Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I speak in support of the Higher Education Support Amendment (FEE-HELP Loan Fee) Bill 2010. The Bradley review said this in its executive summary:

Australia faces a critical moment in the history of higher education.

The member for Hindmarsh described the previous government as being on a ‘sabbatical’. I think the members were like Rip Van Winkle; they were simply having a sleep when it came to higher education. It is almost as if they said, ‘When it comes to higher education, we shouldn’t compare ourselves with our OECD partners.’ Certainly the Bradley review was absolutely damning when it came to the previous government’s performance. The member for Hindmarsh correctly quoted the Bradley review where it said:

Australia is the only OECD country where the public contribution to higher education remained the same level in 2005—

when the coalition was in power—

as it had been in 1995—

when Labor was last in power under Prime Minister Paul Keating. It is an absolute disgrace that the coalition failed so miserably with respect to higher education in this country. The legislation that is before the House follows one of the recommendations of the Bradley review—that is, to amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to increase the amount of FEE-HELP debt to 125 per cent of the FEE-HELP loan.

The background to all of this is that many of us here in this place were benefited by the wonderful educational reforms to higher education undertaken by the Whitlam Labor government. As I stand here before you, I can truly say as the first person in my family ever to go not just to high school but to university—I studied arts-law at the University of Queensland—I thank every day the Whitlam Labor government for their wonderful initiative with respect to higher education in this country. Certainly in 1989 undergraduate students were required to pay a contribution towards the cost of their courses under what became known as HECS, or the Higher Education Contribution Scheme. If they did not want to pay upfront and receive a discount, they could elect to repay the Commonwealth government for the loan, through the taxation system, when their income reached a certain threshold. This was changed in 2005, and the Higher Education Loan Program, commonly known as HELP, was brought in to replace HECS. It was expanded to include FEE-HELP for fee-paying undergraduate and postgraduate domestic students and overseas HELP, or OS-HELP, for Commonwealth supported students who complete part of their course overseas. The year 2007 will be known as the year that VET-HELP was introduced for students studying a diploma and advanced diploma courses in what we call vocational education and training. So what happens with respect to those university students who apply for a loan in the form of an income-contingent loan is that their outstanding debts are indexed according to the consumer price index. The FEE-HELP scheme does allow a domestic student—and I have two daughters of mine studying at the University of Queensland—to enrol in a full-fee-paying course under FEE-HELP assistance of up to $80,000 for full tuition fees or $100,000 for medicine, dentistry, veterinary science et cetera.

What is happening here is that we take into consideration the implicit subsidy, and that was recognised by the Bradley review. There are circumstances, by reason of someone’s death or by reason of income-earning capacity—a whole range of factors—which could result in the debt not being repaid to the Commonwealth. Effectively those persons would be getting an implied subsidy—in effect they have borrowed money from the Commonwealth for the purpose of their education. Modelling was undertaken and the Bradley review recognised the modelling and the challenges here and recommended strongly that we should undertake to change the current low fee of 20 per cent which applies to FEE-HELP loans and increase it. So the legislation before the House today deals with that recommendation, and the Parliamentary Secretary for Employment, the Hon. Jason Clare, who is in the House today, correctly pointed out in his second reading speech in relation to the matter that:

The Bradley Review of Australian higher education’s final report noted that the implied subsidy offered through a FEE-HELP loan increases significantly with the level of debt. This means the government’s subsidy varies considerably by course.

Anyone who has been at university knows that is the case. The recommendations are that we increase the loan fee from 20 per cent to 25 per cent for undergraduate courses. I can see the benefit of that, and I understand entirely why that has been recommended. The Rudd Labor government is not just doing this with respect to higher education. Unlike the previous government whose sole commitment to higher education was to impose Work Choices on the higher education scheme and to link funding to the higher education sector with the imposition of AWAs, the Rudd government has listened to the experts and is following the recommendation of the Bradley review.

We have about 37 public universities in this country, some tremendously fine institutions that produce graduates in medicine, law, engineering and across the whole range of courses in science, the humanities, social sciences and the arts which are the envy of the world. But we have to recognise, as the Bradley review did, that higher education has changed dramatically over the last 30 years. Technology alone has had an impact—the internet, email and the availability of information for courses and the variety of courses have been dramatic changes. The Bradley review noted that we do not just have 37 public universities, but we have two private universities and 150 or so other providers of higher education, so there is a range of opportunities.

The previous government failed to invest in higher education and we see that in so many of the speeches by those opposite. When it comes to student union activities at universities, they seem to be undertaking an ideological battle that they have carried into this place from their days at university. Their view of higher education is that it is a place where you can impose Work Choices, you can criticise student unions which represent students from regional and rural areas and you can de-fund the sector. That was the experience during the nearly 12 years of tenure of the Howard government on the Treasury benches. Under the previous government, within the OECD we found ourselves in ninth position out of 30 in the proportion of our population aged 25 to 34 years with tertiary qualifications, down from seventh a decade ago, according to the Bradley review.

The trouble is that if we do not better educate our young people who want to study at a higher education level, our productivity will decline, our businesses are more likely to be less profitable and our citizenry are more likely not to have the skills, talents and qualifications to compete internationally. It will impact upon our economic growth, impact upon our GDP, impact upon our workplaces and impact upon family life and the life of our community. So investing in higher education is good for our economy, good for our trade, good for our family life and good for our communities. The Bradley review notes that work done by Access Economics clearly shows that from 2010 the supply of people with undergraduate qualifications will not keep up with our demand. We see that across the health sciences, medicine and the like.

