Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications) Share this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to rise to speak on this matter of public importance, which attacks the Abbott government's reform package for higher education. And, as is typical of this opposition, it is strong on complaint but there is no plan of its own. By contrast, the Abbott government does have a plan.

The fundamental problem with this MPI is threefold: firstly, the government's higher education reforms strengthen the system and create more opportunities for students; secondly, this package is consistent with core principles of fairness—that is, if you get substantial private value from a university degree, you should bear a fair share of the cost of providing that degree; and, thirdly, this MPI makes no mention of the key equity safeguards that are built into the package but that are ignored in Labor's dishonest scare campaign.

These reforms strengthen the system and create more opportunities for students. Thanks to these reforms, there will be an additional 80,000 Commonwealth supported places by 2018, there will be 35,000 bachelor degree places and there will be 48,000 places for diploma, advanced diploma and associate degree students. There is an expansion of funding beyond the current players in the system to any registered higher education institution, including TAFES, private colleges and universities. These reforms allow a stronger university system in Australia; they allow Australian universities to maintain and, over time, improve their global ratings, which of course serve the interests of Australian students and gives more of them a globally recognised credential.

But do not just take my word for it. What is it that the Vice Chancellor of the Australian Catholic University, Professor Greg Craven, had to say? He said:

There are three good reasons … universities must be able to set their own fees …otherwise we cannot fund vital national research; the international perception of Australian higher education will decline; and students will get an education that is admittedly cheap but increasingly nasty.

These are the things that Professor Greg Craven says will happen if this Abbot government reform package does not go through.

Professor Sandra Harding of James Cook University said:

We shouldn't underestimate the size of these reforms or the need or urgency for these reforms. The status quo is not an option.

These reforms maintain and continue the reform direction laid down by the Bradley review of higher education in 2008. That review recommended opening up universities to everybody with the desire and the requisite ability to attend. The previous Labor government did half the job: they deregulated the number of places, but they rejected the Bradley recommendation that base funding per student going into the system should increase. And so we have an outcome where the number of places has increased, but at the same time the previous Labor government cut funding. And isn't this an absolutely classic Labor approach: great rhetoric, worthy goals, but no performance, no delivery, no plan as to how to make these outcomes actually materialise.

Belinda Robinson, of Universities Australia, said yesterday in the Australian Financial Review:

It is simply not possible to maintain the standards that students expect or the international reputation that Australia's university system enjoys without full fee deregulation.

So the reforms contained in the package that the Abbott government is putting forward, which education minister, Christopher Pyne, is leading, are reforms designed to strengthen the university system and, in turn, create more opportunities for Australian students.

The second point that goes to the fallacy of this MPI is that the policy approach the Abbott government is pursuing is consistent with a core principle of fairness—that is, if you get substantial private value from a university degree, it is only fair that you bear some of the cost. Again, do not just take my word for it. Former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating in 1995 said:

There is no such thing of course as free education—somebody has to pay.

Or the current shadow Treasurer, in his widely read 2013 book Hearts and Minds, said:

The Hawke Government also introduced the Higher Education Contribution Scheme as a way of raising more revenue to finance the extension of the number of university places … I supported it because I could see the inherent logic: our incomes would be higher because we had been to university.

Or, indeed, former Prime Minister Bob Hawke, interviewed in 1998 for Collective wisdom, said about HECS:

I don't have any problem with the concept of fees …. one of the greatest stupidities was the proposition that the Whitlam Labor government introduced of "free" education.

Or, of course, there is the man whose thoughts we turn to so often in this chamber, the shadow Assistant Treasurer, Andrew Leigh, who had this to say:

… government alone cannot provide all of the additional funding necessary for our universities to become top notch. More money is required from all sources, including students.

It is consistent with these basic principles of fairness, articulated by a series of Labor thinkers who I have quoted in this debate today, which underpins the logic of the approach the Abbott government is taking in its reforms in higher education to shift the proportion of the cost of a university degree, which is met by the student taking the degree from today's 40 per cent on average to 50 per cent on average.

The third point I want to make in the time available today is that we have had a disgraceful scare campaign, a dishonest scare campaign from the Labor Party about the likely outcomes in the education market place as universities go about setting their fees once they are given the freedom to do so. It is a disgraceful scare campaign, which ignores many of the facts and the opinions of key participants in the sector. What did the Vice Chancellor of La Trobe University have to say in the Financial Review on 15 September? He said:

… if given the freedom, universities can be trusted to be sensible on how they will price courses.

He added:

The best way to ensure moderate fee increases is to not set a ceiling on prices.

Indeed, much of the overblown commentary—the dire threats of the kind of fee level we might expect—seems to ignore the operation of a competitive market and the fact that Australian universities will be subject to competitive disciplines. It will not be feasible for them to set prices which are higher than students will be willing to pay and higher than their competitors charge. And, of course, it is not just domestic competitors but international competitors, online competitors and so on.

One of the other disgraceful misrepresentations which are commonly made in this debate by the Labor Party is that there is going to be in some way a removal of the HECS scheme. In fact, on the contrary, there will continue to be no up-front fees. Students will continue to have available to them the HECS scheme—now known as HELP—under which, rather than being required to pay up-front, they can accumulate a debt and pay that over time, and it is income contingent. You are not required to pay a dollar until such time as you reach the threshold, which is presently slightly over $50,000 a year.

What we also fail to hear about from the Labor Party are all of the other equity measures contained in this comprehensive package. There are measures for low-income students—those from a disadvantaged background. There is the proposed new Commonwealth scholarships scheme, which will benefit thousands of students from a disadvantaged background. Indeed, universities will be required to spend one dollar in five of additional revenue on scholarships for disadvantaged students. There are the elements to improve equity for regional students and regional campuses with a regional loading of $274 million over four years. The support is extended to private universities and non-university higher education providers, many of which have a very good record of getting non-traditional students into tertiary education. Again I quote Greg Craven of Australian Catholic University:

… Pyne has moved decisively to protect students entering lowly paid but socially vital professions.

… the cut to nurses and teachers, for example, will be noticeably less, recognising their relatively limited earning opportunities…

It is vital that there be reforms made to the higher education system to make it stronger and to give more opportunities for students. The coalition has a plan to do that. Labor has no plan; it just has the usual whingeing.

See this speech in context