Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014, which of course is one of the many measures that this government has failed to get rid of, notwithstanding the Prime Minister yesterday saying that it was going to be day one of good government. Despite him having said that, not one of the substantive budget measures that are so unpopular with the electorate has been discarded. In that vein, this bill, which is the bill to change the way that higher education works in this country, remains before the House.

I might say that it is disappointing but not surprising that the Liberal Party and the Liberal-National government are continuing to pursue this radical agenda of deregulation of higher education fees, along with the other changes in this legislation. I say 'disappointing but not surprising' because the fact is that every single member of the Liberal front bench—and, in fact, every single Liberal and National in this place and in the other place—supports the radical agenda of the coalition government to deregulate higher education and change the way that higher education operates in this country.

For some reason, it did not occur to the Liberal-National government and the members who voted in the recent spill that maybe it was their policies that might be the problem—that maybe this policy to deregulate higher education, among others, might be part of the problem. They blamed things like the knights and dames fiasco on Australia Day or the terrible result in the Queensland election or the Prime Minister's delivery style or whether a good enough sales job had been done, but of course that is actually not the root of the problem for this Abbott government or for any government that succeeds it, whether it is a Turnbull government or a Bishop government. The problem is that the Australian people absolutely cannot stand, and they abhor, the policies that were announced in last year's budget.

It is no wonder that we have had such a discombobulated coalition over the last few days. They are in such a state that 39 of them voted for a blank space in the leadership spill—39. I think there must be some Taylor Swift fans amongst the coalition when there are 39 voting for a blank space—there was no other candidate looking for the prime ministership, at least not publicly, and yet 39 of them voted for that blank space—and of course there was one informal vote. When I heard about it I, like other Taylor Swift fans, assumed that the person had just written on the ballot paper 'Taylor Swift for Hottest 100'. I know that is how I voted in the Hottest 100. I just assume that there are some Taylor Swift fans on the other side of the House who are voting for Shake It Off. But no-one in the coalition is shaking off the regressive and radical policies of this government that were announced in the 2014 budget. It is a budget that is a terrible shame, really, for the coalition.

Last year, at the beginning of 2014, the Prime Minister had a chance. He was standing there on the deck of the ship looking up at a beautiful albatross. That albatross was the chance to set a budget that really set the agenda for what his government would do for this nation. Instead of appreciating that opportunity, instead of appreciating that albatross, he killed the albatross. He killed it with ideology. He took aim at the albatross, and what have we seen ever since? The ancient mariner has been standing there with the stinking carcass of the albatross hanging around his neck, while the thousand thousand slimy things of his front bench look on. My colleagues know, very much, how unpopular that albatross around the Prime Minister's neck has been because we have all had so many people making representations to us about this stinking budget and about the measures such as the measures that are the subject of this debate today.

I am proud to stand here and defend the right of all Australians to pursue a tertiary education, no matter their circumstances. This bill represents the Liberal-National coalition's view that only people of great means should get a higher education. We reject this view. We believe that university education should be accessible to all Australians who show the aptitude, who work hard and who have the merit, regardless of their personal financial circumstances or those of their parents. Thanks to past Labor governments, including the Whitlam government, Australian students today are not, as in the United States, subjected to crushing lifelong debt when they get a university education. But, under the Liberals' radical and regressive agenda, this will change if this legislation is passed.

The Liberals' plan for $100,000 degrees will make a lot of people think twice before they pursue a university education, whether they are school leavers or they are mature-age students who are considering improving their opportunities and improving their skills and their knowledge. Women students from low-income backgrounds and students from regional Australia will be hardest hit by higher fees. It is a plan for Americanisation of our university system. It is not a plan that passes the fairness test. It is not a plan that passes the national interest test. It is just another broken promise from this Prime Minister and this government.

It was a promise that was made solemnly to the Australian people on the night before the election: there would be no cuts to education. It was made among many other promises, such as the promise that there would be no cuts to health—and we know that that promise has been broken. There was the promise that there would be no cuts to the ABC and the SBS—and we know that that promise has been broken. There was the promise that there would be no change to the GST—and we all know that the $80 billion cuts to health and education over 10 years to the states was intended to put the states in a position where they would have to argue for changes to the GST.

The cuts to education are yet another broken promise. Despite the minister's attempt to make this bill more palatable to the crossbenches and more palatable to the people of Australia, this bill still means $1.9 billion in cuts to Australian universities. It still means $100,000 degrees for undergraduate students. It still means $171 million in cuts to equity programs; $200 million in cuts to indexation of grant programs; $170 million in cuts to research training; fees for PhD students—for the first time ever; and $80 million in cuts to the Australian Research Council. The cuts to universities remain. The new fee imposts remain. Nothing of substance has changed—and Labor's position remains unchanged.

Despite speculation in recent weeks that the government would give up its budget attacks to achieve its ideological goals—attacks aimed at making it harder to get a higher education in this country and making it more expensive to visit the doctor—and would finally see sense and realise that it is its policies that are making this government so unpopular, this bill still intends to change the face of higher education in this country. It still slashes funding for Commonwealth-supported places in undergraduate degrees by an average of 20 per cent—for some courses up to 37 per cent. It still cuts indexation to university funding, which would cost universities $202 million over the forward estimates. On top of these cuts, the government intends to strip almost $174 million from the Research Training Scheme, which supports Australia's PhD students.

