Kerry Bartlett (Macquarie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to continue the comments I commenced last night on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007. This bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to do a number of things. Firstly, it provides funding of $41 million to support the implementation of the research quality framework. The research quality framework’s aim is to ensure that taxpayers’ money is being invested in a way such as to maximise the benefits for the higher education sector and for the community more broadly. The government is committed to the twin goals of excellence and relevance in research, and this initiative will help to ensure the achievement of these goals.

The second amendment alters the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to reflect changes to the National Protocols for Higher Education Processes, agreed to in 2000 by the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. These revised protocols will apply to all new and existing higher education institutions. They will provide pathways for more institutions to become self-accrediting where they have a strong record in higher education delivery and quality assurance. The revisions will also allow the emergence of specialist universities. The important point is that the effect of these amendments will be a more diverse higher education sector, with greater flexibility, enabling it to better adapt to change and more effectively meet the needs of students, of business, of employers and of our broader community.

The Australian government is committed to increasing opportunities in and continuously improving the quality of our higher education sector, consistent with and part of our clearly demonstrated commitment to the highest possible education standards in this country. This year the Australian government is committing $8.2 billion in university funding, an increase of 7.7 per cent in real terms since this government has been in office and, importantly, part of an increase of 26.2 per cent in real terms in funding for the tertiary education sector as a whole. This year we will see 407,000 taxpayer-funded places for universities for higher education, an increase of 17.6 per cent since 1995. Recently the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee said that, in their view, there are sufficient places now in our university sector, with 4,200 new commencements this year, many in medicine, nursing and engineering.

I am very pleased that this year the University of Western Sydney has taken its first enrolment of students in the new medical school, a medical school that was pushed by me and my colleagues from Western Sydney, the member for Macarthur and the member for Lindsay, some three or four years ago. I am delighted that the government, prior to the 2004 election, committed funding for the medical school for UWS and that that medical school has become a reality. This year, the first intake of students, including from my electorate, are now studying medicine at the University of Western Sydney. While I am on that topic, let me say that, with the same degree of determination, I am fighting for the establishment of a dental school for Charles Sturt University for the central west, and I am determined to see that come to fruition. I will be delighted in two or three years time to be able to see the first enrolment of dental students in Charles Sturt University.

On the broader issue of funding for our universities, I do need to take issue with the mantra that we hear so often from the other side: the mythological claim that this government has somehow cut funding from education and cut funding from universities. That could not be further from the truth, and the facts show that very clearly. The facts show very clearly that this government has substantially increased funding for education right across the spectrum. As I said in the one or two minutes I had to speak last night, we have increased funding for total education from 5.5 per cent of GDP to 5.8 per cent of GDP. That might not sound like a lot, but with the strongly growing economy that we have had for most of the last 10 years—we have a much greater GDP now than we had 10 years ago—we are spending an increased percentage of that greatly increased GDP on education. So the ignorant and ill-informed or deliberately deceitful comments from the other side need to be rejected out of hand.

We have increased funding for education right across the spectrum. We have increased funding for higher education for universities, as I said, by 7.7 per cent in real terms. We have increased funding for the tertiary education sector, covering the whole area of vocational and technical education, by 26.2 per cent in real terms. And we have increased funding for the school sector by 160 per cent, including direct increases in funding for public schools by 118 per cent in 10 years. So the cry that we get from the other side and the nonsense that we get from the teachers unions and so on that we have somehow cut funding needs to be seen for what it is. It is nothing but dishonest political propaganda. The evidence is there that this government has strongly increased funding and continues to strongly increase funding for the whole spectrum of education. Compared with some other countries in the OECD, while we have increased the percentage of GDP going to education, we find countries—like Canada, Ireland, Finland and Germany—whose funding has actually fallen. So this government is putting its money where its mouth is in terms of education policy.

I want to bring to the House’s attention one other aspect of funding for universities that I have mentioned on previous occasions but which we need to be continually reminded of. That is the iniquitous policies of the state governments with regard to their payroll tax regime and what that does to our universities. I call on the state governments to remove their harsh treatment of universities, to remove the payroll tax that they impose on our universities—a net deficit across the country of $148 million. We have this ridiculous situation in which the state governments pat themselves on the back for giving $230 million to our universities but with the other hand taking away $378 million in payroll tax dragged out of our universities. So they give with one hand and take more with the other, and this has to stop. There are no prizes for guessing which state is the worst offender.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

New South Wales!

