrity of HELP by improving the range of provider compliance mechanisms available to the government. The existing arrangements for seeking information from the relevant tertiary education regulators will be further enhanced by consolidating these provisions into one general provision. The amendments will also streamline administrative arrangements for changes to business entity names for approved providers. Further, the bill will enable individuals to continue to repay their HELP debt based on appropriately calculated repayment thresholds by updating the calculation of indexation to apply to HELP repayment thresholds. This amendment reflects the move by the Australian Bureau of Statistics from quarterly to biannual publication of average weekly earnings data. Finally, amendments will provide consistency across the tertiary sector by updating qualification definitions in the act to align with changes to the Australian Qualifications Framework. I commend this bill, and its purpose to strengthen and enhance the government's income-contingent loans program, to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.