Michael Ferguson (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am very thankful to have the opportunity to speak in support of this bill, the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007. I was sitting here in this place on the Tuesday evening in May when the Treasurer handed down his 11th budget. When those of us who have been in this place only since the last federal election came in here and heard the 2005 budget, we were told that it was the Treasurer’s best ever budget. We were perhaps not expecting that, year by year, the good could get better, and this budget has certainly been the Treasurer’s best ever budget. It has been widely referred to by commentators—certainly those in education circles—as a very clever budget. It is a budget that does recognise the great value of investing in education. The budget does include very grand initiatives in the education sector, and today I will be concentrating mainly on those initiatives which are concerned with higher education.

It is true to say that the education of all Australians has been a passion of mine during my time in this parliament. I bring to my role a variety of experiences—as, of course, we all do. Having trained as a teacher, my career in life was working in Northern Tasmanian secondary schools, teaching maths, science, IT and, as is often the case, being expected to teach many other subjects in the course of my time. I come to this place not pretending to be an expert in education—not at all—but as a person who is very interested in education and is genuinely committed to it, who respects the choices that parents, young people and, indeed, older people make for their lifelong learning. I am someone who is committed to providing support to them, to being there and to setting up the structures and the investments that are needed to make education in Australia a truly worthwhile activity—not just something that we impose on young people to make them pass some time, if you like, or to pass some sort of abstract test for future life.

Education is about preparing for the future, but it is also about preparing for the present. More than ever, students in Australia today are learning for the here and now—not for some abstract future career path. Students in Australian schools and higher education facilities—universities, tech colleges, TAFEs and the like—are very much engaged, because they see that their education is linked in with the demands of our economy. We are living in a very modern economy; in the last 20 years it has undergone a very substantial amount of reform. And the economy of today is not in any way reflective of the economy of the days even when I was in primary school. The economy of today is a very vibrant place. In some ways it is an unforgiving place, because things move very quickly. For example, in the information technology sector, if you choose not to keep up your skills—if you choose, for example, to leave the sector for a short while—you might find that very rapidly your skills are out of date. So the need for education is very much linked to the economy.

In speaking to this bill today, I wish to make some comment about the importance of running a strong economy, about the importance of responsible economic management, and about the way in which, over the last 11 years, the Howard government has been able to stabilise our economy, stabilise the federal budget, pay off debt and get the monkey off the government’s back in terms of always, year after year, having to make interest payments on a debt that the government inherited from the Labor Party. By being free from that debt, by being relieved of the burden of having to make yearly payments to creditors, the government has been able to begin—in this budget, for the first time ever—to make serious investment in the further reforms that are needed to make our economy stronger and to lock in the prosperity gains that some of us do take for granted.

I am very passionate about our investment in higher education. In this portfolio, $5 billion was announced for a new initiative called the Higher Education Endowment Fund. It is a perpetual fund, and it is something which I will expand upon in just a moment. I think it is fair to say that this fund is the centrepiece of the education package in this federal budget. There is also additional spending of $4 billion over four years, which includes the $3½ billion Realising our Potential package. The budget investment includes a major reform package which will, I think quite genuinely, reshape the university and higher education landscape. It will certainly drive quality improvements in Australian schooling and in higher education. Until we as a nation are prepared to put into effect our belief that quality counts, we will have failed. As long as students are being churned through universities or institutions that do not have a passion for quality in education, we will simply be allowing something to occur on our watch which is a wasted opportunity for Australia and for Australians.

The budget also includes support for a range of initiatives that will go to ensuring Australia’s future economic prosperity by allowing all Australians to realise their potential through lifelong learning. I make that statement specifically so as not to make it exclusive to young people who have not finished college or gone to university. In announcing the budget measures, the Treasurer and the Minister for Education, Science and Training emphasised that the Australian economy does depend on its most precious and important resource, and that is its people. A well-skilled and well-educated population does improve workforce participation and allows people to make a contribution to the broader Australian community. It brings into the community, into the economy and certainly into the workforce people who in many cases have been alienated from it—people who, for whatever reason, have been excluded from the good things that can come from being better educated, from achieving their potential and from feeling as though they have a purpose in life. Lifelong learning can help people to gain value and a sense of self-esteem for what they are able to be in the community and, indeed, to other people.

The 2007 budget makes appropriations for the merger of the Australian Maritime College, which is in my electorate, in my home city of Launceston, and the University of Tasmania. The federal government will gift the AMC’s assets, which have been valued at some $61.4 million, to the University of Tasmania, putting into effect an agreement that was reached between those two organisations last year. This will facilitate the integration of the AMC into the university. They will merge effective from 1 January next year. The integration date is subject still to legislation that needs to come through this place and the other place to repeal the Maritime College Act 1978 and transfer the AMC’s assets to the University of Tasmania. I take this opportunity to place on the record my present agenda, which is to push for that legislation to come here as soon as possible.

The Australian Maritime College, as the act gives away, was established in 1978, as Australia’s national institution for maritime education and training. It is one of the world’s best-equipped maritime training institutions. It had 740 full-time equivalent students in 2006. For many members in this place, it may well be one of Australia’s best-kept maritime secrets. The merger is designed to ensure the viability of the AMC as Australia’s national centre. It will operate as an institute within the university, with its own board, which will include experts in the shipping industry, shipping safety and the certification of seafarer training. AMC students will have the same rights and privileges as any other students of the University of Tasmania. The merger will enable the AMC—which will be maintaining its brand and its identity, as an institute of the university—to provide even better education and research opportunities. It will be able to better respond to the changing demand for its internationally recognised programs and to better prepare students coming from all over the world to Launceston, to the AMC, to acquire those skills.

Employees of the AMC immediately prior to the date of integration will transfer to university employment. There will be no involuntary redundancies of AMC employees. The AMC and the university were both seeking opportunities to develop greater capabilities to rationalise their costs. It just makes a lot of sense. Anybody who has been there will know that the AMC campus and the University of Tasmania’s Launceston campus are side by side. It is a very sensible approach to achieving all of the goals that I have mentioned. It is a genuine opportunity for the growing and important role of the AMC. I place on record my appreciation for the principals of both of these organisations and the very professional and mature way that they have worked through this affiliation and integration process. It has not always been easy, and it is fair to say that there have certainly been some tensions along the way. If you are working for an institution that you are very proud of, you would of course like to think that it will continue to function in the way in which it has functioned in the past and that there will be some future in the brand.

I now wish to elaborate on an initiative of the budget that I have already touched upon. As a member of the governing party here in this place, I am immensely proud of the Higher Education Endowment Fund. With an initial investment of $5 billion, it is extremely encouraging for the higher education sector here in Australia. This has been funded from the 2006-07 budget surplus, and it is another example of how sound economic management by this government has allowed for new initiatives. I feel that it is important to place that on record, especially in reference to certain statements about the 1996 budget which I heard from the member for Lingiari. Cuts were needed in 1996. Why were budget cuts needed in 1996? Was it because the newly elected Howard government wished to cut budgets to a range of initiatives and government services in Australia? I do not think so. I think it cut them because it had no choice. The budget that it inherited was $10 billion a year in deficit. Earnings were $10 billion a year less than expenditures. Not only that, the accumulated government debt of that time was $96 billion. Standing here today, it seems almost like ancient history; but it is not; it is recent Australian history that a government inherited this enormous fiscal problem.

See this speech in context