Kerry Bartlett (Macquarie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, New South Wales again. New South Wales gives a paltry $27 million to the state’s universities but takes out $124 million in payroll tax, a net deficit of $97 million a year. This is a ridiculous and unfair situation. The two universities that are of most concern to me are the University of Western Sydney and Charles Sturt University. The New South Wales government gave the University of Western Sydney a paltry $109,000 in grants—these are the year 2005 figures—but took out $11.3 million in payroll tax. So the University of Western Sydney, thanks to the New South Wales government, is suffering a deficit of $11.2 million a year because of their payroll tax regime. Charles Sturt University, which is now in my electorate as a result of the redistribution, suffers an impost in net terms of $7.4 million because of the payroll tax imposed by the state government.

I call on the state government to do something about this. If they were serious about education, they would remove their tax regime that is imposed on our state’s universities. And I call on the federal opposition to do something about this. We hear from the opposition these specious claims that they will be able to work more closely with state Labor premiers around the country, that they will have a new approach to federalism, that they will end the blame game and so on. The first challenge in education for the Leader of the Opposition is to convince the state Labor premiers to remove the payroll tax that they impose on universities and give our universities a fair go. Sadly, from the opposition we see too often a readiness to criticise the government and a reluctance to address the issues that really matter. So I call on the state governments, starting with the New South Wales government, to remove that policy of payroll tax from our universities.

I conclude by making the point that this government, the Howard government, is committed to improving the operation of our higher education sector. We have shown that commitment with an increased level of funding. This bill is another step in the right direction in trying to improve the quality of what happens, and I support this bill.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly welcome the comments by the member for Macquarie, a very fine member for his local area and a very keen supporter of universities. I also welcome the measures contained in the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007 to make the academic sector more diverse and more responsive to the needs of the nation. We live in a changing world, a world that is changing more rapidly than ever before. International travel is becoming quicker and easier. International communication is becoming almost instantaneous and very cheap. It is important that we innovate. We have to innovate to stay still in this changing world, and we have to innovate efficiently and effectively to get ahead. If Australia is going to get ahead, we have to be at the forefront of innovation in this very competitive world.

In the broader sense, Work Choices is very much part of that innovation. In an age of global markets, a relatively isolated nation such as Australia—with some 20 million people—cannot afford to have six separate industrial relations systems. To compete in the global market we have to be absolutely efficient. To compete in the global market we have to be trying harder every year. The coalition has been successful in this global market, along with all the businesses and individuals who work hard in this country. We have created two million jobs since 1996. We have got unemployment to the lowest rate in 30 years. Real wages have gone up by 19 per cent in the term of this government. It has not happened by accident. The economy does not run itself, as the members opposite would try to make us think. It requires careful and responsible management. You cannot just sit back and enjoy the reforms that have been put in place, as the members opposite think you can. You have to reform and reform again. Work Choices is very much part of that process. It is part of that evolution.

The members opposite want to hand back power to the unions. They want to do the dreaded roll-back. They want to roll back our industrial relations system. They want to take our economic development backwards. We see innovation in our universities and innovation in business, both large and small. But in industrial relations, one of the most powerful drivers of growth in this country, what are we going to do? According to Labor, we are going to take it backwards. Apparently, the rest of the country can charge forward, but with regard to the industrial relations agenda we can throw the economy into reverse, we can throw the system into reverse, and we can become less efficient. Somehow, through some magic pudding ALP formula, the economy is going to continue to grow, wages are going to continue to grow and the world is going to be rosy. It just does not happen that way.

It is clear to all except members of the ALP that if you reverse the reforms of Work Choices you are going to make our labour system less efficient. If you make our labour system less efficient at a time when the economy is running at high speed and has to be carefully managed, you are going to put upward pressure on inflation. If you put upward pressure on inflation, you are going to put upward pressure on interest rates.

There is no magic solution to this. The ALP cannot hand control back to the unions and just expect the economy to run on its own. The ALP cannot hand control back to the unions and expect inflation to remain low and job creation to continue. If they continue with this proposal they will be effectively trying to force interest rates up from opposition. We know how good they are at forcing interest rates up in government, but in this case they are going to force interest rates up from opposition. The days are gone when unions could have a stranglehold on work sites. We need a cooperative approach between workers and employers. We need to work together to continue to drive growth in this country.

