Justine Keay (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

There are a number of measures in the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (A More Sustainable, Responsive and Transparent Higher Education System) Bill 2017 that there's no possible way the Labor Party can support. And there are certainly a number of measures in this bill that the university sector itself does not support.

This bill will cut university funding by $4 billion and hit students with higher fees. I personally know what it's like to be paying back a non-government-supported HELP debt. It is not nice. Particularly when you're older, it's a lot harder to stomach. It will saddle students with bigger debts that they'll have to pay back at the same time as they are trying to buy a house or start a family. If you're a young Australian and you aspire to go to university, aspire to earn a decent wage and aspire to have a house, under this government you cannot actually aspire to have all of those things. This government is making people choose. These were things that many, many years ago we took for granted. This bill compromises the teaching and learning and undermines research at our universities, which is absolutely gut wrenching considering how well our universities do on the global stage. And it slashes investment in universities at a time when the government should be investing in both universities and TAFEs in order to guarantee a strong, productive economy.

This government talks about the economy all the time, yet what this bill is actually doing is going to be extremely detrimental to our economy, because higher education is an investment in our people; it's an investment in our economy. This legislation will seek to make it harder for regional students, those who are from a disadvantaged background and those from lower socio-economic backgrounds to access a higher education. It also goes against the grain of what the other OECD countries are calling for. The legislation is not supported by Australia's Group of Eight universities, and the legislation is obviously of great concern to Universities Australia.

There was one person I heard yesterday in the MPI debate, and that was the member for Hughes, who seems to be the chief cheerleader for this government. He's somewhat in denial. He claimed yesterday that Labor needed to get some maths education and we needed to do our research. He claimed that this government is not making a cut to higher education. Well, I say this to the member for Hughes and everyone else on the other side who says this is not a cut. I don't know; I think most people on this side would agree that at universities they have professors of economics and professors of mathematics. You've got Universities Australia saying, 'Science would be hardest hit by proposed university cuts,' 'Rankings highlight risk of uni funding cuts,' and, 'Government out of step with community opposition to uni cuts: only one in 10 SA voters support,' about the government's cuts. You've got them saying that all the leaders of Australian universities are 'unanimous' in their 'opposition to the proposals to cut university funding and lift student fees'. You've got the Innovative Research Universities saying:

The package cuts university funding and increases the student charge.

A cut's a cut. If the universities are saying it, they're the experts. They're probably more expert in economics than many in this place. It is a cut.

This is exactly what we're facing under this legislation, and it's certainly not something that we can support. Universities Australia—and this is the chief executive, Belinda Robinson—had this to say about the Prime Minister's cuts:

As our economy changes and old industries face new threats, Australia needs to keep—not cut—our investment in universities to create new jobs, new industries and new sources of income for Australia.

Ms Robinson's message is particularly relevant to the regions where local economies are in transition. I would have thought the government would recognise that that's the fact, but, if they're not in touch with regional Australia, then surely they mustn't know.

The Group of Eight universities are calling on the Senate to block the changes. What they're saying is that this legislation puts at risk the capacity building in universities. I quote from the Group of Eight in the submission that they've made to the Senate:

… cuts to university funding will force universities to make difficult choices about the allocation of resources across teaching, student support, and research with serious impacts on access, choice, quality, and, most importantly, equity.

And I don't think those on the other side really understand what equity means, particularly in regional Australia. They also state:

Regional Australia makes an enormous contribution to Australia's progress across multiple sectors and industries. Its success depends in part on university graduates being able to apply their knowledge and capabilities to drive economic progress and create healthy communities.

I would have thought everyone in this place would agree with that statement. But this legislation goes against that. How on earth those sitting opposite who are from regional communities and claim they represent regional communities can support this legislation is beyond me, because this will make it harder for regional students.

The OECD last night released some documentation around where we're at in Australia, and it was quite telling indeed. They were basically saying that Australia's higher education has amongst the lowest levels of public investment within the OECD. Australian public investment in tertiary education institutions is 0.7 per cent of GDP, 40 per cent below the OECD average of 1.1 per cent. In contrast, however, Australia's level of private investment in tertiary education is at 1.1 per cent of GDP, more than twice the OECD average of 0.5 per cent. I think we have to have some recognition—certainly on this side of the House—that the primary benefit of a university student's education is a public benefit. These figures don't really reflect that at all. The government is investing less in higher education as we move forward.

