Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to place on the record my staunch opposition to the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill, which is currently before the House. I am disgusted that this piece of legislation would even come before the House but I am even more appalled that those opposite have the gall to sign up to and come into this House to try to sell this piece of legislation to the parliament and to the communities that each and every one of them went out of their way to deceive at the last election. Now, we are not short of examples of where the government have broken very clear election commitments—where they have made a clear promise to the Australian public and then turfed it aside the moment they got on the government benches—but I do not know that there are many examples that are clearer than this piece of legislation before us in the parliament.

Let us just be very, very clear about what the Australian public were told before the election. Before the election, the Prime Minister said: 'I want to give people this absolute assurance: no cuts to education,' he said, on 1 September. The now education minister went further when he said: 'We're not going to raise fees.' He said: 'We have no plans to increase fees.' If you have listened to the Prime Minister, he says that if you want to make sure that he really means what he says, you have to make sure you get it in writing. Well, we have it in writing—in the Liberal policy document which spelt out for Australians exactly what those opposite would do if they were elected to government. What they told the Australian public before the election, in their own Liberal policy document, was:

We will ensure the continuation of the current arrangements of university funding.

That is from the Real solutions document. I am going to repeat that, just so that those opposite can be reminded of their treachery—of their utter deception and betrayal of the communities that they are meant to come in here and represent. This is what they said before the election:

We will ensure the continuation of the current arrangements of university funding.

Well, don't we hear a different story from them now! The previous speaker from the government side, rather than saying that they 'will ensure the continuation of the current arrangements', was bragging about how 'the bill we have before the House is the biggest reform in over 40 years to the higher education sector'. There was no talk about that before the election. There was no talk about the sustainability that is required in the higher education system. In fact, on every single thing that those opposite told the Australian communities—that there would be no change; there would be no increase in fees; there would be no higher education reforms—haven't they shown just the extent of their dishonesty, yet again, in this appalling piece of legislation.

So let us have a look at what they are instead proposing to do. Now we have before us a proposal which we know will hurt future students but also former students, current students, Australia's economy and our future prosperity. In front of us, rather than sticking with their pre-election commitments—of the current arrangements of our higher education sector, of no cuts to education, of no increases to university fees—what we see is a 20 per cent cut to university funding, a cut of $5.8 billion from universities, including slashing funding for undergraduate places by up to 37 per cent. That certainly looks like a cut to education to me, and to anyone else who has a look at this bill.

We have in front of us legislation to deregulate fees, allowing universities to charge what they like, so that students may face degrees costing over $100,000, with absolutely no limit on what they can be charged. So much can fees increase that the education minister himself has conceded that he cannot tell the Australian public just how much fees will increase—that he simply does not know. But the one thing that we all know is that he cannot keep and not a single member from the government benches opposite can keep the commitment that they made to their communities that fees would not increase, because they will. We know that up to $3,900 per year for higher research degrees such as PhD and Masters programs can be charged.

We know that this bill introduces a compounding, real interest rate for all HECS-HELP debts, both future and existing, so that it will be indexed by the 10-year government bond rate rather than at the consumer price index, and that what we will see is fees just continuing to increase and increase further. In fact, the lower the income that you are on when you graduate from university, or the greater the amount of time that you have out of the workforce, the more you will pay for your degree, because that is the way that this government operates. It is the poorest, the lowest income earners, who will pay the most for their education, because this government does not know the meaning of the word fairness.

We also know that they are cutting almost $174 million from the Research Training Scheme. That scheme supports training of Australia's research students, the scientists and academics of tomorrow.

I am proud to stand here and oppose this, because I know that $324½ million will be cut from South Australian universities, all of which have campuses in the electorate of Adelaide which I represent: Flinders University—$85.9 million cut; Adelaide University—$114.3 million cut; the University of South Australia—$124.3 million cut.

These changes are asking students to make an impossible choice. What this piece of legislation is doing is asking students to have to choose between pursuing their education or perhaps getting a mortgage and buying a house; between pursuing their dreams of an education or starting the family that they would like to have.

This piece of legislation is not only a very clear demonstration of a broken promise by each and every one of those opposite to the communities they are meant to come here and represent but also a betrayal of every student who hopes to one day go on and get an education. There is no way that massively inflated student fees will not deter those from disadvantaged backgrounds from deciding that they are just not willing to take on more debt—more debt than their family have ever shouldered in their lifetime—in order to go and get an education, and take the risk that they will get a job at the end of that education which will allow them to pay it back. And, by deregulating fees, universities will be able to charge as much as they like. This will, no doubt, lead to higher fees for students as universities look to prove their value by charging more. Recent research shows that degrees could skyrocket to over $100,000.

