Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007. Interestingly, it appears that class warfare is alive and well in the Labor Party. Education revolution? I imagine that would come from the Che Guevara school of education. The Minister for Education, Science and Training has put in place the final pieces to end the administrative and educational straitjacket that was imposed on institutions of higher education under the former minister John Dawkins. The bill also reflects the philosophy of the coalition which underpins legislation, that is, fairness and freedom to choose.

This is in stark contrast to the typical Labor position of one-size-fits-all and the arrogant and misplaced authoritarianism of ‘we know what’s best and what’s good for you’. The concepts underpinning the first-class education system are: access, quality, sustainability and equity. I shall address each of these in turn and this will illustrate how the initiatives of the coalition government are ensuring that higher education in Australia is the envy of the world. We aim for quality and accessibility for students who wish to avail themselves of further education.

The first aspect is access to relevant and needed courses. We live in a world of constant change, and nowhere is that more evident than in the workplace. There are many jobs today that we hardly even conceived of a decade or two ago. Science and technology are two areas in which that is especially pertinent. Many established professions have new disciplines, areas of expertise and requirements. It is imperative that our education system can move with the times and provide the education and training that business and the public sector demand. The main impact of this bill will be in the area of institutional freedom and relevance.

Universities have for some time been calling for more flexibility and fewer artificial caps. Contrary to the picture being painted by the Labor Party, some Commonwealth supported places are unfilled. These places are currently being wasted because they cannot be transferred to an area of unmet need. In contrast, under the coalition government’s reforms, higher education institutions, HEIs, will have more flexibility to respond to supply and demand, especially from employers. They are in the best position to ascertain and to advise about future skills and training needs in their industries. These reforms will also relieve the administrative burden to a considerable extent by simplifying funding structures. This new flexibility will be backed up by funding to support HEIs during the reform process. This will ensure that all HEIs are able to obtain the maximum benefit from these important changes.

The next aspect of education I wish to address is quality. Having a longstanding interest in science, I was particularly gratified to note the extra funding going into maths, statistics, engineering, science and surveying, to name but a few areas. Frankly, there is no getting past the need for investment in producing graduates in hard sciences; that is, those technical areas that underpin our infrastructure, manufacturing and technical skills base. I also support any measure that will attract more young people to science related courses. For too long science has been the poor relation in many HEIs and has had difficulty in attracting students, partly I suspect because of the rigorous nature of the courses. At one Western Australian university a few years ago the TER required get into the physiotherapy course was in the mid 90s, whereas to get into the nanotechnology honours degree the TER was in the 70s. Therefore, I support any measure that makes science related subjects more attractive.

Equity is one of the opposition’s favourite catchcries. To Labor, equity means preferential treatment for those demographic groups that will be prepared to show their gratitude by delivering block votes to the Australian Labor Party. One area of this bill, about which there has been much debate and which relates directly to access and equity and which is, of course, continuously and wilfully misrepresented by the opposition, is Commonwealth supported places, that is HECS-HELP places.

In yet another tediously predictable scare campaign about this legislation, the opposition spokesman painted a worst-case scenario as the one most likely to happen. He foretold that universities would choose to remove Commonwealth supported places from certain areas such as law, medicine and dentistry so that only full-fee-paying students would be able to enrol. Indeed, I heard the member for Adelaide mouthing much the same. There are at least three reasons that the opposition spokesman is wrong in his doom and gloom predictions. The member for Perth, channelling Chicken Little for all he is worth, knows he is wrong, or he should do—just as he was wrong about common-law contracts recently in an ABC interview.

The first reason that his dire predictions will not eventuate is the continuation of the policy ensuring that HEIs must fill their Commonwealth supplemented places in each discipline cluster before offering any full-fee-paying places. Members should be aware that only a handful of courses in a handful of universities got near the cap of 35 per cent, or in the case of medicine 25 per cent, for full-fee-paying students. Therefore, the idea of Mercedes loads of rich kids keeping out the deserving poor is yet another Labor myth, thanks to the higher education funding of the past 10 years.

