David Smith (Bean, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of the Labor amendment and in opposition to this bill, the Higher Education Support Amendment (Job-Ready Graduates and Supporting Regional and Remote Students) Bill 2020. I do this on behalf of students and university staff, and their representatives and their families, across Bean. The government has been almost completely absent from this debate, as this is a bill difficult to defend. So many of the announcements of the government have been long on sizzle and short on sausage. This bill, and the Job-ready Graduates Package, is even short on the sizzle.

Let's put this upfront: this bill is bad for the university sector. It will cut billions from a sector already under financial pressure at a time when we should be investing more across our higher education sector. This bill is bad for year 12 students. It will make it harder for these young people to get a degree and a job, in what is likely to be the deepest recession of our lifetime. It tries to force young Australians into hand-picked fields, possibly undermining their own aspirations and job opportunities. At a time when there are likely to be fewer gap years, the path to university will be harder. This bill is bad for future students. It will cost-shift onto students. It goes beyond the proposed 2017 reforms—there's a red flag!—and shifts the Commonwealth's share of tuition costs backwards, to 51 per cent of the load. This bill is bad for the economy. It does not make sense that, when we need to invest in university and TAFE education, this bill will cut university funding. At a time when we have one million unemployed, we should be investing in education and skills, investing in the knowledge of our future workforce, investing in the productivity of the nation. This bill is bad for our regional university sector and our local professions. It will reduce base funding for many of the careers we rely on in the capital, and indeed across the region, and will likely impact low-SES students.

What will the bill achieve? There has already been significant public and expert criticism of the bill and the associated Job-ready Graduates Package on a wide range of matters. These include flawed underlying assumptions, a limited evidence base, unintended consequences and perverse incentives in the policy as it's designed. Some of the key criticisms include that many students will actually pay more, some much more, than others. Students will, on average, pay seven per cent more for their studies. Around 40 per cent of all students will have their fees increased. Fees will more than double for people studying humanities, jumping from $27,000 to $58,000 for a four-year degree. The package will not support enough places, despite the rhetoric. Claimed additional student places will be achieved with no additional funding, by reducing the average funding for each student going to university. It's all smoke and mirrors. There is nothing in the reform for increased demand due to the recession or to account for the increased number of children now reaching university age.

If those over the other side don't think this is an issue, applications to universities have already more than doubled compared to last year. Under the bill, universities will get less to do more. The university sector will face a cut in their guaranteed funding of around $1 billion per year. The average funding per student paid to universities will drop by 5.8 per cent. For example, the fee per student will drop by 16 per cent for engineering, eight per cent for nursing and six per cent for education—critical occupations. These cuts are on top of the $16 billion projected revenue drop due to loss of international students and the $2.2 billion cuts already made to university funding by the government.

There are in-built perverse incentives that work against the very policy objectives that this government claims it wishes to achieve. In areas where the government wants greater enrolment, it is paying universities less per student, and, in areas where the government wants to discourage enrolment, it is paying universities more. Further, the claimed policy assumptions are flawed. Experts, including the Council of Deans of Science and the Chancellor of the ANU, the Hon. Julie Bishop, are convinced that student choice will not be swayed by price signals. The government's job demand modelling is based on labour market forecasting done prior to COVID and is highly likely now to be wrong. Let that sink in for a moment. Further, humanities graduates are just as in demand in the labour market as maths and science graduates, but the cost of humanities degrees will more than double. The argument about supposed job-readiness or attractiveness is a complete furphy. Further, the package will have a worse impact on regional universities. Despite an apparent redistribution to regional, rural and remote universities, analysis of the course pricing changes suggests that they will be worse off. The legislation is likely to have a worse impact on women and First Nations people. Average female student contributions will increase by 10 per cent. Average First Nations student contributions will increase by 15 per cent. Twice the number of First Nations students will be enrolled in the highest-fee-paying courses. And, finally, the package is punitive and unnecessarily interferes in student progress.

I think it's important that local members represent their communities and their local industries in this chamber. I'm a proud advocate for the Public Service and for our national cultural institutions. I am also a strong supporter of our local world-class higher education sector. The University of Canberra has similar concerns to some of those that I've outlined. The University of Canberra is an institution with a civic mission for Canberra and the region and has a focus on the professions that provide for the workforce needs of Canberra and the immediate region. They strive to produce job-capable graduates, and they have highlighted to me that the Job-ready Graduates Package represents a cut in base funding for key courses—that is, a cut in per-student funding across many subjects, including environmental studies, engineering, clinical psychology, teaching and nursing.

