The financial services royal commission is revealing exploitation of innocent Australians. It’s success points to the a case for a similar investigation of  the VET FEE HELP scheme, which saddled thousands of young people, many without their knowledge, with debts for substandard courses. It also cost taxpayers $2.2bn.  The Australian National Audit Office  detailed the dimensions of the disaster but a royal commission would identify how it happened, so it can never happen again.

Given how  busy is the government, learned readers have helped by suggesting hypothetical terms of reference for “An Inquiry into the VET FEE HELP Debacle.”

“WHEREAS Australia has one of the strongest and most stable tertiary education sectors in the world, which performs a critical role in underpinning the Australian economy.

AND most Australians need to work to earn an income which requires them to acquire skills for labour market participation.

AND all Australians have the right to be treated honestly and fairly in their dealings with education providers. The highest standards of conduct are critical to the good governance and corporate culture of those providers.

An inquiry into the following matters is required:

• whether any conduct by VET providers (including by directors, officers or employees of, or by anyone acting on behalf of, those entities), since 2012 might have amounted to misconduct and, if so,
  • whether the question of criminal or other legal proceedings should be referred to the relevant commonwealth, state or territory agency;
  • whether any conduct, practices, behaviour or business activities by VET providers fall below community standards and expectations;
• whether any findings in respect of the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) are attributable to:
  • the particular culture and governance practices of a VET provider;
  • broader cultural or governance practices in the relevant industry or relevant subsector;
  • the inadequate design of the student loans schemes;
  • the inadequate administration of those schemes;

in respect of any conduct or activity which is the subject of a finding under paragraph (a), whether any actions by officers of the Department of Education and Training, the Australian Skills Quality Authority, or the Australian Taxation Office:

• prolonged the duration of, the conduct or activity;
• obscured or concealed from the public or parliament the conduct or activity or the extent of such conduct or activity;
• obscured or concealed from the public or parliament the legal mechanisms available to stop the conduct or activity or provide redress to the victims of such conduct or activity;
• failed to give due regard to the circumstances of any person or persons adversely affected by the conduct or activity;
• constituted negligence in the performance of the person’s duties
• the effectiveness of mechanisms of redress for people who have suffered detriment as a result of the misconduct by VET providers or the inadequate actions of Commonwealth officers and agents;

• the adequacy of:
  • existing laws and policies of the Commonwealth relating to the provision of income contingent loans to tertiary education students; and
  • the administration of those loan schemes;

to ensure their integrity, including proper accountability for Commonwealth expenditure and the recovery of loan amounts, to protect students from exploitation by education providers and to meet community standards and expectations;

• the effectiveness and ability of regulators of tertiary education providers to identify and address misconduct by those providers;
• whether any changes to any of the following are necessary to minimise the likelihood of misconduct by tertiary education providers or exploitation of students in future:
• the legal framework;
• practices within Commonwealth Departments and agencies;
• any matter reasonably incidental to a matter mentioned in paragraphs(a) to (h) “

Looks a good start to CMM.