Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

This should be a debate about realising the Australia's potential and giving every Australian every chance to realise that potential. It is that simple and it is that important. What sort of country do we want to be? The choice is stark and the implications, the consequences, of that choice are frightening if this government's ideological vision for higher education and research in Australia is realised.

I acknowledge the sentiments sincerely expressed by the member for Lyons, the previous speaker, about equity and the transformative power of higher education. It is just disappointing, in fact, more than disappointing, it is tragic that they sit so uncomfortably with the legislation and the reform package that is before this House. This government proposes to constrain our future through this legislation and to boost inequality in Australia. It puts before us, once more, a broken promise which is also an agenda that is against our national interest and which would engineer a stark and deep social divide. So, I join with other Labor members in speaking in opposition to the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill.

As the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, Labor stands proudly for affordable, accessible higher education for all Australians. We stand here committed to fighting for the future and for the vital principle that quality of education must not depend on a person's capacity to pay. Furthermore, that equity and quality, in fact, go hand in hand. We know this. What is morally just, that demonstrated capacity should guide access to university courses, also ensures the best outcomes for individuals and for our nation. This is an inconvenient truth for those opposite, but it is a touchstone for Labor—it is part of the social compact we have built.

The Leader of the Opposition yesterday asked members opposite to put themselves in the shoes of the people these decisions will affect, to attempt to understand the barriers to participation in higher education, to attempt to understand the impact. This is an important challenge but one not likely to be taken up by members of this cynical government, especially in the context of this insidious so-called reform agenda. Yesterday evening the member for Gellibrand set out effectively the process—or lack thereof—that took the Abbott government to this point. It is an ambush, not a considered, informed approach—not the methodical and calm approach they spoke of before the election—to a sector so critical to Australia's economy and our society. Once again, it is policy on the run; prejudice and ideology triumphing over method, debate and consultation.

I do hope that members opposite seek to understand the reaction of the community. I have learnt so much by listening. This debate is about more than the technicalities of the bill before us, and indeed it is about more than the cuts contained within the legislation. We must seek to do justice to the concerns and the aspirations of the millions of people affected by the decision of this House. Since this government flagged wide-ranging and regressive reform along with deep cuts to higher education amounting to nearly $6 billion, I have been inundated with correspondence from constituents expressing apprehension and anger. At street stalls, too, people right across the Scullin electorate have made it clear to me that this is a major concern for them.

With the local impact of the Napthine government's TAFE cuts, people are right to see the future cost of life choices cut off so early as something that we must fight against with all of our strength. I have visited the Bundoora campus of RMIT, in my electorate, and the Bundoora campus of La Trobe, just outside. I met with staff and with students, and I listened. I have also visited Federation University in Ballarat, with the member for Ballarat—I am pleased she is in the House, along with the member for Gippsland, who also has a campus of that university in his electorate—and the University of Melbourne in Parkville so that I can come to this debate in this place with a broad perspective of the impacts. I heard many stories from people affected, and there was one common theme: don’t—don't push ahead with this regressive, ideological and divisive agenda; don't rip up the architecture of a fairer and more productive Australia. I was proud to be in the House yesterday as the Leader of the Opposition gave his passionate account of Labor's position on this bill, but most importantly he outlined Labor values in higher education—the values of fairness and opportunity; values that this legislation would cast aside.

This bill seeks to implement the government's budget announcements on higher education, namely to introduced unrestrained student fees, or fee deregulation; to impose a 20 per cent cut to the Commonwealth Grant Scheme for teaching; to make changes to the HECS repayment indexation rate and thresholds; to effect the cessation of the HECS-HELP benefit from next year; to charge fees for higher degrees by research students through the HECS system for the first time; and to change the indexation of university funding back to CPI from a rate that genuinely reflected the costs of institutions, introduced by the Labor government. These are radical changes unsupported by evidence, paving the way for huge fee increases—$100,000 degrees have been much spoken of and are a real concern, but of course some degrees such as medicine at sandstone universities could cost considerably more. This is compounded by the prospect of the introduction of real interest rates, accompanied by huge cuts to the public funding of courses.

It is important to reflect on the disingenuous if not downright dishonest second reading speech delivered by the Minister for Education. I want to take up a number of the falsehoods contained in that speech. The first is the allegation that this bill will spread opportunities to students. Thanks to changes Labor made, in particular during the Hawke-Keating and Rudd-Gillard governments, students now have unprecedented access to university education. Students from communities across Australia have made the most of this access in record numbers. This is essential if we want to move towards a high-skilled knowledge economy and give a diverse range of people effective access to university education. In that regard I think of all the first-in-family students I have met in the Scullin electorate who have benefited from the most recent expansion of higher education.

I ask one question of the minister: can the government point to any evidence that these changes will increase participation? He has had numerous opportunities, and unsurprisingly he has been unable to do so. The only opportunity this bill offers for students is a debt sentence, a lifetime of debt, crippling burdens and a huge disincentive to involvement in higher education.

The minister claimed that regional students and regional higher education institutions will benefit significantly from these changes, and, further, that many regional institutions have warmly welcomed this opportunity. I noted with interest that the minister cited Federation University in Ballarat in this regard. I visited Federation University a couple of weeks ago, with the local member, where we heard first-hand from university management, academic staff and students about what the proposed changes would mean to them, and it is difficult to overstate their concerns—what it means for Ballarat the city, as well as the institution. Staff see this as a huge threat to the important work they are doing and indeed to the very ethos and nature of the university they work in. Students, likewise, are more than apprehensive. Many I spoke with spoke quite movingly about the opportunities that have been opened up to them being denied to others in the future who have shared their circumstances. So many of these people simply could not have travelled to Melbourne to further their education, for financial reasons or sometimes for familial reasons.

