Annette Ellis (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise this evening to speak on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007. As pointed out by the member for Perth, we on this side of the House do not oppose this bill; however, we do have some serious concerns about certain aspects of it. I am forced to say that I do not believe that the honourable member for Bass, who has just spoken, has actually read the Smith amendment, because there is no way that you could call it wimpy or without direction.

The bill as presented to the House will, firstly, clarify requirements of the Higher Education Loan Program and arrangements for Commonwealth supported students. It will also amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003, or HESA, to implement the revised National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes. As well, it will amend the HESA, the Higher Education Funding Act 1988 and the Higher Education Support (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2003 to limit the time for students to claim entitlement to Commonwealth support. It will also amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to provide funding to implement the government’s flawed research quality framework, the RQF, and it will make a range of minor technical amendments to the Higher Education Support Act. Although, as we have said, we on this side of the House will not seek to prevent its passage through this place, I am particularly concerned with the government’s implementation of the research quality framework, the RQF, which I will discuss in more detail in a moment.

Access to further education is definitely the path to prosperity—prosperity not just for our nation but also for our future generations. Each and every person in this country can benefit from lifelong learning, and access to higher education is an integral part of that. Unlike those opposite, we do not believe that our international competitiveness relies on a wages race to the bottom so that we can compete with low-wage economies in the developing world. We strongly believe that our economic future lies in us as a nation being smarter, not cheaper, than our competitors. That is a fundamental difference between those on this side of the House and the members on the other side. We will be making that clear distinction very clear to voters as we head towards the next election. The Leader of the Opposition has already commenced that process with his announcements on education policy and the need for an education revolution, and I am really excited about seeing that develop further this year.

Access to higher education and the ability of our universities to conduct high-quality research are essential to the economic future of our nation. I am of the view that during the last 11 years this government has made it harder and more expensive for Australians, particularly our young people, to get the higher education that many seek. This government has gone backwards on higher education and will be taking the country backwards with it if it is allowed to continue.

Over the 10 or 11 years of the Howard government they have reduced their investment in higher education by seven per cent while other developed countries have increased their investment in higher education by up to 48 per cent. Every other government in the developed world can see the value in investing in education. The government has increased the cost of going to university to the point where it is now in some cases a major disincentive to young people considering their career options. We have seen the cost of a degree increase by up to $30,000. Students are now paying $30,000 for a science degree when we cannot get enough scientists and science teachers, and they are paying $40,000 for a law degree. As a consequence of these increased costs, students around Australia owed nearly $13 billion in HECS in 2005-06. I want to say quite clearly that that $13 billion has accumulated over a number of years, but it is not being helped by these rising costs in more recent years. Students completing their degrees are starting their working lives with very high levels of debt. As has been discussed many times in the community, in the media and here, the crisis in housing affordability means that young people facing HECS debts that are far too high are starting their careers financially stressed. The track record of this government on higher education is shameful, as it is on research and innovation.

Let me return to the research quality framework, the RQF, outlined in this bill. It is another example, I believe, of the government getting it basically wrong. We have serious concerns about the proposed RQF—in fact, we believe that it is fundamentally flawed. I note the concerns of the Group of Eight, which includes the Australian National University, here in Canberra, which provides tertiary education to many people from my electorate and is a world-renowned university. Professor Glyn Davis, Chair of the Group of Eight, has expressed concern about the RQF and the time frame for its implementation. In November last year, Professor Davis said:

... it is very important that any new research assessment model is robust and tested to ensure it is accurate and cost-effective before implementation. It will be difficult to achieve this in the proposed 2008 implementation time-frame.

And Professor Davis and the Group of Eight are not alone. The government’s own Productivity Commission has also expressed serious concern. The commission’s report Public support for science and innovation, released today, also outlines its concern that the costs of the RQF ‘may well’ exceed the benefits. In a media release, the commission says:

The Commission favours a scheme that is more strongly weighted against the poorest research performers than currently envisaged. ... the Commission suggests the use of a lower cost, risk-minimisation approach that only applies to poor performing areas in universities.

In fact, I believe the government’s pursuit of the flawed RQF shows just how behind the times they are. They are not a government for the future. They modelled the RQF on the British Research Assessment Exercise, an approach that I believe is about to be abandoned in the UK.

