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

This debate around higher education reform is a critical one for our nation. I have been listening very carefully to the points raised by those opposite. I think it is critically important at this time that we separate fact from fiction. There are three issues that I would like to address in my speech to the House today. The first relates to the claim about fairness, the second relates to the claim about the Americanisation of our higher education system, and the third relates to increased access to higher education. It surprises me that seemingly quite rational 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 concerns stems from the fact that they think the poor will somehow miss out. But they are wrong.

We are right to be concerned about the poor, but it is wrong to think that the changes made in the budget make it harder for the poor to receive access to 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 only cover around 40 per cent of the cost of their education through the Higher Education Loan Program, or HELP. Despite paying only 40 per cent of the cost of their education, students who graduate with a bachelor degree boost their earnings by more than $1 million when compared with someone who finished year 12 but has no post-school qualifications. These are not my figures. These are the figures quoted by the shadow assistant treasurer, Andrew Leigh. He suggested in his book Battlers and Billionaires that this was an area ripe for reform. Deregulation of fees is something that we need to do—to make it more fair for the Australian taxpayer. That is why we have focused on rebalancing this equation, through the deregulation of fees, from around 60:40 to 40:60—the other way around—on average.

There have been a number of claims also made that these reforms will somehow lead to the Americanisation of our higher education sector. But is the comparison with the US remotely analogous? The answer to that is: absolutely not. We have to understand that, unlike Australian students, American students are not subsidised by the taxpayer. American students who do not have finance and do not have the ability to finance their degree actually take out a student loan. These are commercial loans with commercial interest rates, not government loans with capped interest as they are in Australia. American students start paying back their loan when they start to earn an income—unlike students in Australia, who only start paying back their government loan when they are earning more than $50,000 per year.

There are a number of people across the chamber who have a rather elitist view of our higher education sector. They believe it is all about university education. If you 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 improve skills that lead to better job prospects. Under the new budget arrangements the government's HELP loan scheme will apply to students wanting to undertake this sort of study. This will assist around 80,000 additional students to gain access to higher education. The people who will be most advantaged by this change are some of the most disadvantaged in our community, giving them access where they had limited or no access before. It also gives more choice to students who previously may not have even thought about higher education as an option.

We in this place have to make serious decisions for the long-term benefit of Australians, not only today but also for future generations. For the system to be truly fair and to be truly universal we need to make sure that our higher education system is constantly improving and not slipping behind as we have seen with recent world rankings. It needs to be strong, it needs to be robust, it needs to be universal and it needs to be fair. That is what our higher education reforms deliver and that is why I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context