Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be read a second time. To this the honourable member for Perth has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to be able to make a contribution to this debate on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007, which amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to provide for the government’s 2007-08 budget commitments, provide indexation increases and other technical adjustments for 2008 to 2010 and add maximum grant amounts for 2011. The bill includes higher education measures announced in the budget other than the Higher Education Endowment Fund. The bill contains amendments across several areas. The bill: reduces the number of CGS funding clusters; changes CGS funding levels across disciplines and specifies a revised maximum student HECS contribution for commerce, economics and accounting purposes; introduces three-year CGS funding agreements to commence from 2009; lifts the cap limiting the promotion of full-fee domestic undergraduate places; increases the total number of Commonwealth supported places; increases the number of Commonwealth scholarships from 8,500 to 12,000 per year, and allows them to be paid by the Commonwealth directly to students; introduces an Indigenous scholarship classification for up to 1,000 higher education Indigenous students; provides additional funding to universities to improve teacher education programs; creates a new diversity in structural adjustment funds for universities, including through the appropriation of an additional $67 million; and provides additional funding to the Australian Research Council for the period 1 July 2007 to 30 July 2011. The bill also amends the Australian Research Council Act 2001 to reflect updated caps on funding for 2007 and 2008 and to add financial year starting on 1 July 2009 and 1 July 2010.

Mr Deputy Speaker, through the shadow minister Labor has moved an amendment, as you observed in your introduction. That amendment reads:

Higher education has long been a cause for public discussion, public debate and, dare I say, public dispute, over the direction of policy, over the appropriateness of funding levels and over different philosophies about how to deal with the education sector in general but the higher education sector in particular. I come to this debate as someone who—I guess this applies to all my generation who would have been at university—was at university during the Whitlam years when fees were abolished. I was in this place when the Labor government, under Prime Minister Hawke, introduced the Higher Education Contribution Scheme, and I understood the merit in doing that. However, then, as now, I was concerned about the impact it would have on the ability of young people to attend university. What we are seeing now, of course, as a result of current government policy, is that the cost burden on students has shifted significantly and has been raised significantly to make it ever more difficult for them to achieve a higher education outcome without very significant sacrifice and sometimes very often hardship.

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

Mr Farmer interjecting

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not want to give the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Science and Training opposite a lecture in demographics and statistics, but even he would know that population increases mean significant changes to participation rates, even in education. I would have thought that, if he knew anything about public policy in this country, he would know about the significant outcomes which were achieved by the Hawke-Keating governments in school attainment levels, getting significantly higher proportions of school students to year 12. From memory—and my colleague at the table, the member for Throsby, may recall this—at the time the Hawke government was elected, year 12 attainment levels were between 35 and 40 per cent, maybe slightly higher. By the time the Labor government was defeated in 1996, they were in excess of 80 per cent.

A very deliberate outcome and a consequence of that would be, as the honourable member might note, an increase in the number of people attending higher education institutions—and that is what we want. We clearly want to see more young Australians either benefiting from access to a university place to do a course of their choice or, alternatively, following a different stream and getting a vocational education outcome which provides them with the appropriate skills to compete effectively in the labour market. I would have thought that that would be a proposition which would attract the support of everyone in this place. The difference, of course, is how we go about getting that outcome, and that is the issue here.

My concern, even though the government argues that they are trying, effectively, to, as they describe it, dismantle the Dawkins reforms in terms of higher education, get rid of the one-size-fits-all approach and provide greater diversity and flexibility, is that we are moving—at least, this is what I am observing—into a period when we are going to have different classes of universities in this country. There will be the haves at the old sandstone universities and then the rest, and that concerns me greatly.

Having been a student at the ANU, the University of Western Australia and Murdoch University—I did not have a distinguished academic career but I did have one—I can see the benefits of the infrastructure that is in place in these quite magnificent institutions. But then I look at what is available for people who live in regional Australia and their capacity to undertake higher education. I say this not just of people who live in regional centres like Darwin, where there is in fact Charles Darwin University, or Townsville, with James Cook, but, most particularly, of people who live away from these centres, often in isolated communities where there is no access to higher educational opportunities and where the students are forced, once they have achieved a level commensurate with university entrance, to relocate out of their home environment to a major centre to achieve an education. This is true not only in the higher education sector but also in the vocational education sector.

We are told in the Bills Digest that, in 2005, the then Minister for Education, Science and Training stressed:

... the need for a diverse range of higher education institutions servicing different communities and varied requirements.

The Digest goes on about the current minister and refers to a wide-ranging speech on the need for diversity in which the minister called for:

... the development of a diversified higher education sector, made up of universities which differ from each other in terms of mission, discipline mix, course offerings, modes of delivery, management and in academic structure.

That may be all very well but what we want to make sure of—at least I want to make sure of—is that those young Australians who do not live in major metropolitan centres where there are high levels of competition between tertiary institutions but are more than likely going to attend a regional university where there is little or no competition on a geographic basis, at least, have proper access to high levels of appropriate courses to meet their needs. What I fear is that, as a result of the changes the government is proposing, we are going to see a rationalisation of the courses that are offered in many of these universities so that they will specialise in one or two particular fields. Whilst that might suit the rationalisation that the government requires, I think it provides a significant handicap, and indeed a challenge, for many young Australians. That is what concerns me: not only the cost of access to university education but also the options that are available.