The irony of all of this is that in formulating its research quality framework this government should have done more research and research of a better quality. Whilst we will not be opposing the appropriation of the $40.8 million to implement the RQF, we believe that the RQF should be taken back to the drawing board. Labor do support measures to increase the standard of research conducted in our universities, but we and many in the university sector believe there could have been a better way. Of course, the approach to the RQF by those opposite is typical of their bungling of science and research as a whole over the last decade.

According to the Productivity Commission, funding for the CSIRO—our peak national research body—has been cut by 13 per cent over the past decade. How can we build a smarter, more prosperous future whilst we are reducing government expenditure on science and research? My colleague the member for Perth has moved an amendment to the provisions in the bill relating to the RQF, and I fully support this common-sense amendment. I want to refer again to some rather light comments made by the previous government speaker, the member for Bass, when he called the amendment ‘wimpish’. I do not know how it could be wimpish when it says:

… any initiative in this area must be robust, rigorous and support an open and transparent process of peer review;

There is nothing wimpish about that—or when it says:

… essential aspects and details of the scheme are yet to be worked out, so that implementation for 2008 is in serious doubt;

Really, you have to assess things a little better, rather than calling this amendment ‘wimpish’. This bill also covers a number of other, less controversial matters. One of these is the changes to the national protocols for higher education approval processes which regulate the recognition of new universities, the operation of overseas universities in Australia and the accreditation of courses offered by providers of higher education. All Australian governments have agreed to amend their legislation so that the national protocols take effect from the end of this year.

Major changes in the protocols include: provision for a wider range of universities, including specialist institutions conducting research in one or two fields of study only, and university colleges in the form of new universities undertaking teaching and research in a limited number of fields during an establishment phase; an identified process for institutions other than universities to become authorised to self-accredit where they have a good track record; and application of the protocols to all higher education facilities, to be assessed through the standard quality assurance processes.

I understand that while the protocols have been agreed to by the Ministerial Council on Eduction, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, the guidelines that underpin them have not. I fail to see why we in this place are being asked to vote on this bill without the full picture being agreed upon. It is my understanding that the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee has raised similar concerns. Once again, we see that the government is rushing through this legislation. This is proved by the fact that the government is moving amendments to its own legislation. These changes have the potential to open up our university sector to greater competition and specialisation, but we must proceed with caution. Higher education is a major export dollar earner for Australia. I understand that it now earns approximately $10 billion for this nation annually. Our education exports are built around the excellent international reputation of our higher education system, and we in this place must be very, very careful that we do not diminish that reputation in any way by changing these protocols.

Over the last few years, there have been allegations of ‘fees for degrees’ at some higher education institutions—that is, full-fee paying students being given a free ride to keep the cash coming in—and allegations of full-fee paying students being failed so that they must complete a subject again and pay more. We must ensure that we make it as difficult as possible for unscrupulous operators to operate in our higher education sector. We do not want them and they have the potential to cost this country and the higher education sector very dearly. Other provisions in the bill relate to the residency requirements for Commonwealth supported students and student access to OS-HELP and FEE-HELP programs. My understanding is that these are fairly straightforward amendments and they will allow students who are required to travel overseas for their studies to continue to receive government assistance.

In concluding, I represent an electorate that is serviced by two excellent higher education facilities, the University of Canberra and the Australian National University—although I have to say that we have four tertiary institutions. I must make sure that I mention that. I would like to take this opportunity to place on the public record my ongoing support for the great work, in both research and in teaching, that is undertaken by the staff at the universities in the ACT, particularly the two I mentioned. They are also major contributors to the economy here in the ACT and provide educational services for students from regional areas surrounding the territory, although their contributions cannot be measured only in an economic sense.

The tertiary institutions in this town provide services of great interest and benefit to the local community—reaching out beyond their student base and into the community as a whole. They bring a vibrancy to our community not just economically or intellectually but also socially. They also provide many people from around Australia—and from other parts of the world—with their first introduction to Canberra. I know that there are many people in the parliament who have studied in Canberra in the past. I am often surprised when yet another colleague from somewhere in this place comes up to me and says, ‘I actually did my first degree at the ANU,’ or, ‘I did my tertiary studies in Canberra.’ I am always proud to hear those comments. I commend all the staff at these institutions for the outstanding contributions they have made over the years, and I look forward to the continuation of those contributions.

I very strongly endorse the advice of our shadow minister in relation to this bill and in particular the amendment moved by him. It would be a great day if the government would not only be interested in their own amendments but also seriously look at the words in the amendment moved by our shadow minister.

See this speech in context