Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014 and I do so for a variety of reasons, not least because this is a very significant cut to higher education in this country. Higher education is absolutely vital for our nation, for our economy and, indeed, for our people. The fact that the government wants to dress this up as an opportunity, as the previous member had suggested, for disadvantaged students, I think, is quite absurd because the evidence does not bear out that at all.

I, like the previous speaker, was also the first person or first generation to have the opportunity to go to university in my family. That, of course, arose from the great reforms of the Whitlam government opening up opportunities for students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds to even contemplate enrolling in university. There were some limited scholarship opportunities but those reforms really did change the whole manner in which people thought of tertiary education and they did provide great opportunities for people of all walks of life in this nation to enrol in a course at a university. Of course there were many beneficiaries of those policies—many on the other side, including the Minister for Education, who wants to cut so much of the resources to universities. And those cuts are enclosed within this bill.

So there were beneficiaries. Those iconic reforms by the Whitlam government did lead to the opening up of universities and, yes, there were changes. The member for Longman mentioned the changes that occurred through the Dawkins reforms, where there was an understanding and a view that there should be a contribution made by students in order to enrol in university.

Yes, we would, in most instances, delay that cost to the student. But I think that where the previous speaker and other members on the other side have failed to convince me in relation to their arguments is their suggestion that somehow, because there were reforms introduced by a previous Labor government that provided for students to contribute to their higher education, if they just make some changes—for example, to the price of fees, to the rate of interest on those fees and to the point at which a person must commence contributing to pay back those fees—then that is not going to cause some problems.

The fact is that this bill will, of course, open up and enable universities to charge much higher fees to students if it is enacted. We will see fees at universities increasing, in some cases by 20 per cent and in some cases by a much greater rate. That is going to have a huge impact upon students, upon their capacity to pay and upon their life beyond the finalisation of degree. Further to that, it is going to influence students when they contemplate whether they are in a position to enrol at a university. It is going to make it harder for people who do not have the wherewithal and the resources to contemplate a huge impost—a massive loan—to be paid back after the completion of a course. In my view, it is going to alter the behaviour of students and alter their attitude, and we are going to see fewer people of talent taking up opportunities because of that.

The other concern I have is that this will apply to current students. You might recall that the Prime Minister and others said that this would not impact on current students, but that was untrue. There is an immediate impact. There is an impact during the life of the degrees that are currently being undertaken by undergraduates and it is going to be an impost on the students. And, of course, none of this was contemplated before the election and it is therefore a fundamental breach of faith with students and with the higher education sector to introduce such changes now.

The government says, of course, that in opening up the capacity for universities to set their own fees that they are opening up competition; and once you open up competition that competition will drive down prices. That may well be fine rhetoric but there is no evidence either here, when this was last undertaken by a previous coalition government—when Brendan Nelson was minister—or, indeed, when it was undertaken in Great Britain, when they opened up competition. There is no evidence to show that fees went down. In fact, in almost every circumstance fees not only went up but they went up significantly. This had a great adverse impact upon students and people set their sights lower as a result.

We think this is a terrible reform. Fundamentally, it is a shifting of cost from the Commonwealth to students. It is going to change the nature in which higher education will be accessible to students in this country. Labor will vote against these cuts to university funding and student support. Labor will not support a system of higher fees, bigger student debt, reduced access and greater inequality. We will never tell Australians that the quality of their education depends on their capacity to pay.

I made that clear in my first speech in 2002, that we should not determine those who go to university based on their money; we should be focused on people's merit, their capacity to learn and their capacity to undertake a course. But I am quite concerned that some of the degrees currently being provided by universities will be beyond the reach of students from many families, who will just be priced out of the market. That is, of course, a great concern.

Since the budget, we have seen that it is not only Labor that opposes the government's unfair and short-sighted higher education package; Australians generally oppose these measures. They oppose cutting public funding to undergraduate courses by up to 37 per cent. They oppose the $100,000 degrees that are likely to result from fee deregulation. They oppose the Americanisation of what is our world-class university system. Australians oppose these things because they understand the value of universities. I think that is something that is lost on the government and it is something that the government really needs to rethink.