The Bills Digest informs me that critics of the higher education measures proposed in the 2007-08 budget have ‘interpreted moves to diversity and specialisation as pushing the sector to a more privatised, stratified and less equitable one’. That is the nub of my concerns. It is clear that the changes to the CGS and the removal of the cap on domestic full-fee places may well encourage competition for students and an associated development of different course offerings. As the Bills Digest again informs us:

There is a perceived benefit to universities such as those in the Group of Eight whose courses are in high demand and which attract the majority of full-fee paying students at public universities although the uptake in full-fee places will be constrained at some universities by the lack of facilities and a shortfall in infrastructure funding.

The Bills Digest argues:

The ‘one size fits all’ model will be further eroded by the increased student contribution rates for accounting, administration, economics and commerce ...

It goes on to say:

Regional universities will need to devise course mixes that are both attractive to students and meet regional needs.

I am concerned about that because I do not believe that the regional universities have to this point been able to meet that challenge. They have not been able to meet that challenge principally because of the significant cuts in funding provided for tertiary education by this government since it came into office in 1996. This government cut funding to higher education by $100 million in its first term in office. This government cut funding to technical and further education by 13 per cent in its first term in office and then increased it by only one per cent in its second term—an effective real cut from 1995 figures. This government actually reduced funding to universities by six per cent per student place between 1995 and 2003.

The government argues that we should look at the vitality of the university sector and the competition for positions in the great universities of Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra, Perth, Adelaide and Brisbane—and, as we have a Tasmanian in the House, we should also refer to Hobart—but there have been significant staff losses and cuts to the course offerings at the Charles Darwin University. I am certain that those staff losses and the restructuring of courses being offered to students at Charles Darwin University and, I am sure, other regional universities can be directly attributed to the cuts in government funding since this government was first elected in 1996. That is a major concern, particularly in the context of this current debate about diversification and competition. We are seeing more and more pressure being placed upon these institutions, and we have to ask whether or not they have the capacity to make the sorts of changes that will see them able to provide the opportunities for university education and research for students within those communities.

I am attracted to two elements of this piece of legislation. The increase in the number of Commonwealth scholarships from 8,500 to 12,000 per year is a positive step. I hope that there is in some way or another an understanding that the bulk of those scholarships will go to people who live in regional Australia. From any observation that you might like to make, it is very clear that, because of locational disadvantage, the nature and cost of access to university education, the economics of relocating from one place to another and the dependency upon income from other sources, it is extremely difficult for young people who live in regional Australia to study at a university in a major capital city. I would encourage the government to ensure that the additional Commonwealth scholarships, when offered, are targeted specifically at young Australians who live in regional parts of this country.

I am also attracted to the introduction of the Indigenous scholarship classification, which will provide up to 1,000 scholarships to Indigenous students. That of course is welcome, but I go back to what I often say in this place—and I am sure that at least some members, certainly some members on my side of the House, will be sick of me saying this—and that is that it is all very well to have these higher education opportunities but, in the context of Aboriginal education in this country, and in Northern Australia in particular, there is a basic and fundamental requirement to provide young people with a school opportunity. Give them a school opportunity so that they can go out and compete in the labour market or move on to a higher education opportunity in a university or another tertiary education provider. This government has dropped the ball and has done very little to ensure that there are proper pathways for a young Aboriginal kid who lives in a remote community in the Northern Territory to go to a university in Sydney or Melbourne. Give them a pathway that provides them with that opportunity. But we need to invest in preschool, primary and secondary education before we are going to get the significant outcomes from the higher education sector that we want for Indigenous Australians.

Michael Ferguson (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very thankful to have the opportunity to speak in support of this bill, the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007. I was sitting here in this place on the Tuesday evening in May when the Treasurer handed down his 11th budget. When those of us who have been in this place only since the last federal election came in here and heard the 2005 budget, we were told that it was the Treasurer’s best ever budget. We were perhaps not expecting that, year by year, the good could get better, and this budget has certainly been the Treasurer’s best ever budget. It has been widely referred to by commentators—certainly those in education circles—as a very clever budget. It is a budget that does recognise the great value of investing in education. The budget does include very grand initiatives in the education sector, and today I will be concentrating mainly on those initiatives which are concerned with higher education.

It is true to say that the education of all Australians has been a passion of mine during my time in this parliament. I bring to my role a variety of experiences—as, of course, we all do. Having trained as a teacher, my career in life was working in Northern Tasmanian secondary schools, teaching maths, science, IT and, as is often the case, being expected to teach many other subjects in the course of my time. I come to this place not pretending to be an expert in education—not at all—but as a person who is very interested in education and is genuinely committed to it, who respects the choices that parents, young people and, indeed, older people make for their lifelong learning. I am someone who is committed to providing support to them, to being there and to setting up the structures and the investments that are needed to make education in Australia a truly worthwhile activity—not just something that we impose on young people to make them pass some time, if you like, or to pass some sort of abstract test for future life.

Education is about preparing for the future, but it is also about preparing for the present. More than ever, students in Australia today are learning for the here and now—not for some abstract future career path. Students in Australian schools and higher education facilities—universities, tech colleges, TAFEs and the like—are very much engaged, because they see that their education is linked in with the demands of our economy. We are living in a very modern economy; in the last 20 years it has undergone a very substantial amount of reform. And the economy of today is not in any way reflective of the economy of the days even when I was in primary school. The economy of today is a very vibrant place. In some ways it is an unforgiving place, because things move very quickly. For example, in the information technology sector, if you choose not to keep up your skills—if you choose, for example, to leave the sector for a short while—you might find that very rapidly your skills are out of date. So the need for education is very much linked to the economy.

In speaking to this bill today, I wish to make some comment about the importance of running a strong economy, about the importance of responsible economic management, and about the way in which, over the last 11 years, the Howard government has been able to stabilise our economy, stabilise the federal budget, pay off debt and get the monkey off the government’s back in terms of always, year after year, having to make interest payments on a debt that the government inherited from the Labor Party. By being free from that debt, by being relieved of the burden of having to make yearly payments to creditors, the government has been able to begin—in this budget, for the first time ever—to make serious investment in the further reforms that are needed to make our economy stronger and to lock in the prosperity gains that some of us do take for granted.

I am very passionate about our investment in higher education. In this portfolio, $5 billion was announced for a new initiative called the Higher Education Endowment Fund. It is a perpetual fund, and it is something which I will expand upon in just a moment. I think it is fair to say that this fund is the centrepiece of the education package in this federal budget. There is also additional spending of $4 billion over four years, which includes the $3½ billion Realising our Potential package. The budget investment includes a major reform package which will, I think quite genuinely, reshape the university and higher education landscape. It will certainly drive quality improvements in Australian schooling and in higher education. Until we as a nation are prepared to put into effect our belief that quality counts, we will have failed. As long as students are being churned through universities or institutions that do not have a passion for quality in education, we will simply be allowing something to occur on our watch which is a wasted opportunity for Australia and for Australians.

The budget also includes support for a range of initiatives that will go to ensuring Australia’s future economic prosperity by allowing all Australians to realise their potential through lifelong learning. I make that statement specifically so as not to make it exclusive to young people who have not finished college or gone to university. In announcing the budget measures, the Treasurer and the Minister for Education, Science and Training emphasised that the Australian economy does depend on its most precious and important resource, and that is its people. A well-skilled and well-educated population does improve workforce participation and allows people to make a contribution to the broader Australian community. It brings into the community, into the economy and certainly into the workforce people who in many cases have been alienated from it—people who, for whatever reason, have been excluded from the good things that can come from being better educated, from achieving their potential and from feeling as though they have a purpose in life. Lifelong learning can help people to gain value and a sense of self-esteem for what they are able to be in the community and, indeed, to other people.

The 2007 budget makes appropriations for the merger of the Australian Maritime College, which is in my electorate, in my home city of Launceston, and the University of Tasmania. The federal government will gift the AMC’s assets, which have been valued at some $61.4 million, to the University of Tasmania, putting into effect an agreement that was reached between those two organisations last year. This will facilitate the integration of the AMC into the university. They will merge effective from 1 January next year. The integration date is subject still to legislation that needs to come through this place and the other place to repeal the Maritime College Act 1978 and transfer the AMC’s assets to the University of Tasmania. I take this opportunity to place on the record my present agenda, which is to push for that legislation to come here as soon as possible.

The Australian Maritime College, as the act gives away, was established in 1978, as Australia’s national institution for maritime education and training. It is one of the world’s best-equipped maritime training institutions. It had 740 full-time equivalent students in 2006. For many members in this place, it may well be one of Australia’s best-kept maritime secrets. The merger is designed to ensure the viability of the AMC as Australia’s national centre. It will operate as an institute within the university, with its own board, which will include experts in the shipping industry, shipping safety and the certification of seafarer training. AMC students will have the same rights and privileges as any other students of the University of Tasmania. The merger will enable the AMC—which will be maintaining its brand and its identity, as an institute of the university—to provide even better education and research opportunities. It will be able to better respond to the changing demand for its internationally recognised programs and to better prepare students coming from all over the world to Launceston, to the AMC, to acquire those skills.

Employees of the AMC immediately prior to the date of integration will transfer to university employment. There will be no involuntary redundancies of AMC employees. The AMC and the university were both seeking opportunities to develop greater capabilities to rationalise their costs. It just makes a lot of sense. Anybody who has been there will know that the AMC campus and the University of Tasmania’s Launceston campus are side by side. It is a very sensible approach to achieving all of the goals that I have mentioned. It is a genuine opportunity for the growing and important role of the AMC. I place on record my appreciation for the principals of both of these organisations and the very professional and mature way that they have worked through this affiliation and integration process. It has not always been easy, and it is fair to say that there have certainly been some tensions along the way. If you are working for an institution that you are very proud of, you would of course like to think that it will continue to function in the way in which it has functioned in the past and that there will be some future in the brand.

I now wish to elaborate on an initiative of the budget that I have already touched upon. As a member of the governing party here in this place, I am immensely proud of the Higher Education Endowment Fund. With an initial investment of $5 billion, it is extremely encouraging for the higher education sector here in Australia. This has been funded from the 2006-07 budget surplus, and it is another example of how sound economic management by this government has allowed for new initiatives. I feel that it is important to place that on record, especially in reference to certain statements about the 1996 budget which I heard from the member for Lingiari. Cuts were needed in 1996. Why were budget cuts needed in 1996? Was it because the newly elected Howard government wished to cut budgets to a range of initiatives and government services in Australia? I do not think so. I think it cut them because it had no choice. The budget that it inherited was $10 billion a year in deficit. Earnings were $10 billion a year less than expenditures. Not only that, the accumulated government debt of that time was $96 billion. Standing here today, it seems almost like ancient history; but it is not; it is recent Australian history that a government inherited this enormous fiscal problem.

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

1983, $9.6 billion.

Michael Ferguson (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Isn’t that an interesting interjection from across the chamber—somebody from the ALP trying to make a political point in response to a statement about this budget, which has for the first time been offered by a Treasurer who has cleared the debt, who has cleared $96 billion in debt? Isn’t that interesting? Ninety-six billion dollars is approximately half of the federal budget, and we were in debt that much. Repaying that debt—and it has taken all of those years, and the government had to get the first budget under control in the first place—and getting that monkey off the back has meant there is now more than $8 billion a year which the government is in a position to give back to the Australian people in new initiatives and in tax cuts. And so it should.

