Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak in support of theHigher Education Support Amendment (FEE-HELP Loan Fee) Bill 2010 and note the opposition’s support of this government initiative as detailed by the opposition spokesperson, the member for Sturt. I also commend the member for Lyne on his contribution immediately prior to me. I was quite shocked to hear of that percentage—only 12 per cent in his electorate. Certainly the electorate I grew up in would have similar data. I know how hard it can be to be the first and I am sure that he will be working well with the government to get up to that 40 per cent target. I am sure he will not be letting the minister get away with that target without him making sure that she is aware of his desire to get it up to 40 per cent.

This bill before the House amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to slightly increase the amount of the FEE-HELP debt from 120 per cent to 125 per cent of the loan. Just to explain: the word ‘fee’ is not an acronym, but the word ‘HELP’ is. HELP stands for the Higher Education Loan Program. For history buffs, this replaced the HECS—the Higher Education Contribution Scheme—which superseded Austudy. Austudy was the scheme that went from 1987 to 1998 which had itself replaced the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme, the scheme under which I obtained my teaching qualifications. It was interesting to hear from the member for Lyne, but I was certainly the first person in my family to complete tertiary education. From my research, the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme seemed to be about people not having to pay for study. It was a different scheme entirely. It is amazing how much things have changed in what has seemed like a few short years since I was at teachers college.

Nevertheless, under the Higher Education Loan Program, FEE-HELP is available to fee-paying undergraduate and postgraduate domestic students. This modest increase in the loan fee implements the Bradley review recommendation to ensure the government recovers more of the costs associated with providing FEE-HELP loans to students studying with private higher education providers or those in their third year and beyond who have full fee-paying places at our public universities. The modest rise in the cost of FEE-HELP loans will affect only a small number of students. Fewer than three per cent of students at public universities are enrolled in full fee-paying places. This number will continue to decline as, from the beginning of last year, the Rudd government began phasing out full fee-paying places at public universities. The loan fee also applies to fee-paying students enrolled in undergraduate courses at private universities and other private higher education providers approved to offer FEE-HELP.

The Rudd government is committed to ensuring that higher education remains accessible and affordable for all Australians. A FEE-HELP loan will continue to offer helpful conditions for students. Loans do not attract interest, as commercial loans do, but they will continue to be indexed annually. A FEE-HELP loan also requires no security and students are not required to begin repayments until their income reaches the minimum repayment threshold—currently this is $43,152. As previous speakers have noted, this is nothing like the loans schemes in places like the United States. I have had friends who have had to go into that scheme and it takes forever for them to meet what are basically commercial loan arrangements and it can take forever to pay off those loans. Obviously, the government meets the cost of FEE-HELP loans if the student can never repay the amount—that is if, for some reason, their income never reaches that threshold which, as I said, is over $43,000 at the moment.

The Rudd government is right behind our higher education sector. We believe in opportunity for all; academic freedom and autonomy; research that advances knowledge and critical thinking and what then flows from that, which is productivity; and access to university based on merit, not just the ability of the student or the student’s parents to pay. It is why we set up the Bradley review in March 2008 to examine our higher education sector. In handing down the report, Professor Denise Bradley AC said the report revealed the urgent need for the country to understand that its future depends on a strong education system, particularly at the tertiary level. She said:

… what I think has come out of the process for us is a strong sense of the need to increase participation, to free up the funding and regulatory arrangements, but to do that at the same time as you take a much more comprehensive approach to quality.

It is an important balance.

Our tertiary education sector had been punished for too long by the Howard government. In November 2007 the then NUS president, Michael Nguyen, said:

The Coalition has failed to ensure that young people have the opportunity to go to university regardless of their parent’s bank balance. The political parties can be assured that in this election young people will be voting on issues like higher education to ensure that their future is worth looking forward to.

But the opposition continued to champion their own shameful record of neglect and hostility towards higher education under John Howard. Unfortunately, it was one of the most neglected sectors for the 12 years of that government. And, when they were not neglecting higher education, they were taking an ideological axe to its heart, making changes to voluntary student unionism and depriving students of fundamental amenities and services.

Between 1995 and 2004, total funding per tertiary student increased by an average of nine per cent across the OECD. However, in Australia it increased by only one per cent. This blatant neglect hit us hard, affecting graduations in critical areas like science, agriculture and engineering. It also badly impacted on research. While research output has grown in similar countries such as Singapore, Korea, Taiwan and mainland China, over the last 10 years in Australia it has remained static. When we look at innovation and research, we can be guided by the words of Lewis Carroll in Alice in Wonderland, where the Queen told Alice, ‘But, remember, you have to run fast to keep in the same place and run twice as fast if you want to go somewhere different.’ That is the case with innovation and research. Our neighbours and competitors are pouring money into research and gaining advantages that we do not have.

It is not just students and universities that were negatively impacted by the Howard years; it will take years to catch up and to deliver on skills, services and productivity gains that might have flowed from research. Therefore, the coalition neglect has impacted on every Australian, in a way. Every Australian has experienced a health system under pressure from a shortage of Australian-trained doctors, nurses and allied health professionals. Every Australian knows about the shortage of early childhood educators and schoolteachers, especially in those crucial areas of maths and science. Every Australian has experienced the traffic bottlenecks or housing shortages that come from a shortage of qualified engineers and logistical workers for our booming resources and construction sectors.

I met with some representatives from the mining community last week, and what was their No. 1 issue, as it was two years ago? It was the skills shortage. It is funny: two or three years ago, when Work Choices was in full bloom on the lips of those opposite, the mining sector were not talking about IR. No, they were talking about a skills shortage—and they are still talking about it. Every Australian feels the pinch because these skills shortages are driving up the cost of doing business, as anyone involved in the mining communities in Western Australia and Queensland would know. We are all paying more through higher inflation and higher interest rates. And every Australian knows that we cannot continue to neglect our universities and higher education sector like the previous government did. It is as the President of the Business Council of Australia, Greig Gailey, said:

More than ever, governments need to focus on fiscal policies and broader reform agendas in areas such as infrastructure, education, skills and workforce participation that collectively enhance the nation’s capacity to grow.

That is why the Rudd government, in our first budget, allocated an additional $500 million to Australian universities towards capital investment—and that was just the start. Through the education revolution we are ensuring that every upper secondary student has access to a computer. We are not investing in flagpoles; we are not investing in the past. We are investing in the future: the future industries and the future jobs for the 21st century. It is why we are creating more than 450,000 new VET places over four years to address the skills gap. We are also phasing out full-fee-paying places at public universities and increasing the number of the Commonwealth funded places. To encourage more students to study the core disciplines of maths and science, we have reduced fees for new students studying maths and science by approximately 50 per cent. We are creating more nursing places, as part of a range of measures to attract 9,250 extra nurses into the workforce, and 1,500 extra early childhood education places. By 2012 we will have doubled the number of Australian postgraduate awards.

The Rudd government believe that quality and accessible education is a fundamental right for all Australians, and we are committed to ensuring our higher education sector is well resourced and sustainable for the long term. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context