Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Hansard source

In a week of chaos by this government, in a week of instability and, quite frankly, non-adult government, we have seen mea culpas come flowing about poor salesmanship and about not getting the message right, but what the government really need to do is actually start changing their policies, start listening. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Education and Training need to start listening to their backbench. They need to start listening to the Senate and they need to start listening to the Australian people and abandon their plan for $100,000 university degrees.

This policy is completely unacceptable. It is unacceptable to the Australian public for many reasons—first, because it is unfair. Why should it be that only those who can afford to go to university, those who are willing to rack up $100,000 or more in debt, should get that opportunity? Well, it should not. On this side of the House, we believe that the best, the brightest, those that have the ability, should get the opportunity, no matter what their postcode or their income.

It is not surprising that the public are surprised when the Liberal-National Party bring in their plan for $100,000 degrees, because, in their Real Solutionsdocument—and we have heard a little bit about Real Solutions today—they said they would not change the arrangements for funding universities. That is right. It was very clearly stated and spelt out for the Australian people. When they got into government, they did not jump to breaking this promise straightaway, unlike many of their other promises. They maintained that they would not change the way that universities were funded. The minister for education, on Sky News back in November 2013, after the election, said, referring to university fees:

I'm not even considering it because we promised that we wouldn't.

Tony Abbott made it very clear before the election that we would keep our promises.

We want university students to make their contribution, but we're not going to raise fees and we're not going to put the cap back on.

Well, it did not take long for this promise to be broken. Indeed, on the night of the budget—although I think it was leaked the day before—we saw their plan to deregulate university fees, which will lead to $100,000 degrees. Of course, they could not get it through the Senate. They tried at the end of last year to get it through the Senate, but the Senate was listening to the Australian people—well, the majority of the Senate was listening to the Australian people. It rejected this legislation because it was completely unfair. It completely went against the grain of what is understood in this country to be a fair go.

Despite what the minister has said on regular occasions—that this would lead to a decrease in fees, not an increase in fees—he has been unable to table any evidence to show that deregulating universities will actually lead to a decrease in fees. We only need to look at other countries to see the impact. In the United States—where they have a system which the minister for education seems very keen to emulate—we have seen student debt exceed credit card debt: $1.2 trillion worth of student debt is the impact that unregulated fees lead to. We have also the more recent example of the United Kingdom, where, with the deregulation of fees, up to a cap of 9,000 pounds, only two universities, out of 123, have not gone straight up to the cap. Despite what the Liberal-National Party say about deregulation driving fees down, there is absolutely no evidence. Despite there being no evidence, they continue to peddle this unfair policy that will lead to $100,000 university degrees.

We know that fees will go up under this plan because the Liberal-National Party in their legislation have cut 20 per cent on average—we know in some areas it is more—from universities, forcing them to increase fees for students, which will have an unfair impact on them. Despite what the minister says—that it is just a small cut, or a range of different excuses—no university in this country is cheering on the government, saying, 'We want this cut of 20 per cent because we know what it will do.' The evidence has come in from universities saying that they will have to increase their fees by up to 30 per cent. But we know that, with the deregulation agenda, that increase will be a lot more.

The minister often says that every university loves his proposal—everyone loves it; it is perfect; it is wonderful. Well, according to Professor Les Field, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor of the University of New South Wales, the government's broken promise to deregulate universities and charge master's and PhD students for the first time ever will damage our national research effort. Of course, the Dean of Science at the University of Technology, Sydney is concerned that the government's broken promise not to deregulate universities will disproportionately hurt science students and will likely reduce science enrolments.

What type of policy is this? What type of policy is it in a country where we want to become smarter and more innovative? Will we pursue a policy that will actually reduce the number of science students? That just shows such poor vision for this country, but should we expect any more from this government? According to the last week, the last 18 months or in fact the last days that this government has been in power, I am afraid we can expect nothing more.

I would also like to draw the minister's attention to the comments made by Professor Peter Dawkins of the Victoria University, who said:

The federal government's initial package represents a radical move toward deregulation, with minimal safeguards against associated risks.

So we see an unfair proposal before the House, an ideologically driven proposal that will have fundamental implications. It will mean that many of our brightest may not get the opportunity to go to university. Many mature age students who would like to reinvent themselves and pursue a new career will not get that opportunity.

Indeed, it is time for the Prime Minister to start listening. He says he is going to listen, but we have seen no evidence whatsoever of that. Of course, he should listen to the 113,000 people who have joined Labor's campaign to stop this unfair legislation. He should start listening to the Senate, the majority in the Senate that said that this is not on. He should start listening to all those backbenchers in his own government who are deeply concerned. They may not admit it in this place but I know that, if they are getting the same feedback that we on this side of the House are getting, they will be incredibly concerned and be in the ear of our Prime Minister. So it is time this Prime Minister started listening and started acting.

It is also time that the Minister for Education started listening. I happened to be at home late the other night and saw again the $15 million worth of ads on our televisions. They are deceitful, misleading ads. The Minister for Education and the Prime Minister cannot get their own way, cannot get their unfair policy through, so they have decided to throw taxpayers' money at trying to convince everyone it is a good idea. My message for the Minister for Education and the Prime Minister is that no amount of taxpayers' money thrown at misleading ads on television is going to convince the Australian public that this is a fair policy. $100,000 for a degree or more is not fair. It does not send a signal to those in our country that the best and brightest should get the opportunity for an education. It says that if you can afford to go to uni then that is okay but, if you cannot, bad luck.

So it is time for the Minister for Education and the Prime Minister to pull their misleading ads. They make a number of claims in those ads, including that students will only pay for 50 per cent of their degree. The evidence is in. The fee structures are out. For many degrees, for business degrees at the University of Western Australia and other degrees such as that, students will be paying 90 per cent of the cost. Not only is this advertising a desperate attempt but it is actually misleading and should be condemned.

I call on the Prime Minister: it is time that he does not just do his mea culpas and say, 'I need to be a better salesman.' He needs to dump his unfair policies, including his plan for $100,000 degrees, because this is not the right direction for the country. It is not what the Australian people want and it is not what he promised at the last election.

See this speech in context