Higher Education Reform Feedback

Higher Education Reform Feedback

Higher Education Group

Department of Education and Training

GPO Box 9880

Canberra, ACT, 2601

22ndJuly 2016

Response from Pragmatic Training to the Government’s Discussion Paper:Driving Innovation, Fairness and Excellence in Australian Higher Education

Pragmatic Training (TOID 121391) has successfully delivered nationally recognised training at the Certificate, Diploma and Advanced Diploma level to more than 20,000 students since 2003. We have been an approved VET FEE-HELP provider since 2013.

In response to the demand from our students, and the employers and communities we serve, we have developed a range of programs which we deliver through our four academies: the National Academy of Early Childhood, the National Academy of Beauty, the National Academy of Technology, and the Australian Institute of Business Leadership. We are committed to excellence, and have invested heavily for our students and their learning outcomes, teachers and in facilities at our premises in Flinders St and Bourke St in Melbourne, our Peninsula Campus in Frankston, and more recently two significant sites in Brisbane CBD and Fortitude Valley.

While Pragmatic Training does not currently hold registration as a higher education provider; it is a strong area of interest for the future and in the consideration of the delivery of our programs, we have a strong emphasis on life-long learning and ongoing study opportunities. Our views on the proposals in the Discussion Paper are provided on this basis.

Consistent loan fee arrangements for all HELP loans:

Pragmatic Training considers this reform to be the most important in the paper and urges the government to tackle it as their highest priority among the proposals contained in the Discussion Paper.

Students using VET FEE-HELP and FEE-HELP loans currently pay significantly higher costs merely for the privilege of using the same loan arrangements which are available at no extra charge to university students.

In considering the options proposed in the Paper, we consider that Option 2is the most sensible given the current state of the Federal budget. Nevertheless,there is a likelihood that the imposition of a 5% administration fee for HECS loans would be opposed by university students and other stakeholders. If that were the case and the introduction of the 5% administration fee was blocked by the Senate it would be important that the government instead commit to Option 1 (the removal of the loan fee from all loans) and not continue with the current inequitable arrangements.

Options to enhance the long-term sustainability, viability and affordability of HELP student loans:

Pragmatic Training provides the following comments in relation to the proposed options:

• changes to repayment thresholds and rates – supported.
• change the indexation of HELP repayment thresholds from average weekly earnings to CPI – not supported as the loan repayments are currently linked to borrowers’ earnings so that any mismatch between CPI rates and wage rate increases could create disadvantage.
• a renewable lifetime limit on HELP loans – supported.
• restrictions on the availability of HELP loans or Commonwealth subsidies to those who have left the workforce permanently – supported.
• discontinue the HECS HELP benefit – supported.
• introduce household income test for all HELP repayments – supported in principle but it is difficult to know if it will be practical to implement.
• recovery of debts from deceased estates – supported.

Expand access to sub-bachelor courses at public universities:

Contrary to the focus on fairness elsewhere in the Discussion Paper, if this reform is implemented it will further entrench the disadvantage faced by VET Diploma and Advanced Diploma students. We understand that the government’s aim with this proposal is to address concerns about attrition rates in the university sector, but the proposed solution will unnecessarily damage the VET sector and ignores the significant role both VET providers and private higher education providers can play in supporting students to attain Diplomas – before potentially going on to further higher education study.

The obvious unintended consequence from implementing this reform will be to encourage students not to undertake high level, technical VET courses and instead enrol in more generic university pathways courses. Given the government’s commitment to high level technical skills and technological innovation, this reform is not a solution to Australia’s future skills needs.

Government subsidies for all undergraduate courses at all registered higher education providers:Pragmatic Training supports fairness for students studying at private higher education providers and is firmly of the opinion that they deserve the same government support that university students receive. These students are often studying specialist courses that are not available at universities but are shown to have a great need in the specific industry sector. What is missing from the discussion in the Paper though is a recognition of the needs of VET students doing Diploma and Advanced Diploma courses.

There seems to be no rationale for the fact that governments choose to provide subsidies to lower level VET students in Certificate courses irrespective of the provider they choose to study with, and that this Paper proposes that there should be fairness in the subsidies made available to undergraduate students, but no-one is advocating for subsidies to be made available to support higher level VET students with their studies. This should be a key priority for the government as it makes reforms to the funding and financing arrangements for tertiary students.

Yours faithfully

Sean Farmer

Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer