The Coalition government **did reduce tertiary courses eligible for Austudy**, though the language in the claim ("tried to") is somewhat ambiguous—the government successfully implemented this policy rather than merely attempting it [1].
In **December 2017**, Education Minister Simon Birmingham announced that dance, theatre, and musical theatre diploma courses would be removed from VET Student Loan (VSL) approval effective January 1, 2018 [2].
Since Austudy eligibility is tied to approved courses under the Student Assistance (Education Institutions and Courses) Determination, the removal from VSL automatically removed Austudy eligibility for these courses [3].
然而 rán ér , , 该 gāi 主张 zhǔ zhāng 的 de 范围 fàn wéi 不够 bù gòu 明确 míng què 。 。
The Coalition removed approximately **478 vocational courses total** from VET Student Loan approval in this 2017 reform, with the creative arts sector particularly hard hit: **57 of 70 creative arts courses were removed**, leaving only 13 approved [4].
The government's stated rationale, according to Minister Birmingham, was to remove "lifestyle-related" training courses and focus resources on those with "maximum chance of leading to jobs" and would "benefit Australia economically in the 21st century" [2].
**Implementation Note:** The policy affected new enrolments only; students already enrolled in these courses retained their funding [3].
该 gāi 主张 zhǔ zhāng 遗漏 yí lòu 了 le 关于 guān yú 课程 kè chéng 被 bèi 移除 yí chú 的 de * * * * 原因 yuán yīn * * * * 的 de 关键 guān jiàn 背景 bèi jǐng 。 。
The claim omits critical context about **why** these courses were removed.
Coalition Coalition 在 zài 2017 2017 - - 2018 2018 年 nián 的 de VET VET 改革 gǎi gé 是 shì 对 duì VET VET FEE FEE - - HELP HELP 计划 jì huà 中 zhōng 大规模 dà guī mó 欺诈 qī zhà 和 hé 浪费 làng fèi 危机 wēi jī 的 de 直接 zhí jiē 回应 huí yìng , , 而 ér 这 zhè 一 yī 计划 jì huà 是 shì Labor Labor 创建 chuàng jiàn 并 bìng 扩大 kuò dà 的 de [ [ 6 6 ] ] 。 。
The Coalition's 2017-2018 VET reform was a direct response to a massive fraud and waste crisis in the VET FEE-HELP scheme that Labor had created and expanded [6].
Kevin Kevin Rudd Rudd 和 hé Julia Julia Gillard Gillard 领导 lǐng dǎo 下 xià 的 de Labor Labor 政府 zhèng fǔ * * * * 于 yú 2008 2008 年 nián 创建 chuàng jiàn 了 le VET VET FEE FEE - - HELP HELP , , 并 bìng 在 zài 2009 2009 年 nián 将 jiāng 其 qí 扩大 kuò dà , , 却 què 没有 méi yǒu 建立 jiàn lì 适当 shì dàng 的 de 监管 jiān guǎn 机制 jī zhì * * * * [ [ 7 7 ] ] 。 。
Labor governments under Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard **created VET FEE-HELP in 2008 and expanded it without adequate regulation** [7].
The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) later found that the scheme had suffered spectacular failure: approximately **$1.2 billion in inappropriately issued loans from 2014-2015 alone would not be recovered**, and about 38,000 students were locked into unwanted federal loans [6].
Private vocational providers had exploited the unregulated scheme with predatory practices including false advertising, low-quality courses, and fraudulent credentials [6].
Hack is part of the ABC, which is Australia's publicly funded national broadcaster and generally maintains editorial standards for factual accuracy [9].
**Did Labor attempt similar course restrictions?**
The research reveals the **opposite pattern**: Labor governments did not restrict Austudy-eligible courses; rather, they **created and expanded VET funding without adequate restrictions**, which directly led to the fraud problem.
**Labor's VET FEE-HELP Record (2008-2022):**
- **Created the scheme:** Labor under Kevin Rudd established VET FEE-HELP in June 2008 to increase VET participation [7]
- **Expanded without safeguards:** Labor expanded VET FEE-HELP coverage in 2009 to partially government-subsidized courses, with minimal regulatory oversight [7]
- **Result:** The scheme grew to $2.9 billion by 2015 with widespread fraud, abuse, and poor outcomes [6]
- **No course restrictions:** Labor did not restrict which courses could be funded; their policy was to liberalize access [8]
**Albanese Government (2022-present):**
The current Labor government has continued a policy of expanding rather than restricting VET course eligibility:
- Established 180,000 fee-free TAFE and VET places (2023) [11]
- Committed to an additional 320,000 fee-free TAFE places from 2024-2026 [11]
- Focused on expanding approved training areas including care, technology, manufacturing, and defence [11]
- No evidence of course eligibility restrictions comparable to the Coalition's 2017-2018 policy [11]
**Conclusion:** Labor's historical approach was to expand VET course eligibility (which created problems through lack of regulation).
* * * *
The Albanese government continues expanding access.
