Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

One of the things I am quite proud of, which this parliament has done since the budget, is that it has blocked these terrible higher education reforms. I am proud that it has blocked these terrible higher education reforms because these reforms would limit access and would prevent thousands and thousands of young people, thousands and thousands of students from low SES backgrounds and from regional backgrounds, from accessing university.

The system we currently have, which is a legacy of Labor governments, has increased students' participation and people attending university. Because of the efforts of this parliament to block these reforms, there are thousands of students right now preparing themselves to go to university under the current system—students who are packing up and getting ready, some who are moving away from home, to take up an offer to go to one of our many institutions around this country. It is a time of great excitement and great hope.

Two students in my own electorate who are taking up this opportunity and moving to Melbourne to take that first step into higher education are this week spending a week volunteering in my office here in parliament. I asked Jacob, 'What's your story about going to university?' His story is that he has just finished year 12 at Girton Grammar and completed his studies with an ATAR score of 94.55. It is a very high score, for those who know the Victorian education system. Why the University of Melbourne? After attending an open day, he discovered that he really liked the model that they had put forward. Jacob will be studying criminology and politics, a Bachelor of Arts. He liked the diversity of the courses on offer.

When asked, 'What are some of the things you might be worried about?' he said, 'Moving out of home brings excitement, but it's a big step.' Moving to a much bigger and busier city, from Bendigo to Melbourne, can also be quite daunting and a challenge. When asked, 'What are you excited about?' he said the degree excites him—the passion that he has for the potential subjects and courses he could be studying. To be able to be in control of his education, especially after a greatly controlled high school system; to begin a new chapter in his life, moving out of home and starting afresh in a completely new city; to learn about the great variety of things and to become more involved in the world—these are Jacob's hopes. These are exactly the people that we want to be entering education, regardless of where they live, regardless of their demography.

Catherine, who is also with us this week, completed year 12 in Bendigo with an ATAR score of 97.6—again, a bright person who should have a bright future. It should be her entrance mark that determines whether she goes to university, not the size of her parents' pay packet and not how much debt she is willing to get herself into. Catherine was raised by a single mother, a teacher with four children, who managed to put Catherine's three older brothers through university, including postgraduate degrees for two of them, and intends to do the same for Catherine. This is a mother with an ambition that her children would still go to university, all made possible because our current system is not based upon the amount of debt that you are willing to get into or the amount of money your parents earn but upon your ability, your education and your scores.

When I asked Catherine, 'What are you worried about?' again it was the cost of living. Catherine will be moving from Bendigo to the University of Melbourne, and the cost is expensive if you choose to live on campus. She believes that lots of rural students worry about that big change in moving from the country to the city and the costs associated. She is excited about being able to learn not only in depth about subjects but about the breadth of subjects that interest her, history, literature and politics; living in a city that is vastly different to Bendigo and that has its own political interests and cultural events; and meeting, through her course, students from all over the country and the world that have the same interests as she does—the hopes and dreams of young people today. This is exactly who we want to be going to university.

Yet, under these reforms, next year's year 12 students may not have that opportunity if these changes go through. The goal of any government should be that demography should not determine your destiny and whether you go to university. It should be your ability, not your ability to pay, that determines whether you get access to university. What I find so frustrating in this debate is that they are a frontbench that either had free university education or had access to university through an affordable HEC Scheme as long as they had the mark. This proposal is not an affordable HEC Scheme. This proposal of deferring up to or more than $100,000 worth of debt is not an affordable option for so many students. The Catherines, the Jacobs and the thousands of other Bendigo students seeking higher education might not have enrolled if these reforms had been passed last year in this House.

The government's proposal to change higher education tears down the idea that background and circumstance of birth are no barrier to educational excellence and that every Australian can contribute to our nation's success. A university education is one of the most important pathways and opportunities for individuals, for their families and for our communities.

It is really rich for the members opposite to say that Labor is not contributing to this debate. That is why our speaking list is full. This is debate. Just because we do not agree with their ideas and their proposals, it does not mean that we are being obstructionist. It means we are disagreeing with their proposals because they are bad proposals.