In a speech I heard earlier today, by the member for Melbourne, I think, a comparison was drawn between the government’s investment in the Higher Education Endowment Fund and Labor’s plan to rip some $2 billion or $3 billion out of the Future Fund. No such comparison is valid at all. The Australian government has deliberately set up the Future Fund to be managed by the guardians of the Future Fund so that governments, which come and go, will not be able to put their fingers into that Future Fund, which was specifically set up to pay the debts that we know that we cannot yet afford—those unfunded liabilities. There is no comparison between the government’s position on the Future Fund, or indeed the Higher Education Endowment Fund, and Labor’s plan to raid the Future Fund for its broadband promise. However, the fund will promote excellence and quality in Australian universities for years to come, because it is perpetual. It will last longer than any of our careers here in this place. It will support the emergence of even more world-class institutions.

The dividends from the earnings of that initial $5 billion Higher Education Endowment Fund will be shared with universities in Australia. They will be used for capital facilities—such as research facilities—which students and researchers will be able to benefit from. The dividends will be shared based on strategic investment proposals which support the Australian government’s policy, which includes specialisation, diversity and responsiveness to local labour market needs. This is a modern education system. This is how you do it properly. It is not just about throwing money at problems; it is not about throwing money at vice-chancellors, hoping that they will go away happy. It is about setting up strategic initiatives in these good times to ensure that—heaven forbid—if bad times are ahead of us the structures are in place so that our higher education providers and universities are well resourced and so that Australia can remain a leading edge economy. It is an unprecedented investment. It is something that, as I have said many times, I am very proud of. I also look forward to next year’s federal budget—hoping like most Australians that the Howard government will again be delivering that budget—and hope that that budget and future budgets will deposit more funds from what ought to be future budget surpluses into that fund.

The last thing that I want to say about that endowment fund is this: it will allow us to do something in Australia which we have not done extremely well in the past. There are of course examples of institutions which have had generous benefactors who have bequeathed funds to university trust funds or other perpetual funds, the earnings of which go back into the institution. In other countries around the world they do it better. The United States and countries in Europe, such as Britain, certainly do it better than Australia. The Higher Education Endowment Fund gives Australian benefactors an opportunity to do likewise. Corporations and individuals who wish to make a contribution—for example, to the University of Tasmania—will be able to do so. The Higher Education Endowment Fund can be the vehicle for their donations. And those donations can be quarantined for a specific institution, which is excellent. Both sides of the House support that, because it is an excellent principle. It is a way for the Australian government to lever more finance and more investment from the community to help Australia become a better educated, smarter place and to strengthen our economy even further.

There are many initiatives in the budget that relate to education and they are the ones that I have concentrated on today. I commend the budget and I commend this legislation, which deals specifically with higher education, to the House. I hope that it is supported across all quarters. I pay tribute to the Treasurer for listening to Minister Bishop and understanding where she was coming from when she came forward, along with Minister Robb, with these initiatives. It is going to be great for Australia. Frankly, it is fair to say that it will take some time to see the long-term benefits emerge. Years will elapse before people look back to this time and say: ‘That was a really smart decision; that was a long-term, visionary initiative. It wasn’t just a $5 billion throw-away.’ By the way, you can get a lot of votes for $5 billion by spending them in the year. This is a $5 billion investment for the next 200 years which will make Australia a wonderful, more creative, smarter place. As I said at the start of my contribution, it is about helping young people—and indeed older people—to realise their potential, to gain more purpose for their lives and to feel as though they are a valuable part of our community. Thank you.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007 amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to provide for the government’s 2007-08 budget commitments, indexation increases and other technical adjustments and measures. After more than 11 years of complacency and neglect, and within a few months of a federal election, the Howard government has finally decided to do something about higher education. This side of the House, which has been leading the agenda for some time with its education revolution, agrees to support the bill in recognition of the increased spending on education and more scholarships and Commonwealth supported places contained in it—finally supplied after 10 years of neglect.

There are some aspects of this bill, though, that are not welcome. Those that will increase HECS fees for students in my electorate, placing university education in some cases out of their reach, are not welcome. In moving a second reading amendment to this bill, Labor wishes to voice a few important concerns surrounding those aspects of the bill which threaten the educational future of many Australians, including people in my electorate of Parramatta, who dream of studying at university. One of the main concerns surrounding this bill arises from the changes to CGS funding levels across disciplines and the revised maximum student contribution, HECS, for commerce, economics and accounting courses. The impact of these changes will result in an increase in HECS fees for students in commerce, economics and accounting courses. That impact will be far reaching for future students in the electorate of Parramatta and the Western Sydney region.

In amending the Higher Education Support Act, this bill sets the maximum student contribution amount for accounting, administration, economics and commerce units of study at the same amount as law, dentistry, medicine and veterinary science units. What this means for the University of Western Sydney is that CGS funding cuts in 2008 due to the federal budget will see a decline in funding from $12,860,000 to $7,800,000, thus causing a loss of $5,050,000 from its accounting, economics and commerce courses. What this also means for future accounting, economics and commerce students is that the government’s cost cutting will ultimately be passed on to them through the inevitable rise in HECS fees for these courses to cover the gap in funding. Unfortunately, these changes will provide an additional disincentive to the students in Western Sydney—many of whom are already experiencing disproportionate levels of social and economic disadvantage—who want to invest in their future through studying practical courses such as business and accounting.

