Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

the Higher Education Research and Reform Amendment Bill 2014 is bad legislation from a bad government that has total disrespect for Australia's future.

The legislation is another broken promise from a government that said one thing before the election and another thing after the election. It is an attack on universities. It is an attack on students. It is an attack on research. And it is an attack on Australia's future. It was very interesting to hear the previous speaker, the member for Bradfield, talk about Australia's economic future. I do not think there is any piece of legislation that we have discussed in this parliament in recent times that has the potential to be a greater attack on Australia's economic future as a 'Knowledge Nation'.

Unfortunately, the Abbott government, and previously the Howard government, have always believed that university education should only be enjoyed by those in our society who they consider are the right type of people: people who are wealthy, people who have the money to pay. It has no commitment to a fair go. It has always been committed to some form of social engineering whereby it ensures that those people who they deem are the right kind of people to undertake a university education are the ones who do so. It is the Liberal way.

When Brendan Nelson, the former member for Bradfield, was the Minister for Education, he made very, very telling comments. In one newspaper—and I am paraphrasing his words—the former education minister said that introducing fee flexibility would mean some courses would rise, some courses would drop and some would stay the same according to demand. He also said that some courses may increase their tuition fees in some disciplines, some institutions intended to reduce their fees and some university vice-chancellors had always said that they would not charge their HECS charges, and that it was quite wrong for critics to say that every HECS charge will go up by 30 per cent. Does that sound familiar? That is exactly what Christopher Pyne is saying when he talks about this legislation and those statements that Brendan Nelson made at the time were proven wrong.

This legislation is opposed by most of the people who I represent in this parliament. This government is committed to the $200,000 degrees, which will come from fee deregulation. We on this side of the parliament are opposed to cutting public funding. We are opposed to the Americanisation of our world-class university system. Every step along the way and every piece of legislation that this government introduces in the parliament is taking us towards the Americanisation of universities and health, and the government has no consideration whatsoever for the overall value that universities and health play in our society.

The opposition values the role of universities. We value this role not only in the way it helps to educate individuals but also in its contribution to communities—communities like the community I come from, where the University of Newcastle plays a vital role. I must put on the record that that university has some very serious concerns about the impact of this legislation. It does oppose, I believe, any scenario which would reduce funding either to the Commonwealth Grants Scheme or to research allocations to universities. Unfortunately, this legislation has the potential to do that.

Research-intensive universities located in regions, such as the University of Newcastle, are uniquely vulnerable to the proposed cuts. Newcastle university conducts world-class research, so it is not only the increase in the cost of a degree but it is the impact that it will have on research. Newcastle university understands that fee deregulation will impact on students attending the university and the university itself.

I have read through literature that shows when fees were deregulated in the UK it led to an increase in the cost of university education. Education at universities in the US is practically unaffordable. Every single university over there really makes it very difficult for students actually to attend.

It seems to me that this is the vision that this government has for universities. It is pretty much what the Minister for Education has to say about deregulation. We heard about what Brendan Nelson said previously and those words are mimicked by Christopher Pyne when he talks about full fee deregulation. Every single university will end up having a 20 per cent cut to funding and that will put enormous stress upon the universities.

I do value the role of universities and, coming from the area that I do, I acknowledge that it has only been by government supporting universities that the Newcastle university has grown to the position it is in at the moment. It is one of the top universities in Australia and it is respected worldwide. It is only because of the support that has been given to universities such as Newcastle, which are located in disadvantaged areas, that they can continue to deliver world-class research and innovation in their communities. In a deregulated market it is going to be very difficult for that to continue. The University of Newcastle is ranked in the top three per cent of universities in the world, in the top 10 universities in Australia for research and for quality teaching, and is the top university in Australia under 50 years of age. Not a bad performing university.

The Shortland electorate has a fairly low median income. The median weekly income is $1,287, compared to some Liberal electorates like Wentworth where the median income is $2,643 or even the member Sturt electorate where it is over $1,500 a week. I notice the member for Dobell is sitting in the chamber. I know that people living on the Central Coast have a low-median weekly income and she acknowledges that. There have been enormous problems with students on the Central Coast being able to access university and the retention rate at schools is very low. We need every incentive possible to enable those students to attend university.

This legislation before us today will make it harder for those students. When those students are faced with the thought of having to repay loans, that is one of the major blocks to them undertaking university. We should be encouraging and facilitating all those young people who want to go to university to go to university, but this legislation has so many blocks in place—blocks to research and the development of that side of university and blocks to encouraging disadvantaged students to attend university.

Another feature of Newcastle university is that more than 60 per cent of the undergraduate students are considered non-school leavers. I attended Newcastle university. When I left school, I decided I needed time off before I went to university. I could have gone straight to university, but I did not. When I did decide to go to university, there was absolutely no way I would have considered going if I had been confronted with the possibility of incurring a debt, the kind of debt that students will incur going to university under this legislation and debt that will attract a real rate of interest.

This will discourage mature-age people from going to university. I am sure there are some on the other side of this House who would prefer that I had not gone back to university. I feel that our community has really benefited enormously from mature-age students. I have a number of friends who went to university as their children got older and did the Open Foundation and became teachers and nurses. This is something that Newcastle university nurtures. I believe that this legislation is anti-student, anti-university, anti-research and anti-Australian. Deregulation has not made university fees any cheaper overseas. In fact, it has led to universities charging higher fees. When the real interest rates are put in place on HECS loans, we know they will go up and go up substantially. These loans are really a hidden subsidy. The indexing of HECS-HELP loans at CPI is a core part of the scheme's original design. The architect of HECS, Bruce Chapman, described it as having insurance. Now to apply real interest rates to HECS is regressive. Everybody to whom I have spoken to oppose this. I have met with a number of parents and with students, and they are very worried about this.

Under the current proposal for the Commonwealth Scholarship Scheme, the wealthier students and the higher-charging courses will end up with more money to give to those scholarships. It is very unfair in the way it will work. One in $5 of the additional revenue universities raise above their per student capita will go towards this scheme. That will entrench even further an unfair system, a system that is going to attack our universities, attack our students. It will mean that the already privileged universities will be able to use the money for other students and regional universities will have to choose between raising fees to offer scholarships.

This will work against universities in regions like Newcastle. Newcastle university is strong under every single criteria. It is a great university for research. It is very innovative. It has done a lot to welcome and encourage students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds as well as providing very high-quality courses. I strongly oppose this legislation. It is bad legislation on every possible front and the government needs to go back to the drawing board and come up with something that is fair and equitable.

See this speech in context