Secondly, if an HEI tried to close off an area of study to HECS-HELP students, the minister has the discretion to insist on places being provided in certain areas. Therefore, this minister is taking direct responsibility for ensuring that HEI places are distributed fairly and equitably. She has also displayed great faith and trust in our universities and colleges that they will behave in a credible, responsible and ethical manner. Members should compare that attitude to the opposition’s attitude. Judging from the words of the opposition spokesman on education and training, clearly he and the opposition believe higher education institutions are the bastions of feudal attitudes that are run by elitists who will keep out the hoi polloi in favour of the wealthy. That is not a very fair or balanced view of our educational institutions, and it is one that I am sure any vice-chancellor would repudiate in an instant.

I understand that many HEIs have already told the government that they would not permit that imbalance to occur. Any significant shift in student loads would also become apparent quite quickly. Apart from the altruistic philosophical attitudes of equity, fairness and giving opportunities to those who could not afford to attend higher education institutions without assistance, there are also far simpler reasons: competition and choice. As these are concepts which are beyond the ken of members opposite, I shall speak slowly. I apologise for the lack of subtitles.

There is no doubt that some of the brightest, most hardworking and motivated students are those who have been given a Commonwealth supported place. These students are determined not to squander this opportunity and to ensure that they get the maximum benefit from this assistance. Labor would have you believe that universities and colleges will deliberately exclude these students, who would bring great credit, if not prestige and recognition, to their alma maters for their achievements and instead, they would favour full-fee-paying students.

I cannot accept that university administrations are so mean and greedy and anti-egalitarian as to take this course of action, even if Labor clearly does. This is yet another attempt to dress up tired, old class warfare and the  politics of envy—ideological wolves—with the sheep’s clothing of concern for students. In fact, this expressed disdain, bordering on hatred, of so-called ‘rich’ people was never better exposed than in the words of a close friend of the member for Kingsford Smith, who would fall into the despised category of ‘rich’ himself. Rob Hirst, former drummer and songwriter for Midnight Oil, described the permitting of full-fee-paying students in the Bulletin of 26 January as:

We’re getting thicker. Our unis are filling up with dumb, rich kids whose daddies have paid to queue-jump them over the heads of their brighter, poorer peers.

That sounds exactly like what I have heard from so many members opposite.

Apart from the inherent sexism of implying that only fathers earn enough to pay university fees—and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would have something to say about that—the almost comically dated political rhetoric of these comments show an appalling lack of knowledge of the situation within Australian universities. This is the third reason why Labor’s predictions of wilful education deprivation will not eventuate, not under a coalition government, anyway. There are currently more higher education students and more places available than ever before. In fact, between 2004 and 2011, there will be 50,000 more places. This exposes the misinformation being peddled by those opposite. The issue of student places being held back by government is rubbish and manifestly disingenuous. Not only are there so many more places but the funding has increased significantly.

Despite Labor’s propaganda, here are some more facts which those opposite refuse to acknowledge. Since 1995-96, there has been a 31 per cent real increase in the funding of higher education. I will repeat that for the selectively deaf members opposite: a 31 per cent real increase. That is a fact, despite Labor’s claims that Australia’s public funding of universities has gone backwards. Not only that, but it is all thanks to the excellent financial management of this government and the Prime Minister and Treasurer, in particular, which has permitted this exceptional funding increase to be possible. Why? This is something else which those opposite, especially the member for Brand, will not want to hear. This directly relates to the fourth concept underpinning the coalition’s educational reforms, which I referred to at the beginning of my speech: sustainability. The funding in this year’s budget for higher education is around $8.8 billion, a huge financial commitment. Coincidentally, that figure is also significant for another reason.

That figure of around $8 billion was what it was costing the Australian taxpayer each year in interest payments for the great Australian debt black hole, courtesy of 13 years of Labor. We are funding our higher education system simply by the savings we have made in interest payments. This expenditure not only shows the coalition’s commitment to higher education but also how critical sound financial management is in being able to provide such education. Thanks to the coalition government, that black hole has been closed off and it will no longer suck the financial lifeblood of this country. Education is merely one of the many beneficiaries.