If we take a minute to look at the health and nursing field, the per-student annual funding in the allied health field will be cut by more than $2,045 per student, and nursing will be cut, on a per-student basis, by $1,729. Under this package, it is uncertain how clinical placements will be funded. I ask members of this chamber to reflect on the support these workers have provided during the COVID crisis. If you have had a COVID-19 test in Canberra, your test may well have been conducted by a University of Canberra graduate. Indeed, it is likely that UC students are also active as contact tracers, and the university is likely to have trained nurses to use ventilators in a simulated environment.

To give further context to the University of Canberra's contribution to the ACT's health system, here are a few statistics. In 2019, they graduated 250 nurses, and 87 per cent started work in the ACT. Last year also, they graduated 325 allied health professionals, and 78 per cent started work in the ACT. One must ask the question: does the package reflect the value our community places on our health professionals and potential health professionals? The answer is no. For the university, it does not end there. For science, the per-student annual funding cut is over $4,000.

Let's look at teaching under this package. The per-student funding cut is more than $1,000. Teaching is another profession that has been under the spotlight during the COVID crisis. The university has a commitment to the ongoing education of our local educators, which saw 70 local teachers commence the new capital region Master of Education program in 2019. Under this package, it's uncertain how the teaching practice component will be funded.

The University of Canberra also has concerns about inequity in the package. The Graduate Outcomes Survey—Longitudinal released this week shows high levels of full-time employment for University of Canberra graduates, across all areas of study, three years after completing their qualifications. This survey showed nationally that full-time employment rates for humanities, culture and social sciences, at 87 per cent, were basically the same as for science and maths three years after graduation. This shows that the government's rationale for fee setting across disciplines is misplaced.

Like other institutions, the University of Canberra also has concerns about late inclusions around unit failure and removal of Commonwealth support for students. These may particularly impact the most disadvantaged students in the sector, including those from First Nations or lower-SES backgrounds. We should be seeing a package that furthers opportunity rather than strips opportunities away, and Labor does not want to see increased disadvantage because of these reforms.

There are many others with concerns about this package, including those representing the sciences and engineering. Bronwyn Evans, the CEO of Engineers Australia, had this to say:

The … Government's announced changes … may … lead to increased inequality and a harmful reduction in the diversity of skills necessary for a modern workforce.

…   …   …

An increase in university fees risks increasing structural inequality for women and people from low socioeconomic status … backgrounds who choose to study humanities, law and other courses that will now leave them in even more debt.

The Australian Council of Deans of Science had this to say:

Cost is not a critical driver for students to study STEM. And it will not serve to generate more STEM capable graduates if the funding changes undermine the capacity of universities to produce them.

The funds that will come to university science to produce graduates will shrink by 16% under the Job-Ready Graduates proposal; less from each student and less from the government.

Innes Willox, CEO of AiG—that well-known radical!—said:

A large financial burden is being shifted to these future workers who will fill important professional roles required by industry.

It's a time to invest in science and research, not cut funding to critical courses and drive perverse incentives into the market by increasing the price of other degrees. It's a time to invest in knowledge, not cut funds and cost-shift. We've already lost thousands of workers across the higher education sector, and these changes will put more pressure on the sector workforce. Just stop and think for a minute. Those on the other side of the chamber who profess to care about the economy, lift your gaze from the ministerial talking points provided to you and consider this: if skilled immigration is limited in the short to medium term, and we are in a recession with likely large job losses in the science and research fields, then we must invest in the knowledge capital of our population, and we must invest now. I agree with Dr Alan Finkel, the Chief Scientist, who argues:

There are several ways to improve productivity but knowledge capital, through new technology, skills, R&D and efficient services and production processes, is the most significant factor.

He argues further for these investments in R&D, saying:

R&D also has positive spillovers, meaning that knowledge can result in increasing returns to scale up production cheaply, and can generate significant benefits for those other than the primary investors as discoveries are made and spread.

To conclude: while promising to support the study of maths, science and engineering, this legislation reduces the money universities will receive to provide those courses. It provides a disincentive for universities to enrol extra students in these disciplines. Whilst talking up the importance of STEM careers, the government continues to cut STEM roles in CSIRO and in the DST Group in Defence. Unfortunately, as always with this Prime Minister, the detail doesn't match the announcement. Either the Prime Minister and the minister are misleading Australians about the intention of this bill or they don't know how university funding works. The reform is a complete mess for students, for our community and for the university sectors, and it will be bad for our regional economy here in Bean. It's short on sizzle, short on sausage and long on fizzle—a fizzle we can't afford. That is why Labor opposes the bill.

See this speech in context