Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is appropriate that I get to respond to that talk from the member for Blair on this Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014 as I am a member of the National Party representing a rural area and have a passion for the value of higher education and how it can help people. There is no doubt that we need to diversify our rural economies. One of the ways we will diversify our rural economies is to make sure our country kids have access to higher education. Higher education has a purpose; it has a role. We have some very smart and dedicated country people.

'Labor will never support this' is what I heard. I listened to that speech for 15 minutes. I sat here quietly and did not interject. 'Labor will never support this' seems to be the theme running through this parliament. We need to look at reforms; we need to look at things and how we can make them better. Sometimes change is bad and sometimes change is good. To have a blanket rule that 'Labor will never support this' does make it very difficult to take them as a credible future government, because they have not put forward any ideas. I listened to the last 15 minutes. There was lots of criticism about what is wrong with it but not one solution, one suggestion or even hint about how we can make it better.

Do we need change? Yes, because the fundamental problem is we are encouraging more people to do higher education. That is not a bad problem, but it is one that raises the issues of affordability and sustainability. If we want people to do higher education we need to make sure that both they can afford it and the country can afford it in order for them to be able to follow their dreams and aspirations.

Will these changes improve things? When I spoke on this bill the first time round I said there were some key things that did need to be seriously considered and amended in the legislation. I said we needed to be looking at freezing HECS to the CPI and not the government bond rate. That has been amended in this legislation now. I said we needed greater spending on the Higher Education Participation Program to recognise that some of our poorer regional towns have some disadvantage and there needed to be an additional scholarship program. That has been addressed in this legislation.

I still think there is value in socialising the Commonwealth scholarship funds. They do have 'Commonwealth' in the name for a reason—because they are to make the common people enjoy the wealth of Australia. They should be socialised so people in country towns can access the opportunities that some people in the cities have. I do think there does need to be additional recognition of the burden on families when a person is not able to do a course in the regional city and has to travel. One of the greatest costs for country kids that many city kids do not have is the cost of living away from home. It can be in the vicinity of $20,000 per family. That is a significant cost. That is well above consideration of HECS.

I was told the story the other day of a father who was so proud that he had sent his three kids to university. This was the first time in his family's history that anyone had had higher education. He was so proud that his son had a business card. He said to me, 'Can you imagine, my son has a business card?' When he went to the open day at the university he was inquiring about accommodation for his son. He was living in Mildura where the family was and he had to travel to Melbourne, so it was a six-hour drive. The lady there he was talking to was complaining fiercely about the price of HECS, the price of fees—fees, I might add, under this legislation that have a very low interest rate and you do not actually pay back until you earn over $50,000 a year. She was waxing lyrical about this. The humble farmer said: 'I am not actually so worried about the HECS fees. That is an amazing system. You do not have to pay that until you are earning. I am worried about how we are going to come up with $100,000 over the years, considering where grape prices are and what we are getting paid, to keep a roof over his head and keep him fed.'

This is one of the concerns about higher education—ensuring equity. Country kids have to travel further. Country kids whilst they are living away from home feel somewhat guilty that the family is working very hard to put a roof over their head and they sometimes do not finish their course.

I listened to the 15-minute rant I suppose from the Labor Party asking what the Nats are doing. It showed me that they have no comprehension of the issues about regionality and access to higher education. I also tackle them on what I think has been one of the greatest travesties out of this whole debate—and that is the politicking around it. There is no doubt that we do need to change within our universities. We want to have affordability for the student, affordability for the country and sustainability. We do need change, but in the debate around this we have had the Labor Party going out publicly and talking about $100,000 degrees.

La Trobe University has a campus in Mildura and they have made it very clear that next year the fees to enrol will only go up by a maximum of 10 per cent. So you are talking about $16,000 to do a degree. To scare people and play politics and talk about $100,000 degrees is so irresponsible. I do not usually get very angry in this place, but I do get angry about that, because in my electorate in 2015 enrolment numbers are down. People are saying to me that they do want to do a degree but not a $100,000 degree. The misinformation—which was made, just to score a political point—has taken away the aspirations of some of the young people in my electorate, and I think that is appalling. I think that people in this place should be able to engage in a political debate without exaggeration, without overstatement, and with an understanding that the impact of the words they say in this place can have a bearing on other people's lives.

I say this to the Labor Party. I am happy to have a discussion with you about whether we need change. If we do need change, I am happy to have a discussion with you about how we can make it better. But I am very unhappy indeed, that there are probably hundreds of teenagers—17-, 18- or 19-year-olds—who are now probably not going on to university because of your callous way of having a debate. Surely to goodness we can have a reasoned debate in this country that is built on fact and not built on misinformation just score a political point. That has been very disappointing.

The role of regional universities is very important. When we think about how we should change our university funding, there is some scope to make sure that the campus where a student studies receives the benefit of funding for that student. I am concerned that Federation University and Latrobe University—both good universities—want to pool resources back at their main hub. I want to see a program that certainly pushes towards expanding regional opportunities, because not everyone can shift away. I want people—like the single mum, who lives in a town, or the person who, for social or cultural reasons, is not able to move away from their family—to be able to become teachers or nurses, or to pursue their dreams, and not have to shift away, because sometimes they are just not able to shift away.

I am disappointed that Federation University, which used to offer years 1, 2 and 3 of nursing in Horsham, is now only offering years 1 and 2, and the third year is offered back in Ballarat. I know that, usually, where people complete their university is where they put their roots down. Those people that are likely to stay there. We have actually seen this. When La Trobe University did teaching and nursing training in Mildura, that is where our teaching and nurses came from. We spend so much time talking about how we are going to attract people from the city to the country. It is so much easier to skill-up people who are already from the country to stay in the country. In doing that, the funding mechanism has to be developed to recognise the specific campus where people are doing the training and get funding to that campus.

We cannot survive the way we have been. We have significant financial challenges and we have a population that has greater university aspirations. I know that universities can increase your earning capacity. I think it is important that we teach our young people out there that university education is an investment. It is not just a right; it is an investment.

I did not have the luxury of going to university. We tend to think that everyone in this place has higher education and has great skills in that area. I got my education in shearing sheds north of Broken Hill. It was a different education, but it was in education nonetheless. There is good value in educational opportunities in our universities, but we need to make them sustainable and affordable and we need to look after regional Australians. Change can be good. Change can certainly benefit.

I continue to ask for four key things. The first is that HECS—our student loan system, which is a good system—is based on CPI and not the government bond rate. That has been amended in this legislation. The second is that there should be greater spending on the Higher Education Participation Program. That has been amended in this legislation. The third is socialising the Commonwealth Scholarship Fund to make sure that more people can access that fund. The fourth is introducing assistance for those who need to travel a greater distance for their university course. These are four changes that I think we need to adopt.

This bill has a lot of good in it. To scare people and run the narrative that $100,000 university fees are somehow going to be the result of this government policy is irresponsible. I wish the Labor Party would partake in debate for the betterment of the country, rather than creating misinformation and trying to score political points.

See this speech in context