This bill recognises the importance of education in driving this country forward, just as industrial relations reform has an important role in driving this country forward. This bill will help to ensure that our education system becomes more responsive to the needs of the nation and more responsive to the needs of users of research, creating high-quality research. This bill will work to continue this nation’s success story, this nation’s pursuit of a more skilled economy, a more educated workforce and a more effective economy.

Look at Labor’s history in relation to skills. In my electorate it was very difficult to get an apprenticeship when this government came to power in 1996. There were very few apprentices. Since Labor’s time the number of apprentices has tripled. We have seen a focus not only on higher education but also on the importance of trade training. This government has established Australian technical colleges. They are an innovative and new way to meet our trade skill needs. They are an innovative and new way to recognise the talents of our young people who may not be great academics but are very skilled craftsmen. It offers them an opportunity to excel in the school environment. It offers them an opportunity to excel amongst their peers and encourages them to stay on in the school system rather than become disenchanted and leave at year 10. It offers the opportunity for a far more skilled and far more highly developed workforce, which is what this country needs.

The measures introduced in the Skills for the Future package will help to turn out far more skilled people right across the age cohort, in a range of fields. Skills for the Future acknowledges the need for engineers. Skills for the Future acknowledges the need to offer people mature age apprenticeship training, removing barriers for some of our older workers who might have missed the opportunity for an apprenticeship when they were young. It gives them the opportunity now to go into a trade training environment, learn some new skills and build on the skill base that they have already acquired in the workforce. I think that is a tremendous initiative: upskilling mature age apprentices.

I know that many employers in my electorate have welcomed this idea. They say, ‘We welcome the opportunity to work with some of our younger apprentices, but we would also welcome the opportunity to have more people in training in the workplace who have the values of mature age workers.’ So it is a great measure. It also provides the opportunity to upskill existing tradesmen, to give them the skills to operate businesses, to provide the goods and services that the economy needs. It encourages them to have the sorts of skills that will enable them to run an efficient and effective business. Whilst tradesmen are often very skilled in the trade in which they specialise, they do not necessarily have the trade skills to run a business. I think that is important.

The Skills for the Future package also offers a very important opportunity for some people, at a later stage in life, to take that first step on the road to education by improving some of their basic skills, such as literacy. It aims to get them back into education and back into the process of beginning to improve their skill base. Who knows where that will take a lot of people? I have spoken to a range of people in my electorate who lacked the skills in younger life and have taken that step to come back into very basic education training. They have said to me that it is a very rewarding experience. Skills for the Future greatly expands the sorts of programs that are currently in place. It greatly increases the amount of opportunity for older people to take that first tentative step back into formal education. It is about encouraging people to upskill.

This bill encourages our university sector to become more responsive to the nation’s needs. It encourages them to offer the sorts of courses that are going to be in demand. It will allow them to undertake the sort of research that will be in demand in very specialised fields. It acknowledges the necessity to have very specialised institutions, and there are a range of areas which would benefit greatly from further intense study such as climate change, which has become an area of great focus at a national and international level. There is a huge demand for specialists in these fields. The opportunity to establish educational institutions that specialise in fields that are in great demand and in very narrow specialties as opposed to being more generalist—fields such as climate change, alternative energy, efficient transport systems, energy efficient cars, reducing carbon emissions, carbon sequestration and the like—is something that we should welcome.

With regard to the research quality framework, it is very important that we have an output with regard to research which is of the highest quality. The research quality framework focuses on that, ensuring that we get the sorts of quality research outcomes that are going to drive this nation further and faster. I think it is also important that this research be disseminated.

Recently, I was chair of the education inquiry into teacher training. One of the things that was proposed in that inquiry was to look at a feasibility study, as recommended by Teaching Australia, into having a clearing house for the dissemination of education research. It is one thing to have high-quality research—it is very important to have high-quality research—but it is also important to get that research out to users so that people can see the available research, benefit from it and respond to it perhaps in their work practices. The research quality framework is very important in ensuring that we are conducting the highest quality research to drive this country forward.

