Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Student Assistance Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 closes down a student financial supplement scheme that was introduced many years ago. It does so formally through legislation, even though the scheme has been closed administratively by this government. On top of that, it makes the repayment schedule for those students or former students who had access to the scheme much more onerous. You have to wonder about the motivation of a government that allows a situation to occur whereby young people take out loans in good faith and then the government retrospectively makes that repayment schedule much tougher than the students had legitimately anticipated at the time when they took those loans out. Such is the style of this government that it has not hesitated to do that. Labor opposes such a nasty change to the legislation.

In addition, this legislation removes any requirement to reflect in regulations changes to the guidelines under the Abstudy and Assistance for Isolated Children schemes. This gives the government the capacity, on a whim, to reduce or in other ways to make tougher the arrangements for young people accessing assistance with living expenses while they go through university. I am quite sure that the motivation behind this is not to make it easier for those students, because this government has never made it easier for students seeking to get a good university education, other than of course those students who happen to be the sons and daughters of very wealthy Australians. They now enjoy privileges that were not available to them under previous Labor governments. They can buy their way into an Australian university even though the marks they might get may be lower than the marks that sons and daughters of working Australians may get.

The Labor Party considers that to be a disgraceful situation. It is a sign of the times. The ongoing Americanisation of just about every institution in this country is occurring under this government. What a shocking situation here in the 21st century when education, including a university education, is so vital to the prospects of young people that a government could change the arrangements such that those who have the money can jump the queue and buy a place ahead of better performing students who do not have the money. That is a true blue Liberal philosophy. It was the philosophy of the Liberal Party before the election of the Whitlam government—that is, that access to higher education should be determined by your wealth, meaning that the privileged had access and the underprivileged suffered.

The government has turned the clock back and, in fact, has made the situation worse for young people who do not have the financial resources. By removing a requirement to make changes to Abstudy through regulation as a disallowable instrument, this government is signalling that it is going to whack young people yet again.

Fundamentally, the government does not believe in a university education for working-class people and we have had ample statements from the government to that effect. Indeed, the former Minister for Education, Science and Training was very fond of labelling Labor members of parliament who believed in access to university education for the sons and daughters of working Australians as snobs.

Apparently, in the philosophy of the Liberal Party, you have a legitimate aspiration to go to university if you are from a family that is privileged but you do not have a legitimate aspiration to go to university if you are from a family that is not privileged. Those children, according to this government, really should go and get a trade. I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage nodding to that proposition. It is indeed the Liberal philosophy. What a shocking situation we have here. The government has made a university education more costly for young people, and I again refer to those who are not from privileged backgrounds. It is quite happy to lock young people with talent who have worked hard out of a university education so that only the privileged may have access to it.

Some of the evidence that I will present here today confirms this to be so. For example, last year, for only the second time in 50 years, the number of Australian students going to universities fell. The early indications from enrolments in 2006 are that they may well fall again. Here we are in 21st century Australia where an education is the key to unlocking two doors, to prosperity and to a fairer Australia, and this government is presiding over a situation where there was actually a decline in entry into universities last year for only the second time in 50 years and in all probability again this year.

I also point to the fact that, since the change of government 10 long years ago, all of the enrolment growth in Australian universities has been by full fee paying foreign students. There has been no growth in enrolments by Australian students—no growth at all. It is almost beyond belief that a government could preside over such a situation where in the 21st century a university education is so important to a nation’s future, let alone the future of the students themselves. Deutsche Bank has released a report ranking Australia at the bottom in expected growth in university education. That Deutsche Bank report clearly shows, on the basis of its research, that access to university education is a very strong determinant of a nation’s prosperity and of its productivity growth. Yet this government has no commitment to Australian universities and certainly no commitment to a university education for those who do not have ample financial resources.

Here we are debating time after time the reasons for the slump in Australian productivity growth, which from the beginning of 2004 not only slowed down but actually turned negative and has been stuck in reverse gear ever since. For well over 1½ years this government has presided over negative productivity growth. Productivity growth as a result of reforms, including reforms to the university system of Australia implemented by the previous Labor government, was around 2.05 per cent per annum for the best part of 10 years. This was record-breaking productivity growth surpassing all countries of the Western world except Finland but including the United States. So we had a record-breaking decade of productivity growth, but the Productivity Commission, in examining the sources of that productivity growth, found Australia to be in almost the unique situation that the accumulation of skills, which had accelerated through the 1980s, slowed down in the 1990s following the election of this government. The accumulation of skills in fact detracted from productivity growth because of this government’s very low level of commitment to investing in skills and investing in higher education.