Another concern arising from this bill relates to the Howard government’s decision to lift the cap limiting the proportion of full-fee domestic undergraduate places. This decision to lift the cap on full-fee-paying students, which comes into effect on 1 January 2008, once again calls into serious doubt the Howard government’s understanding of the educational needs of the people of Western Sydney.

By promoting and supporting a user-pays system, this government is encouraging queue jumping and rewarding earnings over learning. Instead of taking responsibility for adequately funding our universities, offering increased opportunities and investing in our country’s future, the government is doing the opposite by limiting learning for many who cannot afford to pay full up-front fees for education. In this regard I wish to support Labor’s proposed amendments to this bill, which would delete that part of the legislation lifting the cap on full-fee undergraduate places.

I also wish to bring the attention of the House to the part of this bill which amends the Australian Research Council Act 2001. The effect of this amendment is to reflect updated caps on funding for 2007-08 and to add the financial years starting on 1 July 2009 and 1 July 2010. Once again this measure is a case of too little and far too late. After letting research infrastructure run down over the past 11 years, failing to provide a real increase for ARC project funding and neglecting the Research Training Scheme, the government is now trying to make some eleventh-hour amendments. But these amendments will fall short of addressing the serious shortfall of young researchers needed to renew the academic research workforce; nor will these amendments go far enough towards closing the widening gap between Australian researchers and our competitors, which has allowed Australia to fall behind over the past 11 years. With falling productivity growth, inadequate levels of research and development and a record run of 59 trade deficits, a real boost to research and development is needed to reverse this decline.

The community response to the government’s initiatives regarding higher education has been quite illuminating. When it comes to increasing the HECS fees for business, commerce and accounting, the Australian on Wednesday, 30 May said:

The business sector has criticised the move, saying it will exacerbate skills shortages in important areas of the economy, particularly accounting.

Geoff Rankin, chief executive of CPA Australia, which represents 112,000 finance, accounting and business professionals, is quoted as saying:

We would like the Government to actually explain to us where the upside is.

Mr Rankin went on to say:

It is hard for us to see how this is going to attract more people into doing those courses. In fact, it might turn them away.

He then went on to call for an increase in the number of Commonwealth supported places in accounting. Sheena Frenkel, the general manager of the chartered accountants program and admissions at the Institute of Chartered Accountants, said:

... the profession and Australian business generally faced “really critical shortages off accountants at all levels”.

She went on to say:

If (the budget change) results in a negative impact on the number of young people selecting accounting as a career, then that is absolutely not good.

Tim Brailsford, president of the Australian Business Deans Council and the head of the University of Queensland business school, said the decision to slash business course funding was:

... rash, hastily made and not consistent with previous or current logic.

The Vice-Chancellor of the University of Western Sydney, Janice Reid, said:

It is a great worry to us ... It will be a significant disincentive for students who might have seen a bachelor of business or bachelor of commerce as a viable alternative to a bachelor of arts or a general degree in the humanities. I think for students in (UWS) who will be taking a degree without necessarily having the assumption of a good salary when they graduate, who see (business) as a good preparation for a career, it becomes a less attractive proposition.

The National Tertiary Education Union said:

The biggest losers from the Budget are clearly future students wishing to undertake commerce and business related degrees. They will face an increase in HECS fees of about $1200 per year, or almost $5000 for a four year degree, while at the same time seeing a cut of about $1000 per year in the Commonwealth’s contribution.

The government’s decision in the recent budget to reduce CGS funding for accounting, economics and commerce students and allow for an increased HECS contribution to be paid by students in these courses has some potentially serious consequences. This decision comes at the same time that the Howard government has presided over a drop in the number of students starting a university degree at the University of Western Sydney as well as cuts to the base funding of the university, further stretching its already overstretched resources and increasing the financial burdens on both the university and its future students.

According to figures released by the Department of Education, Science and Training, the number of students commencing courses at the University of Western Sydney in 2006 was 10,599, marking a decline of 11.5 per cent on the previous year’s commencements. The total number of students attending the University of Western Sydney in 2006 was also one per cent down on its 2005 student numbers. It is a measure of how out of touch this government has become that the number of people starting university at UWS has fallen at a time when Australia’s economy is desperately short of nurses, teachers, scientists and accountants. It is also a measure of how out of touch this government is with the growing population of Western Sydney and the needs of its university.

The University of Western Sydney made a submission to the inquiry into higher education funding and regulatory legislation and explained very clearly the issues that the university confronts. I will be drawing heavily on sections of that submission. The University of Western Sydney, as a new generation university, was established as a result of the sector-wide reforms of 1989. It is a direct product of the abolition of the binary system and mass expansion of higher education and has grown from under 10,000 students in 1989 to over 35,000 in 2003. Its legislative charter is to provide university level education and research in a regional context. For this university, regional context is the greater Western Sydney region, an area historically and to this day underprovided for and underrepresented in terms of university level participation. The higher education participation rate in greater Western Sydney stands at three per cent compared to 5.2 per cent for the rest of Sydney. 10.5 per cent of greater Western Sydney residents have a degree compared with 20.8 per cent for the rest of Sydney—that is just over half. The number of students at UWS has continued to increase substantially. However, the growing population in the region shows a trend since 1996 of a widening gap in participation rates between greater Western Sydney and the rest of Sydney. The gap has grown from 1.8 per cent to 2.2 per cent over the period of 1996 to 2001, according to the ABS census data.