The OECD report also says the high private contribution Australian students make to the cost of their tertiary education is reflected in the high level of tuition fees our students are required to pay. Again, the report shows these to be amongst the highest in the OECD. And this government is expecting students to pay more. Let's say you're from a regional community in the north-west of Tasmania, where we have a regional campus of the University of Tasmania. You know that the job prospects in your region are not going to give you high wages. That's the reality of living in regional Australia. The average wage is a lot less, particularly in Tasmania. You then have to have this massive HELP debt at the end of your university career to get into a job that is paying you less than the national average for that occupation. You have to question why you'd want to do that in the first place. This government is setting up regional students and regional Australia to fail.

So what does this legislation mean for my local university, the Cradle Coast campus of the University of Tasmania? Universities Australia have established that these cuts will see the University of Tasmania worse off by $51.3 million. My electorate, like many regional areas in Australia, has a disproportionate number of people not engaged in higher education. Torrens University Australia's social health atlases state that Braddon's school leaver participation in higher education, at an average of 18.58 per cent, is lower than the Tasmanian average and the national average. Respected economist and University of Tasmania Vice-Chancellor's Fellow Saul Eslake has previously said:

Higher levels of educational participation and attainment won't solve all of Tasmania’s economic and social challenges—but they will make them less difficult to solve, not least by sustainably increasing the resources which can be used to solve them.

This legislation is going against what someone like Saul Eslake is saying. Former UTas vice-chancellor Peter Rathjen has been on the public record that cuts to the University of Tasmania could threaten the future of regional campuses. You have to understand the Cradle Coast campus is subsidised by the main campus in Hobart. It operates at a huge loss, and I take my hat off to the University of Tasmania for wanting to maintain the Cradle Coast campus, because it has made a huge difference to the lives of the people in the north-west and on the west coast of Tasmania and their ability to access education.

When I first went to the University of Tasmania in Launceston, it was 100 kilometres from where I lived. I had to move home. Thankfully, my single mother could subsidise my rent, and I had to pay for my schoolbooks. When you're living off two-minute noodles you can just about do that, but I understand what it's like to be an undergraduate, leaving home and living on barely anything, just to get a university education. The Cradle Coast campus allows accessible courses for people in my region. The message is very clear that the Group of Eight and our local universities will have to make very, very hard decisions if this legislation is passed.

The Cradle Coast campus offers a number of degrees and research based postgraduate study which directly relate to the industries in my electorate, particularly in agriculture and advanced manufacturing. What's really hard to stomach is this government's decision to put an up-front cost on enabling courses. Enabling courses don't actually give anyone a qualification at the end, but they help people who may be very hesitant about entering higher education. There are a number of those people in my electorate who will have to come up with $3,200, or at least defer the cost through HELP. The Cradle Coast campus offers a number of enabling courses. University preparation programs are offered to kids who are 16 and 17. It's ludicrous that you would saddle a 16- or 17-year-old with a debt just to decide whether they're going to continue with their education. Other programs are UniStart, Students in Schools, the VET to higher education achievers program and the University Connections Program for year 11 and 12 students. These courses help potential students develop the skills required for independent learning and success: critical thinking—which, I have to say, is a bit lacking on the other side—critical reading and academic writing.

The other area that's of concern to me as someone who has studied a couple of postgraduate degrees is the changes made to placements for postgraduate positions within universities, those that are not Commonwealth supported places and those that are. This government is reducing the number of government supported places. I graduated last year from Monash University in a non-government supported place by studying 10 units, which is the first step to become a registered psychologist, and I ended up with a HELP debt of $28,000 after 10 units. The next stage is to do an advanced or honours equivalent course. Monash were offering that and it is all done online, which is very accessible to students and a great way of studying for postgraduate students, but that second course, which you had to do to just become provisionally registered as a psychologist, was going to cost another $28,000. I know that people in my course, when they were contemplating at that time what to do next, found that a huge barrier to them undertaking further education just to become provisionally qualified as a psychologist. These were older people in their 40s and 50s wanting a career change, and this government is going to stop even more of them from going into advanced education for higher degrees.

It is not only that; in some cases, you have to be offered a position to study in a higher degree. What this government is saying is that it may be introducing a system where you take a voucher to a university. So, if you're offered a place, do you then go and say: 'I've got to apply for a voucher. I'm not sure if I'll get it. It's sort of like a scholarship. Can you hold off on that placement until I can confirm with the government whether it will support me to go on and get a higher degree?' We don't know. This legislation is so scant on details. This is really unsettling for university students right now who are looking at whether they should go and get a higher degree and those, particularly from regional communities, thinking about going into university and wondering what on earth this government is doing, why it is creating all these barriers to higher education and why it is stopping people in regional Australia from improving their lives and being in a position to earn a good income, to pay more tax and to make a contribution to our society. This is a real shame of this government—an absolute shame—and I hope that those in the Senate and on the crossbench do not support this bill.

See this speech in context