There is a further reason why Labor’s phoney hand-wringing about Commonwealth supported places is so easily exposed as baseless. The government has received some extensive research into the issue of unmet need. This was estimated to be about 13,000 places. In other words, there were 13,000 Australians seeking a higher education place who were unable to get in. This is where the true significance of the government’s budget measures can best be appreciated. From next financial year, the government will fully fund over-enrolment in courses by up to five per cent. Keep in mind that there is an unmet need of 13,000 places. If we apply the five per cent overenrolment allowance to every course in every higher education institution, it would allow the creation of over 21,000 extra Commonwealth supported places. This is about 8,000 places more than is currently anticipated will be needed. That is one of the major planks in ensuring true access to quality and sustainable education for all those who want it in this country.

On 10 May 2007 the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was asked at a doorstop why Labor cannot say if it is going to stick to the policy position that it will not be allowing some full-fee-paying students. The member for Griffith has left the door open. What a perfect opportunity to articulate a major aspect of higher education policy. What was the deputy leader’s incisive response? She said, ‘These are matters that will be dealt with by my colleagues, most particularly Stephen Smith, so I will leave it at that.’ There are only three reasons for such a hopeless answer: (1) she did not know the answer, (2) she did not like the answer or, (3) the most likely: the answer is up in the air. There was not enough focus group consultation, perhaps.

That same day it was reported by Samantha Maiden and Steve Lewis that ‘the opposition leader shocked his own frontbench by refusing to rule out a backflip on full-fee degrees’. On the same day, Michelle Grattan wrote:

Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd has left the way open for a Labor government to retain full-fee-paying places for domestic undergraduates. This is despite Labor’s platform, endorsed recently, saying these would be phased out.

Labor’s policy is unclear. Perhaps a bit more focus was required. Such indecision should make the Leader of the Opposition the Vicky Pollard of Canberra: ‘Yeah, but no, but yeah, but’!

Having thought that he had dug himself out of that particular hole, the Leader of the Opposition was then faced with the university response to phasing out full-fee degrees. Not surprisingly, they are saying that they want to be compensated for the loss of money. Who could have guessed that? Just about everyone, except those ‘proven unsuccessful people’, as Mr Keating called them. One wonders just how hard it is to toss a coin. Furthermore, University of Sydney Vice-Chancellor Gavin Brown said:

I’m saddened that, for ideological reasons, thousands of students would be denied educational opportunities of their choice.

Finally, let me share one story which illustrates why full fees are still important. A few years ago a young lady in my electorate did not achieve the TEE marks she needed for her chosen course. She was utterly distraught. Her parents went with her to the university open day in January. She was told by the most helpful Dean of Students from Curtin, Mr Alan Rendell, that she could pay full fees for the first year and that, if she passed her exams, she could then be accepted as a HECS student. Her parents were not rich—just ordinary, hardworking Australians who wanted the best for their kids. They paid full fees for their daughter for the first year. In return, she worked part time in the final two years of a full-time law degree, working 2½ days a week and studying at night. This is the sort of dedicated young person that the member for Kingsford Smith’s friend sneeringly refers to as a dumb, rich queue-jumper. Nothing could be further from the truth. She did very well, completed her degree under the HECS system and went on to several other postgraduate qualifications. She now has a great job with a fine future, thanks to the opportunity to undertake this course—something which those opposite would deny her in a heartbeat because of some misplaced 19th century chip-on-the-shoulder ideology.

I will leave you with the comments of a migrant who came here for a better life for himself and his family. He says:

We brought three kids with us plus our graduate and post graduate qualifications. The eldest child has just qualified as a mechanical engineer, the second child is going into third year engineering and the youngest child is in second year psychology. All this on the wonderful HECS scheme where for the price of a small new car you get a first class university education. We are Australian citizens—the ceremony was a milestone in our lives. And yes, we support John Howard, all of us.

See this speech in context