I want to reflect briefly on the importance of regional universities. I am very fortunate that in my electorate we have a campus of the Southern Cross University located in Coffs Harbour. The importance of a regional university cannot be underestimated—not only doing research in a regional area but offering education possibilities in a regional area. So we have got the opportunity for young people in Coffs Harbour to go to school, do their university training and, by virtue of a widening of the employment base and the types of jobs that are being generated by the university, to find full-time employment in that city. We have got a regional city where there is a career path from kindergarten and primary school through to tertiary education—something that 30 or 40 years ago just did not happen in regional centres. It is a great move by the government to be locating universities in regional centres and providing opportunities for our students in regional areas to study at home without having to travel long distances to major campuses in metropolitan areas.

These types of establishments also provide a huge source of employment. They provide a range of jobs not only in the academic fields but in all the support roles of such an institution. They provide a critical mass for our regional centres and a very solid long-term employment base, and I know that the presence of Southern Cross University in Coffs Harbour is very much welcomed by the people.

This government supports regional universities through additional funding by providing a loading. It recognises that, despite the benefits of a university in a regional area, there are costs in providing relatively small campuses in isolated locations. The government funds those through loadings on the fees, funding given to regional universities and through the VSU funds. Southern Cross University Coffs campus recently received a million dollars to build a sporting facility, which is very much welcomed by the students and people of Coffs Harbour.

In conclusion, I want to acknowledge the presence of Private Ko in the gallery today. He is a member of the Australian Defence Force. He is on the Australian Parliamentary Defence Program. He is a very astute young member of our military forces, and we welcome the opportunity to share our experiences in this House with members of the Defence Force. I welcome Private Ko with us here in parliament for the week and I wish him well. I commend the bill to the house.

Pat Farmer (Macarthur, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Science and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In summing up, I thank all members who have taken the time out this morning—and indeed last night—to speak on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007, especially the member for Cowper and the member for Macquarie. The member for Macquarie spoke at length about UWS, and the wonderful work they were doing there through their medical school, and about a number of other universities that are within the new boundaries of his electorate. I say to those people involved in that area, in particular at that university, that the member works tirelessly for your community.

The bill before the House is a clear expression of the Australian government’s strong support for quality research and a world-class higher education sector. The bill will provide $41 million to assist our universities to implement the research quality framework. The research quality framework will ensure that taxpayers’ funds are being invested in research of the highest order which delivers real benefits to the higher education sector and the broader community. The bill also contains measures which will enhance the quality and diversity of Australia’s higher education system.

This bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to reflect the changes to the National Protocols for Higher Education Process. These changes are the outcome of extensive consultations involving state and territory governments and the higher education sector. The revised protocols will also make possible the emergence of specialist universities, aligning well with the government’s vision for a more diverse higher education sector. Greater diversity will benefit students, staff and employers by promoting greater choice and competition to the wider sector.

This bill makes a number of technical amendments which will clarify the existing Higher Education Loan Program and Commonwealth student support arrangements and will ensure that the legislation reflects original policy intent. The Higher Education Loan Program is recognised internationally as one of the fairest higher education systems in the world. Today, virtually every eligible person who wants to undertake university studies is able to do so in a government subsidised place. Since 1989, almost two million people have been able to access higher education opportunities through government funded income contingent loans. For every $1 a student contributes to their education, the Australian government contributes $3. A record number of students are studying at Australian universities. More than 213,000 Australians received an offer of a university place this year alone.

Offers to school leavers, which have grown in every state and territory, have increased by 5.6 per cent nationally. This year, 91.4 per cent of all school leavers who applied for a university place have received one. This shows that students are taking advantage of the choices now open to them, thanks to the Australian government’s investment in higher education, a dividend of a very strong economic management policy which the government has implemented.

In response to the member for Perth, I confirm that schedule 5 of the bill, regarding eligibility for Commonwealth assistance, affects only New Zealand citizens and certain permanent visa holders. Australian citizens are not affected.

I wish to foreshadow two government amendments to this bill, which I will be moving during the consideration in detail stage. These amendments have been circulated to members. They are minor amendments which will correct drafting errors in the bill as introduced in this House on 28 February 2007. The bill before the House reflects the government’s commitment of ensuring that our research and higher education sectors continue to play a key role in Australia’s ongoing prosperity. I urge all members to support this bill.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Stephen Smith’s amendment) stand part of the question.