Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is for the Minister for Education and Training, Minister Birmingham. In 2016 the Australian National Audit Office released a report into the management of the HELP scheme. It recommended that your department and the Australian tax office could be more effective in managing the loans scheme. Given your stated preference for efficiency, why have you not opted to improve your in-house administration of this scheme instead of making life more difficult for Australians trying to get a foothold?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Lambie for her question. We have taken a number of steps in relation to the administration and operation of the HELP scheme. Most notably in my time as minister, we passed legislation through this place to expand collection of debts to graduates who are living and working overseas, to ensure that we reduce the level of debt not expected to be repaid. Further, in relation to the way the HELP scheme interacts with the vocational student loan market, we abolished the failed VET FEE-HELP program of those opposite, which saw billions of dollars of loans that were never going to amount to anything given out, and we have now put in place, with the support of the Senate, I note, a much more stringent vocational student loans market that does guarantee far tighter access to loans, much better value for money for taxpayers, much better results for students. So, across all of those areas, we have taken real action on the student loans scheme, which is one of the most generous in the world, in terms of there being no real interest rate charged to students and a very high threshold at which repayments kick in, relative to any of the comparable schemes around the world. Our scheme is more sustainable into the future. But the reality we face is that there is around $50 billion of unpaid debt, student loan debt, on the books at present and on current settings, no matter how efficient governments are, in terms of the repayment rates, around 25 per cent of that $50 billion will not be repaid. The Turnbull government doesn't believe that is sustainable for the long term and, if we want to preserve access to university with no up-front fees—free of charge, essentially, and for people to walk through the gate and only repay when they get a reasonable income—then we need to make sure that loan book is more sustainable into the future, which is what our reforms seek to do.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister. Senator Lambie, a supplementary question.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the minister honestly believe it is possible to support his proposal for performance-contingent university funding when the minister, the government, the department and the sector do not have any clue whatsoever as to the kind of performance the funding will be contingent upon?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I draw Senator Lambie's attention to the fact that we've made very clear that, for next year, the performance-contingent funding would be contingent entirely upon universities delivering on the commitments they have made in response to reports and reforms around admissions processes and practices. These are undertakings universities had already committed to do. All we're doing is indicating that they need to meet those commitments and the performance funding will flow. We drafted and sent out to different sector stakeholders a discussion paper around the future implementation of performance funding to seek their feedback, having given the commitment that its ongoing design and operation would be done in consultation with the university leaderships and their representative bodies, and that is exactly what we are doing. Next year's standards are crystal clear. We have been very clear about the process for how it will be implemented thereafter, and we are committed to working with the university sector around that reform.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister. Senator Lambie, a final supplementary question.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given that the minister has asked the Senate to vote on the merits of a proposal that he is yet to dream up, can the minister think of any previous example where we have been asked to vote on changing the way we spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars without being told what those changes are?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(—) (): Indeed, I just outlined to Senator Lambie how the performance funding will work next year and that there will be a consultative process for the years after. I emphasise to Senator Lambie and to the Senate overall that the reason we are pursuing the performance funding mechanism is to put some level of accountability and responsiveness into university funding. At present, Australian universities can enrol as many students as they want in whatever disciplines they want and the taxpayer funding just flows through. We believe it's important there be some accountability—that universities are enrolling people in disciplines where graduates get a job; that students are supported through their studies to completion; that students are getting high-quality teaching and learning; that it's not unreasonable that some level of the guaranteed funding is conditional upon meeting minimum performance benchmarks; and that universities are held to account for ensuring excellence in their teaching and good outcomes for their graduates. That's why we're proposing that. We want to work with the sector to make sure it works effectively and it's developed in a way that achieves the outcomes the government has, which are for the best interests of students and taxpayers. (Time expired)