So we have a situation where, in Western Sydney, only 10.5 per cent of residents have a university degree, compared to 20.8 per cent for the rest of Sydney, and where people in Western Sydney enrol at only three per cent, compared to 5.2 per cent for the rest of Sydney. You cannot underestimate the importance of Western Sydney and the importance for this government and any future government to get it right out there. The futures of the University of Western Sydney and greater Western Sydney are interlinked. The UWS provides a broad range of courses and applied research across six teaching campuses in a geographic area of 2,000 square kilometres, encompassing 14 local government areas and with one-tenth of the nation’s population. Of UWS commencing students in 2003, 72 per cent came from the greater Western Sydney region.

The population of Western Sydney grew by 8.5 per cent in the last census period, 1996 to 2001, compared to 6.5 per cent for the rest of Sydney. It is predicted that 25 per cent of all of Australia’s population growth in the next 20 years will be in greater Western Sydney. In this regard, the region represents both the heartland and the powerhouse of national growth and development. There are 72,000 businesses in greater Western Sydney, and the region generates more than $54 billion in economic output a year, making its economy the third largest in Australia behind the Sydney CBD and Melbourne. Given the importance of this region and the growth that we are likely to experience, I will say again that only 10.5 per cent of residents in greater Western Sydney have a degree, compared to 20.8 per cent for the rest of Sydney, and they enrol at three per cent compared to 5.2 per cent for the rest of Sydney.

The region deserves a well-resourced, robust and vibrant university, providing the highest quality educational opportunities. How true that is. After 11 years of the Howard government, the people of Western Sydney deserve much better. The people in Western Sydney still enrol, as I said, at just over half the rate of the rest of Sydney, and the gap is widening. I ask the House today: how can that possibly be okay? How can it possibly be okay for any region in Australia, let alone for a region that is one of the drivers of economic prosperity for Australia’s future? Let me assert on behalf of my constituents and my colleagues on this side of the House who represent people in Western Sydney that it is not acceptable to us that people in Western Sydney are so far behind the rest of Sydney as a whole. Nor is it acceptable that our major university in Western Sydney has been ignored for so long by the Howard government.

Another aspect of this bill which I mentioned earlier is the likely prospect of an increase in HECS fees for accounting, economics and commerce students. Students’ rising HECS burdens, which are alarming and obvious, show just how out of touch this government is with both our students’ and our country’s educational needs. Statistics show that the government has decreased its commitment to education, with total education spending falling from 7.7 per cent to 7.4 per cent by 2010. They also show that overall investment in education is just 5.8 per cent of GDP—less than that of countries such as Poland and Hungary. At the same time, students’ HECS debts are consistently increasing. Since 1996, the cost of a university degree has increased by between $7,500 and $30,000 per degree, and student debt has more than tripled from $4.5 billion to nearly $13 billion.

The Howard government HECS hikes of 25 per cent mean medical students will pay more than $30,000 extra over the course of their degree, law students will pay over $20,000 extra and engineering students will pay more than $16,000 extra. Accounting students face paying almost $5,000 extra for their degree. Unfortunately, the electorate of Parramatta has not escaped the national trend in HECS hikes. Parramatta’s total HECS debt is $99 million and rising, according to figures provided by the Department of Education, Science and Training. Young people are being put off by the cost of going to university, and it is just not fair that young people have to take on these kinds of debts, particularly to undertake degrees which are seen very much as starting degrees. The Howard government’s only plan for our universities is higher fees, more full-fee payers and funding cuts. Labor wants to give Parramatta residents the world-class education and training opportunities they deserve. This bill does not do that. The people of Western Sydney deserve better than this bill. They deserve a world-class education system in their own backyard.

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

It gives me great pleasure to speak on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007, which forms an important part of the measures which were introduced on budget night. It is a budget which has been very much referred to as the education budget—and quite rightly so—because of the very strong emphasis that it places on the important area of education. Higher education is, of course, vital from a national perspective. We need to innovate and we need to move forward in order to compete in a very competitive global marketplace. Failure to innovate effectively in the 21st century means that you are not only standing still but probably going backwards. So higher education forms a vital part of that innovation, that growth of our local talent and our intellectual capital that are going to allow this nation to prosper and grow. Education is of great importance not only at a national level but also at a local level.

I am certainly fortunate to have the Coffs Harbour campus of the Southern Cross University, which provides great benefits to the community, in my electorate. It is part of a very much larger campus which includes a senior high and a TAFE. It is known as the Coffs Harbour Education Campus and it allows students who have not even completed year 12 to complete their senior education at a high school level, to matriculate through TAFE and then to go on to university and postgraduate study. So a person who is interested in nursing would have the opportunity to go through completing high school, pursuing initially a TAFE qualification and then moving on through a degree and a higher education qualification after that. Coffs Harbour Education Campus is a great facility. It provides a very innovative and flexible way of learning for a great many people. It is of great benefit not only for the education services it provides but also for the jobs that it provides for people who are perhaps not in an academic sphere but supporting the education institution itself.

Expenditure in higher education in this budget did not just happen; it was very much a product of good economic management. Good economic management allowed the government to expend the huge investment that has been highlighted in this budget. Good economic management made that possible. It is not possible to run a budget deficit while continuing to improve investment in higher education. Of course members opposite are very skilled at spending more than they earn. Bad economic management and running deficits is their stock in trade. When it comes to deficits they wrote the book.

Not only are we providing increased education funding in this budget, but we are doing it while maintaining a budget surplus. This government has paid back $96 billion of Labor’s debt, which has made available some $8 billion per annum for spending on providing services for the Australian people—$8 billion not going to pay interest and which can now be spent on providing services. The reduction in our unemployment rate means that the unemployment queues are shorter and the number of taxpayers is greater. Effectively, we have fewer outgoings by way of unemployment benefits and more tax receipts by way of improved employment outcomes—all adding to the ability of this government to manage the economy and provide more revenue to deliver services such as higher education.