We also have the incredible record of being one of only two OECD countries where increases in private investment in university education have not been complemented by increases in public investment in university education as a share of gross domestic product but in fact have substituted for it. So, as other countries are investing in their universities, including both public and private investment, in Australia this government has presided over a situation where there is more private funding going into universities but which has not been matched at all by public funding but, instead, has substituted for it. That private funding overwhelmingly is coming from the students themselves, and it is the calculation that they are now making that has led to the situation of declining university enrolments by Australian students. When they have a look at their prospective HECS debts and when they consider their living expenses and prospective returns from a university education, prospective students are making the calculation that it is just not worth it.

Australia has become one of the most expensive places in the Western world to study and to get a university education. There is a clear pattern here, and that is that this government does not believe in our universities and in university education for anyone but the privileged. The government allowed universities to increase HECS fees by up to 25 per cent, and now all Australian universities have done so. They are cash starved universities—starved of cash because the government refused to properly index its grants to universities—so they have to seek other funding sources, and they are seeking them through full fee paying foreign students and also full fee paying Australian students.

The government has lifted the limits on the proportion of Australian students who can be full fee paying, and of course universities are responding in a predictable way: they are saying that they would prefer full-fee paying Australian students over those who are on HECS. That means that we are going to move more and more to an American system of very costly university education—and, as I indicated, we are already one of the most expensive places in the world.

Abstudy is a very important part of the calculation that Indigenous students make when deciding whether they will go on to university. With this legislation we have the situation where the government, prospectively, is going to make it a lot tougher for those students. Labor is very proud of its record in providing financial assistance for people to go to university. This government seems equally proud of its record of denying financial assistance to students wishing to go to university.

I will go now to one of the most bizarre turns of events that occurred in 2004. The then education minister, who was absolutely besotted with and determined to spend all his time on voluntary student unionism, had realised, upon the introduction of FEE-HELP, which is a loan scheme for full-fee paying Australian students, that there was a fundamental flaw in that loan scheme. That flaw is that it is capped at $50,000. As a result of increases in university fees for full-fee paying students, many courses cost, over the term of the degree, more than $50,000. It does not take a genius to work out that those students who do not have independent financial resources—that is, who are not independently wealthy—could not afford a full-fee paying place when that cap was set at $50,000.

Jon Faine, on radio station 3LO in Melbourne, interviewed the then education minister about that. The education minister agreed that this $50,000 cap was highly inequitable, it was highly regressive and it would prevent a significant number of young people who were not independently wealthy from going on to university. He seemed quite confident that he would be able to get the cabinet to remove that cap. But, as on so many other things, the minister failed and that cap is still in place. He is one of the greatest, most vocal critics of that $50,000 cap, and yet it is still in place—so ineffective was the education minister in his own portfolio.

Professor Bruce Chapman had a look at the impact of these arrangements and concluded that they were highly regressive, highly unfair. He pointed out what most people know: the benefits of university education flow to the broader community. In the 21st century, when higher education is such an important determinant of productivity growth and future prosperity, of course there is a strong case for public investment in universities. This is a point that is well and truly acknowledged by the architect of the HECS arrangements. It is understood by the government but rejected by the government, because it considers that most of the money going into the university system must come from full fees or from HECS charges, which have been increased by up to 25 per cent.

The philosophical divide between the coalition and the Australian Labor Party is evident in issue after issue after issue, but no more clearly evident than in regard to access to Australia’s universities by the sons and daughters of working people. The government considers that they should not have a legitimate aspiration to a university education. Labor considers that, fundamentally, in a decent and productive society, those students who work hard and who have talent but who nevertheless do not have high wealth should have such access to a university education.

This legislation again highlights the arrogance of the Howard government after 10 long years in proposing the removal of any requirement to vary the terms of Abstudy and the Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme be the subject of a regulation, which is a disallowable instrument. The government wants to make those changes itself, at its whim, and make life harder for recipients of Abstudy and the Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme. Such is the arrogance of this government after 10 long years. It is certainly time for the Australian people to have a fresh look at this government and make the judgment, which all people will make in 2007, that this government is arrogant, that this government has been in power for too long, that this government has run out of puff and that there is a very desperate need for a change of government—which will occur in 2007.

See this speech in context