研究 yán jiū 揭示 jiē shì 了 le * * * * 相反 xiāng fǎn 的 de 模式 mó shì * * * * : : Labor Labor 政府 zhèng fǔ 没有 méi yǒu 限制 xiàn zhì 符合 fú hé Austudy Austudy 资格 zī gé 的 de 课程 kè chéng ; ; 相反 xiāng fǎn , , 他们 tā men * * * * 在 zài 没有 méi yǒu 充分 chōng fèn 限制 xiàn zhì 的 de 情况 qíng kuàng 下 xià 创建 chuàng jiàn 并 bìng 扩大 kuò dà 了 le VET VET 资助 zī zhù * * * * , , 这 zhè 直接 zhí jiē 导致 dǎo zhì 了 le 欺诈 qī zhà 问题 wèn tí 。 。
The Coalition's course restriction policy appears to be a distinguishing feature of their approach, not something Labor replicated.
**The Criticism (What the Claim Emphasizes):**
Critics of the Coalition's 2017-2018 course removals argued that the policy unfairly targeted creative arts education and reduced opportunities for students pursuing legitimate tertiary qualifications in fields like performing arts and dance [2].
The arts sector, through organizations like Ausdance (the peak body for dance in Australia), criticized the policy, warning that students forced to work evening/night shifts alongside demanding study schedules would face increased injury risk [12].
**The Coalition's Rationale (What the Claim Omits):**
The Coalition government faced a genuine crisis: the VET FEE-HELP scheme created by Labor had become a vehicle for fraud and predatory lending.
The ANAO's 2016 performance audit found approximately $1.2 billion in inappropriately issued loans and identified systemic failures in:
- Inadequate provider approval processes [6]
- Insufficient monitoring of student outcomes [6]
- Widespread false advertising and misleading recruitment [6]
- Weak oversight of course quality [6]
Minister Simon Birmingham's 2017 reform was designed to restore integrity to vocational education by limiting funding to courses with demonstrated employment outcomes and removing courses where fraud had been rampant [2].
The Coalition's logic: the unregulated expansion under Labor had created a crisis, requiring tighter eligibility criteria [5].
**Expert and Industry Response:**
- **Arts educators:** Criticized the removal as short-sighted and harmful to cultural development [2]
- **Broader policy context:** The Coalition also increased university fees for humanities/arts degrees through the Job-Ready Graduates scheme, suggesting a consistent policy of deprioritizing arts education [13]
- **VET sector recovery:** The stricter approval process was intended to rebuild trust in VET qualifications after the fraud crisis [5]
**Comparative Analysis:**
Unlike the Coalition's restrictive approach, Labor has emphasized expanding access to subsidized VET training through fee-free TAFE and broader course approvals.
Coalition Coalition 政府 zhèng fǔ 面临 miàn lín 一场 yī cháng 真正 zhēn zhèng 的 de 危机 wēi jī : : Labor Labor 创建 chuàng jiàn 的 de VET VET FEE FEE - - HELP HELP 计划 jì huà 已 yǐ 成为 chéng wéi 欺诈 qī zhà 和 hé 掠夺性 lüè duó xìng 放贷 fàng dài 的 de 工具 gōng jù 。 。
This reflects fundamentally different philosophy: Labor prioritizes expanding access (risking fraud/waste), while the Coalition prioritizes restricting access to ensure quality and employment outcomes (risking limiting legitimate opportunities).
**Key Context:** The removal of approximately 478 courses was not an arbitrary ideological preference for "job-focused" training over "lifestyle" courses.
That said, critics could reasonably argue the Coalition's response was overkill, particularly given exceptions were made for prestigious institutions like NIDA but not equivalent programs at smaller institutions.
The Coalition government did remove tertiary courses (specifically dance, theatre, and musical theatre diplomas, plus approximately 475 other courses) from Austudy eligibility in 2017-2018.
However, the claim is "partially true" rather than fully true because:
1. **Framing issue:** The claim says "tried to reduce" when the government **successfully implemented** the policy (it wasn't merely an attempt).
2. **Context omission:** The claim presents this as an arbitrary education policy without acknowledging that it was a direct response to a massive fraud crisis in the VET FEE-HELP scheme created by Labor, which had cost $1.2 billion and harmed 38,000 students.
3. **Scope ambiguity:** The claim could misleadingly suggest a narrow, targeted reduction when approximately 478 courses were removed across multiple categories.
4. **Fairness concern:** While the policy was controversial in the arts education community, it was implemented with stated rationale and exceptions for premier institutions, not without justification.
The verdict is "partially true" because the framing omits essential context that would lead to a more balanced understanding of why the Coalition implemented this policy.
The Coalition government did remove tertiary courses (specifically dance, theatre, and musical theatre diplomas, plus approximately 475 other courses) from Austudy eligibility in 2017-2018.
However, the claim is "partially true" rather than fully true because:
1. **Framing issue:** The claim says "tried to reduce" when the government **successfully implemented** the policy (it wasn't merely an attempt).
2. **Context omission:** The claim presents this as an arbitrary education policy without acknowledging that it was a direct response to a massive fraud crisis in the VET FEE-HELP scheme created by Labor, which had cost $1.2 billion and harmed 38,000 students.
3. **Scope ambiguity:** The claim could misleadingly suggest a narrow, targeted reduction when approximately 478 courses were removed across multiple categories.
4. **Fairness concern:** While the policy was controversial in the arts education community, it was implemented with stated rationale and exceptions for premier institutions, not without justification.
The verdict is "partially true" because the framing omits essential context that would lead to a more balanced understanding of why the Coalition implemented this policy.