We saw under Labor growing unemployment queues. Under their economic management the unemployment queues grew, the cost of unemployment grew and tax receipts fell. This government has taken the exact opposite approach. We have grown jobs, created opportunities and created more revenue and we have been able to deliver improved services as a result. Somehow members opposite believe that good economic management is all some sort of happy coincidence and that we do not have to take the hard decisions. We well know that they voted against all the difficult decisions. They voted against all the measures that have got us to the point where we are today. Members opposite, as a single voice, have been voting against it. They voted against the reform of the waterfront and against tax reform—all measures that have got us to a position where we can invest large amounts in higher education. They have been voting against the means of getting us there. It beggars belief that they can consider that the economy is just going to move along and happily generate surpluses by some happy coincidence.

It is very important that we have good economic conditions for businesses to prosper and grow. Profitable businesses pay more tax; taxpaying businesses allow us to finance services. A high interest rate and high inflation regime is not a friend of business—it does not allow business to make the sorts of profits that are needed to underpin the services that people require. It is the peak of hypocrisy for the opposition to say that we are as one on economic management when they actually voted against all of the measures that got us to the point where we are today. It is the peak of hypocrisy for them to say that they support the government when in fact they do not. It is all an elaborate hoax. This government has been able to do a range of things in this budget because of good economic management and to make some very substantial investments in education.

Members opposite want to turn the clock back. We want to take this country forward. We want to drive the economy harder and we see higher education as a major way of doing that. The budget introduced the Higher Education Endowment Fund, which is a very innovative approach to education and will be provided with some $5 billion out of the surplus. That is the interesting thing: when you are running a deficit you cannot put away the sort of money that is being invested in this budget—that is, some $5 billion for a fund to benefit higher education by providing for its capital needs and for the establishment of research facilities into the future. If you are not running a budget surplus you cannot do that. But when we look at the record of the members opposite we see deficit after deficit. And they were deficits of a huge proportion at a time when the economy was much smaller than it is today—that is, $13 billion deficits on a base that was much smaller than it is today. It is a tragic economic record and one that will not support further investment in higher education.

The important part of this fund is that the government intends to add to it by investing future surpluses into it so that there will be even more funding available for the capital needs of universities. This money will be distributed to individual universities for capital facilities and research facilities. The budget also provides $556.9 million over four years to simplify university funding structures and to provide additional funding for disciplines in areas of skills needs. This is particularly welcome in the area of teaching. The increase in funding for teaching has gone from $7,950 per annum in 2007 up to $8,217 in 2008. That is certainly a welcome improvement. As Chair of the Standing Committee on Education and Vocational Training, I certainly welcome that increase in investment for the training of teachers.

There is some $211.2 million over four years to give universities greater flexibility to manage student numbers and course mixes, respond to student demand and address skills needs. This measure will allow relaxation of the cap on university enrolments. There is $208.6 million in funding to create a new diversity and structural adjustment fund to assist universities to diversify and to specialise. I am pleased to add that priority will be given to regional and smaller metropolitan universities that can demonstrate the greatest need for structural reform. Also in the budget is $77 million over four years to help teacher education students obtain more practicum experience in the classroom before they enter the profession. This is a very important measure. The provision of practicum for undergraduate students is an expensive part of their training. This budget will provide a minimum of 120 days of practicum for three- and four-year courses. I know that it is something that is going to be welcome. In my time as chair of the committee we had the opportunity to go around and interview a range of students from various universities around the country and one of the things that they were very keen to do was to get plenty of quality practical experience.

I think it is vitally important that trainee teachers not only get a specific number of days of practical experience in the classroom but that the experience is a quality one that is well integrated with their theory of pedagogy and their other academic courses at university. I think it is a very welcome measure; that $77 million will be very well spent by this government. The government will also provide $102 million from 2008 to establish summer schools for teachers looking at areas such as literacy, numeracy, history and science, which are vitally important. It is also a vitally important concept that the education of a teacher does not end when their undergraduate degree ends. A teacher really needs to be involved in lifelong learning. Whilst many of the subject items they study are foundation stones and do not change, there are a range of fields that are changing all the time. It must be very challenging for a teacher to be teaching computing in the 21st century when our children are so computer literate. So ongoing professional learning through measures such as these vacation schools is a great investment. Providing teachers with an incentive by paying them a $5,000 bonus to complete such a course is, I think, a worthy recognition of their investment in training young Australians into the future. It is a worthy recognition of the importance of lifelong learning for teachers.

There is also $222 million to improve access to tertiary education over four years. There is $87 million over four years to extend eligibility for rent assistance to Austudy recipients, benefiting 11,000 students aged 25 and over. There is $43 million over four years to extend eligibility for youth allowance and Austudy to students who are doing a master’s by coursework which is a minimum entry requirement to a profession or is part of a restructure of an existing course. The government will increase the number of Commonwealth learning scholarships from 8,500 to 12,000 each year, commencing in 2008. That is at a cost of some $91 million over four years.

This is a very fine budget that has been introduced by the Treasurer. It is a credit to him. The focus on education is a vital one for our nation, both now and into the future. We are able to do this because we are strong economic managers. We are able to do this whilst maintaining a surplus. The members opposite seem to think that the economy will run itself, that these surpluses will be around into the future. That is clearly wrong. They are deluding themselves and they are trying to delude the Australian people that they can pull out the cornerstones of our economy, reintroduce an antiquated industrial relations system and expect that somehow the economy will grow. They will be back to their sad old ways if they are handed the keys to the Treasury; they will be running deficits again before too long. I think it would be a grave mistake if at the next election the people were to hand them the keys to the Treasury. That would end the sort of economic reform that has taken place under this government and replace it with a regime that, despite all their rhetoric, is actually backward looking and not forward looking. I commend the bill to the House.