Nowhere in the world has deregulation of university fees led to price competition and lower fees for students. So those opposite who come in here spreading this nonsense about what a great deal students are getting out of this should look at every single piece of international research about what has happened elsewhere.

In the UK, fees were deregulated in 2012, with a cap of £9,000—unlike here, where this government will not put any such cap in place—but, for the 2015-16 academic year, there will only be two universities out of 123 that will not be charging the maximum £9,000. We see there, as we have seen everywhere else around the world, what the real impact of deregulation is, and the real impact of deregulation is slugging students and then slugging students again.

In the United States—the system that our education minister seems so keen for us to emulate, for some reason—university fee rises are out of control, to the extent that student debt now exceeds credit card debt. That is quite a vision for the Australian higher education sector—after telling the Australian public there would be no changes to the university sector.

We know that the higher interest rate of debt will mean those who earn less once they graduate, or who take time off to look after children, will be hit hardest, as their debt accumulates substantial interest. But it is not just every potential future university student that will be hit and hit hard by these changes. It is quite clear that these changes will hurt future students—it will burden them with a choking debt, or deter them from going to university at all—but what many may not know is that the legislation that is currently before the House will hit every current student, and past students too.

There are currently around 1.2 million Australians with a HECS-HELP debt who entered university with the understanding that that debt would attract CPI interest. This legislation increases the interest up to a massive six per cent. These students did not agree to this. This was not part of the deal that they signed up for when they went about getting their university education. This government is proposing to change the rules on them after the event. The contract has been ripped up. It is simply deceitful and it is simply unfair.

The Minister for Education has been particularly devious, deceitful and malicious in trying to get support for these incredibly unpopular changes. After months of everybody jumping up and down—talking about what an absolute betrayal these proposals are, talking about the immense damage that these proposals will do to our education system—the education minister has a new tactic for trying to win this debate.

He says: 'Backed by legislation, let me slash education funding to our higher education institutions—sure, we'll let them make it up, by deregulating fees and slugging students—because if you don't, I will slash Australian universities' research budgets.' This is the only way he can try and win the argument. Isn't that a way to win a debate, a debate that never should have come to this House! This debate is built on the deceit of every one of those opposite at the last election—blackmailing every university, blackmailing our future research. This extortion is the best argument that their minister can put forward. It just shows what an absolute disgrace this bill is.

We know that the higher compounding interest on HECS-HELP debts will mean that those who take more time out of the workforce to raise children or those in lower paid jobs will be much worse off and these students statistically are commonly female. Debts of students studying nursing, teaching, early education and similar degrees could actually end up being far greater than the debts of those studying the higher paying careers of engineering, law and medicine, because those who are on low or middle incomes will again be hit by these changes and be hit by the changes to interest rates. Those people who are on low and middle incomes who take time out of the workforce to raise their children will be hit by their debt compounding each and every year that they stay out of the workforce. We know that the debt will just keep racking up because those opposite have the gall to come in here and propose to do exactly the opposite of what they told the Australian public before the election.

The impact of this legislation—coupled with this government's $1 billion in cuts already announced to our childcare sector—will have severe impacts on women's workforce participation. We know that many of the university vice chancellors have spoken out and spoken out strongly. But I want to use the remainder of my time here today to tell you about some of the views of the people that I represent, the people of Adelaide, who I have been absolutely upfront with. Unlike every one of those opposite, who has deceived their own constituents, I have said all along that I will always fight in this place for greater access to education, for improvements to equality around our education system; I will not shut the door and make it harder for the generations that come after us.

One of my constituents, Jane, wrote to me saying:

Education is the key for keeping a sense of equality and the way to make us a clever country.

Why cut funding to Universities? Hearing Vice Chancellors ask how can they keep up the status quo let alone advance without increasing fees. I am appalled.

Another, Chloe, said:

I fear that younger generations may not have the freedom to pursue their passions because they will be restricted to choosing a course which has reduced subsidies and will guarantee them a job. This is not what university is about.

Mia wrote, saying:

I don't think I'll be affected by University fee deregulation, but how will younger members of my family ever hope to pay off their degrees? As I know you know, we struggle enough.

And Tom said:

These measures would discourage young people such as myself from seeking further education, potentially resulting in a lack of skilled labour in the country. What I find particularly distasteful is the idea of applying this interest rate to existing debts which were entered into in good faith, often by relatively naive teenagers straight from school. This includes people like me.

This legislation is thoroughly unpopular; not just because it is an appalling proposal but because it absolutely epitomises the pure dishonesty of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Education. Members opposite have put their names on the speaking list and dared to tell their constituents before the last election that there would be no cuts to education, no changes to our university fees system. And now they come in here proposing all of a sudden: 'Surprise! We're going to introduce these radical and backwards reforms.' I oppose this legislation and I am very proud to do so.

See this speech in context