The second falsehood the minister cites is that this bill supports equity and access. What a cynical statement from that most cynical of politicians. It is easy to see in this light how he can justify to himself how he fought for free education, when it was in his interest as a student politician, and now takes the opposite tack without blinking. Because this bill does the opposite. By burdening students with crippling debt and then pretending that a few scholarships—which would not be needed if it were not for the government's policy—will deal with concerns of access and equity, the minister is taking us back to his, or perhaps former Prime Minister John Howard's, rose-tinted, imagined Menzies era.

How does this support equity or access? The policy is like robbing something and replacing the stolen items with a scratchie, and, if they are lucky, their numbers will come up. But the fundamental point is that they would not need to be lucky if it were not for this government carving away opportunities. Getting into university should not be based on happenstance or parental wealth. It should be based on merit. This government is robbing students of previously equitable arrangements and replacing them with huge barriers to entry.

It is worth touching a little bit more on the scholarship proposal, because this is a pea and thimble trick. There is no Commonwealth money allocated for these scholarship funds, which means they will be funded on the basis of additional fees charged on students. In the kind of perverse bifurcation this government seems fond of, students will be paying for these scholarships.

Federation University's vice-chancellor, David Battersby, has belled the cat on this, particularly from a regional university standpoint, noting that major universities, the 'sandstone group of eight', will be able to charge higher fees, meaning regional universities are disadvantaged in competition. In other words, this scholarship fund will entrench existing positions in market power. So much for meaningful competition.

The third falsehood was the minister claiming that cutting funding to universities was equipping universities for change. He leaps from this proposition to cite universities in places like China, Hong Kong and Taiwan as rising through the rankings system. In seeking to draw these together, I ask of the minister and members opposite: where is the evidence that these brutal cuts will somehow equip universities from the challenges of the future? Where is the evidence they will equip universities for anything other than further entrenching their market position, and to give some universities the capacity to greatly increase their fees.

The fourth falsehood—no surprise here—is the claim for consultation. The minister has name-dropped Universities Australia in this regard, but Universities Australia chair, Professor Sandra Harding, warned that the changes were being rushed, saying:

There are grave risks here. Universities are being asked to set fees in an unprecedented market environment.

Previous Labor speakers have made clear the shoddiness of the process here. Going to the consultation, I note that the government has done no consultation whatever with staff at the universities, or their associations. There has been no consultation with the community, none with students and none with staff. The National Tertiary Education Union, which represents the interests of about 28,000 academic, professional and general staff, has done some important research into the government's proposed changes, as I am sure the member for Gippsland would be well aware. If the funding cuts went through and you cost shifted to students, the cost of some degrees would be more than $100,000. The move to a market interest rate would escalate student debts and they would be repaying them for years longer. The debt would run further out of control if the graduate were not earning above the repayment threshold. This scenario is particularly chilling for prospective women students as they realise that they could still be paying their student debt in their 50s, Just as their children want to go to university.

Make no mistake: there will be a deleterious impact on university staff, who are already under pressure from insecure work arrangements. Academics, who are the custodians of our future talent, are unsupported by this government in this endeavour. I think it is pretty obvious why the government has only chosen to ask a select few to speak to a select few in this regard. It is only interested in hearing from those who support its position. This is not consultation; this is policymaking by ambush.

Of course, the government went to the last election promising that there would be no cuts to education. I think we all remember that. And some of us also remember the 'Real Solutions' policy document. I think some copies may be found somewhere. It stated:

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

Indeed, after the election, the minister stated, 'We're not going to raise fees.' What a joke! The public could be forgiven for thinking that there would be no cuts to education and no rise in fees. That was what the government said and now the government, as with other broken promises, is relying on sophistry to claim disingenuously that it is not directly raising fees. Instead it is looking to blame the universities for this.

But this is not the sort of dissembling that has any currency with the Australian people. People in my community in Scullin and around Australia regard this count as a broken promise, because it is. Let us not forget that this government has cut all levels of education from early childhood all the way through to higher education. So much for the clever country! The government has made vicious cuts to universities—$5.8 billion to teaching, learning and research.

I spoke yesterday about the concerns of Nick from Mill Park, who expressed his concerns about being able to pursue his PhD in immunology. He said:

Cuts to education would mean that instead of educating the best and brightest here in Australia, they may either go overseas and never return or, they are discouraged from higher education, meaning they may never reach their full potential, or are prevented from contributing significantly to Australian society.

These cuts, in effect, would stop me from being the best that I could be, not for myself, but for Australia.

These cuts don't just deny or discourage students entry, they deny and discourage students following on with their studies. They deny Australia the full use of these students' capacities and talents.

Let's not forget that this is not solely about barriers to accessing higher education in the first place; it also impacts on what our best and brightest do next. Labor has a proud record on higher education, from Whitlam, who opened the universities to the general population, to Dawkins, who turbocharged this, and to the Rudd and Gillard governments, who completed the process by removing the cap on places. Labor opened up higher education and Labor continues to stand for affordable, accessible and quality education for all.

See this speech in context