The previous speaker mentioned a number of spokespeople in the higher education sector and what they think. I would like to place on the Hansard a number of comments made by very esteemed people in the universities and their views of some of these proposed reforms. Universities Australia chair, Professor Sandra Harding, warns that the changes are being rushed:

There are grave risks here.

Universities are being asked to set fees in an unprecedented market environment.

Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sydney, Professor Michael Spence, warns that fee deregulation risked pricing middle-class families out of a tertiary education and he said:

It's the ordinary Australians that I think aren't getting enough of a guernsey in this conversation.

The Vice-Chancellor of the University of Adelaide, Professor Warren Bebbington, said aspects of the changes were 'unworkable' and 'unduly harsh' and:

The compounding interest here [means] we might deliver debts to students of $70,000, $80,000, $100,000 and no-one here wanted that.

The University of Queensland Vice-Chancellor, Professor Peter Hoj, revealed that the budget would cost his university at least $60 million and will hurt students. He said:

I am generally concerned about the changes to the loan repayments. I do think that was very unexpected and I think that this is one of these things that really make the cuts to Government funding for students sting more than we had anticipated.

The HECS architect, Dr Bruce Chapman, who knows a great deal about this area of public policy warns 'the changes could lead to profiteering' and he said:

If universities have price discretion they will all take it … and could actually end up charging more than what it actually costs.

The UTS Vice-Chancellor, Ross Milburn, said:

I am genuinely concerned about the changes to the loan repayments. I do think that was very unexpected and I think that this is one of these things that really makes the cuts to Government funding for students sting more than we had anticipated.

The Swinburne University of Technology Vice-Chancellor, Linda Kristjanson, comprehensively trashed the Pyne package. In a message to Swinburne university staff on 27 May, the vice-chancellor, said:

Deregulation will inevitably lead to much higher fees for our students. Over time full fee deregulation will lead to a higher education characterised by the 'haves' and the 'have-nots'.

This is not me saying this, this is not Bill Shorten saying this, this is not members of the opposition saying this; these are quotes directly from those who are running universities in this country who are concerned about the changes that will be wrought if this bill is enacted and inflicted upon the higher education sector in this country. It is completely and utterly contrary to the so-called reasoning being proposed by those contributing to this debate from the government.

We have this strange world in which the vice-chancellors of universities have raised all of these concerns with the minister, who has clearly turned his back on them, and we have an array of government members coming to this place and of course repeating the same mantra that is fundamentally at odds with the vice-chancellors whom I have just quoted. Those experts in the field understand the consequences of this legislation. What is worse, so too do the government. Never mind what they are saying in this place—the government fully understand and indeed intend to deprive students from entering university by deregulating fees and enabling those price rises.

One after the other, university vice-chancellors and others, highly esteemed people in the sector, have raised concerns and not once has the minister acceded to the logic and concerns expressed by those whom I have quoted in this contribution tonight. So the government not only understand; the government do not care that this is the consequence of their action, because ultimately the government believe in a society where some people should get opportunities in certain universities and others should not even apply. That is their view of the world—some people should get opportunities and others should not apply.

I should take to task the member for Longman, who made an assertion about the expenditure by the previous government in higher education. Whatever cuts were made late in the piece by the previous government during its two terms, the resources we dedicated to higher education were unprecedented. We opened up opportunities for thousands and thousands of students, and ensured that fees did not rise at a rate that would price many students out of higher education. We had a demand-driven arrangement to enable students to enter great universities in this country and have opportunities that they may not have imagined without the support of government. The government has a role here and it is not about pretending that if you deregulate you are going to see a fall in prices. It has not happened anywhere else. Look at the prices and the fees at American institutions. Look at what happened when the British deregulated fees there and the increases that occurred. The fact is this is a terrible bill. We will oppose it. We will support the students, we will support their parents and we will oppose this to the bitter end. (Time expired)

See this speech in context