David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I really will have to come to the member for Bendigo's remarks on this MPI, because that was one of the most absurd speeches I have heard in the last 18 months in this place. But I want to start out by talking about the 'Year of Ideas' because, as you know, this is the 'Year of Ideas' for the opposition. So far, we have had one idea from the opposition. That idea, surprisingly, was a new tax that will not raise a lot of money but will result in the loss of Australian jobs. It will lead to substantially less investment in Australia. That is the one idea that is so far out there. Interestingly, if we look back at just last week, in a speech at Monash University, the opposition leader said:

This is the big conversation Labor is having with the university sector right now.

Then, on the next day, The Guardian told us what that big conversation was about. The Guardian of course is not known as an attacker of the opposition. Far from it. The Guardian headline said 'Labor signals shift from demand-driven funding system for university places'.

And further:

Education spokesman Kim Carr rules out bringing back crude caps on student numbers, but says Labor would exercise "greater control".

A greater control over universities—doesn't that sound like an appealing prospect! Of course, under the demand-driven system universities and students decide how many people will study different courses based on the level of demand. Indeed, that was a policy introduced by the Labor Party. What of course occurred was that more students have gone to university, which is a good thing, and that has led to an increased cost. So what the Labor Party is very clearly telegraphing it will do is pull back on the demand-driven system, reduce the number of places available in universities and actually intervene on a case-by-case basis and tell them who they can enrol and how many. Senator Carr, who is of course the spokesman in this area, said:

… Labor expects universities to work with the commonwealth to help address national and regional priorities …

And further:

The key to making this partnership work is to find a balance between institutional autonomy and accountability for the use of taxpayers’ funds.

He went on: 'There are lots of ways in which governments can influence decision making at the university level.' That means that Labor will pull back from the demand-driven system and will intervene on a university-by-university basis, and say, 'We want you to enrol this many people in this course and we want you to enrol this many people in that course.' That is of course the absolute antithesis of the demand-driven system. The reason that Senator Carr wants to do that is that it is (a) consistent with his interventionist tendencies and (b) it will reduce the number of people who are at university and therefore the cost to the government.

The proposition in this debate by those opposite that they are the promoters of university access is absolutely false because, as we know, under the government's reforms there will in fact be an additional 80,000 places for students under the HECS-HELP system by 2018. That will extend the government support to people who are in associate diploma courses and various TAFE courses. Currently, you do not get that government support. An additional 80,000 people will be funded.

Another thing we know—and the member for Bendigo said some extraordinary false statements moments ago—is that nobody is required to pay fees up-front. It is very, very clear. Nobody in the undergraduate system is required to repay any fees until they earn at least $50,000 a year. So no-one is required to pay fees up-front. No-one is required to pay anything until they earn at least $50,000 a year. And they will pay approximately half of the cost of their education through that HECS system after they graduate, when they are earning at least $50,000, and the other half will continue to be borne by taxpayers, who of course do not gain the same direct benefit from that course as the individual does. That is exactly what is happening under this system.

So there will be an additional 80,000 people funded to study at university through the deregulation of the system. We allow universities to focus on what they do best and that will mean that there will be greater investment in the areas of greatest growth. That means that where students want to study there will be more investment. Rather than Senator Kim Carr sitting around with academics, telling them what to do on a university-by-university basis, the demand-driven system, coupled with the deregulation of fees will allow universities and students to focus on what they each do best. And that is why these are good policies.

See this speech in context