For members opposite to stand up here and say that these changes will not result in higher fees that students have to pay means that they are not actually reading the detail of the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014, the bill before us. If you cut by 20 per cent the university funding for student courses, student funding, then the universities have to cut the quality of their courses, find the money from somewhere else or increase fees. And all the universities are coming out to say that if that fee cut goes ahead, if their funding is cut, if the fee per student that they currently get from the government is cut, they will be forced to increase fees. The government has virtually guaranteed that fees will increase because, in these reforms before us today, that 20 per cent cut to student funding for universities is still on the table.

In a recent article in the Bendigo Advertiser, a spokesperson for the university in my electorate, the La Trobe Bendigo campus, said that the university shared my concerns about the government's higher education policies. He said that the university does oppose the 20 per cent cut and has constantly, in its lobbying of the government through the Innovative Research Universities as well as through the peak body Universities Australia, put this case to the government. Wait a minute! Where is the minister for higher education standing up and saying that to this House? The minister for higher education is very quick to quote La Trobe University, but he is not giving the detail that it opposes the 20 per cent cut to student funding. Not many of the speakers opposite have mentioned that in their speeches either. This is why we are continuing to say that when you deregulate university fees and cut the student funding provided to those universities for those courses it will guarantee an increase in the fees that students will have to pay.

At the University of Melbourne some modelling was done to suggest that courses like medicine could cost between $100,000 and $200,000 over the course of the degree. That is a lot of money to be asking somebody to get into debt for. This is what is on the table if we do not set the fees through our government legislation. If you deregulate university fees and allow universities to set the fees, we will see the cost of courses go up as much as that. We will see that happen sooner than the government might like, because they are also cutting funding to the universities.

All experts agree that fees will rise. In some cases, the average cost of degrees could be up from $40,000 to $65,000—for your social work degree or your teaching degree. Medical degrees, as I have said, could be as high as $200,000. The University of Western Australia, the University of Canberra and the University of Melbourne have all come forward to say what would happen at their campuses if this package were to go through in its current form. The impact on regional campuses will be huge. We have already seen regional campuses express their concerns about what will happen to the cohort of students that have come in.

My own campus, La Trobe Bendigo, employs close to 500 people and injects millions of dollars into the local economy. The university is a vital part of our city's culture through the courses that it offers and the students that live here, as well as its academic and support staff. The story for 2015 has begun well for this campus, because these reforms have not gone through. The uptake of university student offers continues to be healthy. The La Trobe campus recently made first-round offers for just over 1,500 places, which is on par with previous years. Forty per cent of those were made to local students. The most popular courses were those within the School of Rural Health, which was funded and built by the former Labor government. The university expects the offers to rise to 1,800 in the next few weeks as it goes to second and direct round offers. The campus this year will have another healthy year of students—but next year it will not, if these reforms go through.

Fee deregulation is a barrier. Saying to somebody that it is okay because you can defer the cost of the course does not give people confidence. Do not place young people in this country in the position that you were never placed in by saying to them: 'You can get yourself into $100,000 worth of student debt, but don't worry. You can defer it.' If this young person then chooses to buy a home or to work overseas, the banks will look at the debt they have to decide whether they will lend them the money or not. We are already hearing cases of people saying that, because they will not earn as much if they choose a career in social work or teaching, they are concerned that over the life of their courses they will not earn enough to pay off this debt.

If we are genuine about trying to ensure that students from low SES go to university and that regional students have the same access to higher education as Jacob, Catherine and thousands of other students from central Victoria moving to university for the first time over the next few weeks, then we have to have an education system that is fair. We have to have an education system that is not based on your willingness to get into debt but upon your ability and on the scores that you have from school.

I just want to mention my second cousin Hayley. She is the first in her immediate family to be offered a university place. My cousin Amanda had Hayley at the age of 18. I was taking my gap year when Hayley was born. In a few weeks, she will start her teaching course at Griffith University. Her family is so proud that one of their children—Hayley—will start university at Griffith to become a teacher. Do not deny other Hayleys the opportunity to be the first in their family to go to university by saying that it is acceptable and okay under fee deregulation for Hayley to pay upwards— (Time expired)

See this speech in context