Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It surprises me that seemingly rational and sensible people have fallen for the claim that the universality of our higher education system is dead as a result of the deregulation of our higher education sector. Their well-meaning concern stems from the fact that they think the poor will somehow miss out. They are right to be concerned about the poor, but they are wrong to think that the changes made in the budget make it harder for the poor to receive access to a high-quality education and the chance at a better life. The reverse is true. For starters, Australian taxpayers—and, by the way, this is not the poor—contribute 60 per cent of the cost of the tuition fees for students. Students currently cover only 40 per cent of the cost of their education through the Higher Education Loan Program, known as HELP. Despite paying only 40 per cent of the cost of their education, students who graduate with a bachelors degree boost their earnings by more than a million dollars, compared with someone who finished year 12 but has no post-school qualifications. These are not my figures, these are not the government's figures; these are the figures set out by the shadow assistant Treasurer Andrew Leigh in his book Battlers and Billionaires.

To make the system better reflect the benefit that each student receives and to keep it sustainable into the future, the government announced the deregulation of fees. However, this does not alter the fact that each student is still not paying the full value of their education but rather only a proportion despite that student receiving the full benefit. There well may be a fairness issue but I suspect the taxpayer would argument that it is not an issue of fairness for the student.

Is student debt a barrier to access for students in Australia? According to Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon it is. She declares that the Greens will use their position of power in the Senate to stop 'the Americanisation of higher education'. But is the situation with the US analogous? The short answer is no. While the US system offers scholarships for students of merit, just as we do in Australia, the fee structure is entirely different. First, American students are not subsidised by the taxpayer. Second, American students who do not have the finance to fund their degree take out a student loan. These are commercial loans with commercial interest rates, not loans from the government with capped interest, as they are in Australia. Third, the American student starts paying back their loan when they start to earn an income. The Australian student starts paying back the loan only when they earn over $50,000, meaning that some people do not pay for their education at all or pay only a small amount. No matter what the cost of a degree, no Australian student, whether rich or poor, who has met the relevant education standard is barred from receiving an education at a registered Australian institution. In fact more students than ever before will receive a higher education as a result of our budget. While some hold the rather elitist view that higher education is all about a university education, for those who truly believe in the transformative impact of education, it is clear that diplomas, advanced diplomas and associate degree courses at registered non-university higher education institutions can also improve knowledge and skills that lead to better job prospects and a more secure, satisfying life. Under the new budget arrangements the government's HELP loan scheme will apply to students wanting to undertake such study, assisting around 80,000 additional students per year to gain access to higher education. Obviously, the most disadvantaged in our community benefit most from this change, giving them access where there may have been limited or no access. It also offers even more choice to students who may not have considered this option.

The deregulation of the higher education sector will see higher education institutions able to diversify and compete on both product and price. While it is true, as critics have argued, that some fees will go up, it is also true that some fees will go down. We should not aim to have all of our institutions be the same with a prescribed one-size-fits-all approach. It consigns us to educational mediocrity and limits individuals' ability to make their own choice based on their own judgement of value. No wonder, then, that in the latest Times Higher Education reputation rankings Australian institutions have been slipping behind, with one of our top universities, Monash, falling out of the top 100 global rankings altogether. If we want to celebrate excellence, if we want to be amongst the world's best we need investment in OUR higher education institutions. Deregulation of fees will allow this. In addition, more Commonwealth scholarships will be created as a result of these changes, providing additional support for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds and regional areas. Institutions with enrolments of 500 or more Commonwealth supported places will need to allocate one dollar out of every five additional revenue they rose from student contributions to this new scholarship scheme.

Deregulation of our university sector will also allow us to preserve outreach in higher education exports. Currently, education is Australia's fourth-largest export earner, with higher education comprising two-thirds of education exports. The middle class in our own region will grow from 500 million today to over three billion by 2030. This is both an opportunity and a challenge. Universities in Asia have burst onto the scene and have been moving up the world rankings whilst Australia has been slipping behind. If we can attract students from overseas to our universities it will be to our advantage both in subsidising the education experience for Australian students but also in bringing the best and brightest in the world to us. That is why the quality of the educational experience and should always be paramount.

Finally, for those who argue that deregulating fees is not the solution to further investment in higher education let me give you a short history lesson. In his final budget, former Treasurer Peter Costello established the higher education endowment scheme. This $6 billion fund was the result of hard years of paying back Labor's $96 billion of debt. It was also the result of very serious economic reform, including tax reform and microeconomic reform. The capital of the fund was designed to be preserved and ultimately grown over time. The interest from the fund was to provide certainty of funding for higher education institutions, allowing them to invest and compete on the world stage. Sadly, Treasurer Swan dismantled this fund and blew half of the proceeds. This was done in concert with the government partners of the time, the Greens. Clearly, Labor and the Greens cannot be trusted with the future educational opportunities of young Australians. Their default response is always, as we have seen only recently, to wreck and not build.

When people talk about reduced access and greater inequality in our higher education sector, they seem to have scant regard for the generations that follow them. For the system to be truly fair and truly universal it needs to be constantly improving, not slipping behind. It also needs to be strong and robust enough to provide future generations with the educational opportunities and with even greater choices than previous generations have enjoyed. This means making it sustainable and accessible for the future—an education revolution, if you will.

See this speech in context