We have some fantastic universities and a number of them are in my electorate of Blair in South-East Queensland. We have the University of Queensland Ipswich campus which offers not just business and accountancy but also medicine and nursing. I am pleased to see the Rudd government’s commitment in the announcement made today by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health and Ageing. That will have a very advantageous impact upon young people and those who want to study medicine in my electorate. I warmly welcome today’s announcement of the massive increase in GP training places and the number of health professionals we are going to train in this country. Sadly, in the electorate of Blair and certainly the Ipswich and West Moreton part, we have about one GP for every 1,609 people. That was determined in a study undertaken by the University of Adelaide just a few years ago at the request of the Ipswich and West Moreton Division of General Practice. We do not have enough doctors, we do not have enough nurses and we do not have enough health professionals. I am really excited and thrilled about announcement made by the Prime Minister today which, by training more doctors and more health professionals, will have a direct impact on the tertiary sector, not just at a national level but also at a local level in the electorate of Blair in the Ipswich and West Moreton area.

The Rudd government is strongly committed to implementing the recommendations of the Bradley review. Education at a higher level should not be the province and choice only of the rich and powerful, the sons and daughters of the captains of industry and big business. Education should be for everyone and available to everyone. Those people from low-socioeconomic backgrounds, working-class boys and girls from Ipswich and the rural areas outside should have the same advantages in life. You should have the same opportunities in this country whether you live in the Ipswich or Indooroopilly, whether you live in Sydney or Melbourne, whether you live in Kalbar, Boonah, Lowood, Laidley or Toowoomba, from the Torres Strait to Tasmania, from Palm Beach to Perth. I am very pleased that the Rudd government has seen fit to provide further assistance in the level of support for the students. It is a crying shame that those opposite have been opposing our reformist legislation of support for students and those people in the higher education sector by their obstructionism in the Senate and their failure to support us in providing assistance to tertiary students.

Reforms to and better targeting of income support would enable students from regional and rural areas in places like Ipswich to get better access to education and more opportunities. I note also the great support of the Rudd Labor government in the electorate of Blair, particularly that part that has been redistributed into the federal electorate of Wright for the next election where the University of Queensland Gatton campus and the school of veterinary science has been transferred. I am pleased to welcome into the electorate of Blair the University of Southern Queensland at Springfield as part of the electoral redistribution. I will be very happy to support the head of that campus, Doug Fraser, and the work he does. I have had a very close relationship with the University of Queensland Ipswich campus and the Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Alan Rix and I will continue that relationship with the University of Southern Queensland’s Doug Fraser. I commend the work of the University of Southern Queensland in teaching many people from working class areas and from low-socioeconomic backgrounds who have never been to university before. In a meeting I had some months ago with Doug, I chatted with him about the demographics of the student population at the University of Southern Queensland campus in Springfield. He pointed out to me that they are hitting targets way beyond what we are suggesting here.

We want people from low-socioeconomic backgrounds to get an opportunity to go to university. We want more young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to have that benefit. We intend to invest massively to make sure that we increase the funding for higher education. Some of the data I have seen in relation to the previous government’s failures in relation to higher education is simply damning with respect to university research and the assistance given to those campuses engaged in areas like medicine, innovation, business innovation and things like the study of science et cetera. They simply failed, in that regard, to invest. So what the Rudd government is doing is undertaking a huge investment with respect to higher education. We are talking about $5.7 billion into the higher education sector. We are making sure that we attain our goals with respect to low-SES enrolment, and we are backing it up with funding. We are not just saying it; we are actually backing it up with support, because we know that the measures that we undertake here to support our higher education are crucial for our long-term economic growth, not just for social equity, social inclusion and social assistance to the disadvantaged. We know, as we get out of the global crisis, that we need to be a stronger but a fairer country, so it is so necessary to increase our funding in this regard.

The government has a very strong ambition with respect to having people from low-socioeconomic backgrounds at university and providing opportunity for them. We have a strong ambition that 40 per cent of all 25- to 34-year-olds will attain a bachelor’s qualification or above by 2025. We think that what will happen then is that our workforce will have skills, qualifications, abilities and talents that will help us compete, because that is what gives us the advantage with respect to markets and economic growth. Having a highly skilled workforce is absolutely crucial to ensuring that our future prosperity is attained and that our young people feel included in society. Higher education is not just important for economic growth and business opportunity and it is not just important in terms of social equity; it is important because those people engaged in higher education feel a greater sense of self-esteem and greater morale. They are more likely to feel part of a society and less likely to feel excluded. They are less likely to engage in criminal activities and more likely to be contributors and involved in civic and community life. So higher education has benefits not just in terms of economics and family life but in terms of civic life and adopting what I would describe as a more communitarian spirit—a desire to give back to your community and to the civic life of the country.

The legislation before the House is part of the fabric and matrix of the Rudd government’s commitment to higher education, something which I passionately support and which I believe is in the best interests of my country, the best interests of my state of Queensland and my region of South-East Queensland, and certainly the best interests of the constituents of the federal electorate of Blair. I support the legislation.

See this speech in context