The legislation will also introduce fees for PhDs—for Doctors of Philosophy higher research degrees. The Liberals and Nationals want the scientists and academics of tomorrow, who are already giving up at least three years of income to pursue a PhD, to pay fees. People who are studying for PhDs are already being penalised for the time that they are giving up to pursue higher education. To now impose new fees on them is counterproductive for the agenda for productivity and prosperity for this nation. What we want to see is more people engaging in higher level research, engaging in PhDs and contributing to the wealth of knowledge of this nation. Instead, the government would like to impose fees on PhDs for the first time.

Like everything that this government has done since being elected, this bill just seeks to entrench in this country a society of haves and have-nots. You can see that from the policies that are so unpopular. The reason people hate the changes to the indexation of the pension is that that would make it more difficult for pensioners to bear their living costs and would put them in an even more difficult situation than they are already in. It is for the same reason that people hate the changes to the indexation of the Defence Force pension and the disability pension. It is for the same reason that people are so angry about the changes to Medicare—because they will change the way that people have access to health care in this country. Labor will never support any sort of policy approach that makes your ability to get health care contingent on your credit card as opposed to your Medicare card. We believe in universal health care. We believe in access to health care for everyone.

This bill's changes to higher education are actually about moving back to a Menzies-era idea that the worthy poor will have some charitable scholarships thrown to them while the rich will be able to pay for the expensive, elite degrees. You see situations in the US where working-class kids have to find sporting scholarships to go off to university. This country does not believe in a system where the more money you have the greater your access to higher education. We believe in a system based on merit, aptitude, hard work and attitude and not the financial circumstances of the person going to university or of their parents. That is because we are an egalitarian nation, and that goes to the very heart of our national identity. It is for the same reason that Bill Shorten has been talking about an Australian republic. We believe in this country that anyone who works hard can succeed—can even become the head of state. It is not about which class you were born into. It is not about whether you were born into wealth. It is not about the financial circumstances of your parents.

It is for the same reasons that we believe in opportunity for everyone. Yes, there has to be hard work. There is no such thing as handouts. But if you are prepared to work hard and if you are prepared to have the utter persistence that it takes to get through university and to get the marks you need to get in the first place, then we want to see you go to university. We do not want to see you having to decide between a lifelong debt and going to university. It is not part of what Labor stands for. We will always stand for the right of everyone—whether they be working class, middle class or otherwise—to get a university degree, if that is what they want and if they have aptitude for it.

Despite everything the government and the minister has said, there is no evidence that deregulation in education markets acts to reduce costs to students and their families. The experience of deregulation or the removal of price controls across the world in higher education is that fees increase and people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, women and mature age students get left out of higher education. As Labor have said consistently, we will fight this plan in this parliament and we will fight it in the community. Ultimately, we will win, because the community opposes this radical attack on our egalitarian way of life and the values that form a core part of the Australian identity.

We oppose in the strongest terms the removal of price controls on the cost of bachelor and subbachelor degrees. There is modelling that shows that this has the potential to see some degrees cost students $100,000. These are debts that will inevitably lead bright students to have to weigh up whether they can afford to study at the expense of buying a home or raising a family. It is just a nonsense to say that an extra $100,000 of debt is not going to be a material consideration for someone in deciding whether to go to university. It is just a nonsense to say that. It is inconceivable that any government in this country would seek to hamper the future opportunities of this country and of its people. We are seeing an economy that is transitioning away from reliance on mining to one that will rely on knowledge, innovation and services for future economic growth. So why would we hobble the opportunities available to our best and brightest? It is economic vandalism.

Of course, we have heard from the other side the predictable accusations that Labor is running a scare campaign. I love it when I am accused of running a scare campaign!

I remember one year ago this month running in the by-election in Griffith and having the Foreign Minister come to town and accuse me of running a scare campaign about a GP tax and having the Prime Minister come to town and tell 612 ABC that he had no plans for a GP tax. Of course, what transpired a few short months later in the budget? The GP tax transpired. So I know when Liberals accuse Labor of running a scare campaign, of scaremongering, that is code for saying that we are onto something—and we are certainly onto something with this radical change to the way that universities are funded and students are charged. Does anyone seriously believe the scaremongering accusation? And for that matter, can anyone really believe anything that this government says? I do not think anyone can and I do not think anyone will.

The program director at the University of Melbourne's LH Martin Institute, Geoff Sharrock, says the Go8 universities will significantly increase fees to fund research. After the budget he wrote:

Most universities will raise fees to at least offset their loss of income from government subsidies. Many will go further to boost the total level of income they'd receive, above 2014 levels. Either way, Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) debts will balloon.

He also wrote:

For Go8s especially, fee deregulation is almost a license to print HELP debt. Given their high cost base and market leader power they'll want to raise fees considerably, to finance their ambitions in teaching and research.

We know that when you take away price controls, it is just a nonsense to say that fees are not going to go up. Of course fees are going to go up—that is the whole point of taking away price controls.

The NTEU has also done some modelling and found that the average degree could cost from $40,000 to $65,000,with medical degree costs potentially increasing to $180,000.It has been said that those are fair. I do not accept that and neither does Labor. (Time expired)

See this speech in context