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to also place on the record a contribution to debate on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007. I do so, of course, on behalf of the people of Adelaide and also to show my support for the second reading amendment moved by the member for Perth earlier today. After listening to government members speaking in this debate, including the contribution by the previous speaker, some of us could be mistaken for thinking that after this legislation is passed all of Australia’s higher education sector problems are going to be miraculously cured. Sadly, this is not the case. After 11 years of neglect by this government, our higher education sector needs a lot more work and a lot more input than that which is contained within this legislation. Whilst it is refreshing to see that the government have been reminded that they do indeed have responsibility for our universities, many people in the community may have forgotten that over the past 11 years for good reason. At times I forgot that during the contribution of the previous speaker when we were hearing about the waterfront and interest rates. Anyway, it is very refreshing to have the government come to this parliament and introduce measures for our universities. It just would have been better if they had been realised and acted upon at some time during the last decade, not just in the lead-up to the next election.

I was reminded that in previous elections this government has had some problems having things to say on the matter of higher education. At the last federal elections in my seat of Adelaide, which is a marginal seat, we had a series of debates during the campaign, which the then sitting Liberal member was happy to attend. We debated human rights, poverty, homelessness, health and range of issues. But for one issue the member was absolutely adamant that she was unavailable to attend a debate. That issue was higher education. One of the universities in the electorate tried to organise a debate, and the sitting member was continuously unavailable at the time suggested. Finally, it was given to her to find any time she could come and talk about the Howard government’s record on higher education. Sadly, she was unable to do that and, for the only occasion in any of those debates, sent along a senator instead because she did not want to discuss higher education in the seat of Adelaide.

At least this legislation does offer some long-awaited positives. Sadly, it also contains some further nasties for our higher education sector—nasties which I argue are not in the best interests of our country and our students. In particular, I would like to outline my concern about measures in this legislation that further increase the HECS burden on many young Australians. I also want to speak about the latest move, contained in this legislation, to lift the cap on Australian full-fee-paying places—something I personally find absolutely abhorrent. But first I will commend the government on some of its measures, particularly the announcement of the Higher Education Endowment Fund. Within my seat of Adelaide there are two universities and several campuses. The University of Adelaide is one example where funds for infrastructure are very much needed. It is an absolutely beautiful campus with some very old buildings. I am sure there will be people at Adelaide university who are delighted to see that parliament is discussing putting more funding into infrastructure on our university campuses. The University of South Australia is also in my seat of Adelaide. It is a university that has undergone some amazing capital works projects recently. It has built some new, state-of-the-art facilities and would also welcome more government investment in university infrastructure.

The issue of higher education, and particularly this government’s neglect of the higher education sector, is something that has affected my life. It may be credited, or discredited, as one of the factors which led to me being here today. I was not an overly political person until, during my time as an undergraduate student, I had the misfortune of being at university when this government came into office and slashed the funding to the higher education sector. I saw firsthand the consequences of that and it is something which, at the time, I said I would fight to make sure that Australian students have access to a quality higher education sector with ample government funding.

Whilst the government has unveiled plans to look into the infrastructure of our universities, sadly the problems in our higher education sector are far greater. One problem is the completely inadequate levels of funding to the universities themselves. Another is the massive cuts that have been given to student income support and the fact that we now have students struggling to juggle their studies with three or four part-time jobs whilst they are at university. We have seen the attack on student services on campus through the government’s VSU legislation. We have also seen massive increases in HECS fees and, of course, this government’s introduction of full fees for domestic undergraduate students.

People, quite rightly, point out that it was a Labor government that introduced HECS. I studied under HECS and do not have a problem with the notion of somebody being asked to make a contribution towards their education. There is no doubt that people receive a personal benefit, as well as benefiting the common good, from undertaking their own educational pursuits. The problem is with balance, and we need to make sure that we get the balance between the personal and government contributions right. That is where the government have continually distorted the HECS system to shirk their funding responsibilities. In 1997, the government increased HECS fees by between 35 and 125 per cent. In 2005, they then gave our universities a green light to increase HECS fees by a further 25 per cent. The HECS fees in this country are now so overwhelming that they are pricing many talented Australians out of a higher education.

The Minister for Education, Science and Training states in this parliament that this is not the case. She often talks about reports or studies which state that HECS fees in this country are not a disincentive to students undertaking a higher education. I say to the minister that she should put down the reports, go to a university campus and talk to the students there, because she will hear a very different story.

A conversation I had, which will never leave me, was with a woman in my electorate during the last election campaign. I spoke to an Adelaide mother about higher education and I mentioned that the government had a proposal to allow a green light for a further 25 per cent HECS increase. She was, very proudly, telling me about her son who was in year 12 and about how hard he worked and how it was his ambition to be the first member of their family to go to university and get a degree. She told me about how he was juggling his part-time work and how committed he was to his studies. She then broke down and explained that, if HECS fees continued to go up, she thought she might have to tell her son that that would be a bigger debt than any member of their family had ever taken on before and that maybe he should not go on to university. This is the real-life impact that these ever-increasing fees are having on young Australians and on Australian families. We had that election and the fees did increase. I often wonder what happened to that young man, and I also wonder how many other young Australians are out there in exactly the same boat.

Last year, the previous shadow education minister and I visited Adelaide university and spoke to some of the students and it was a very eye-opening experience for me. We spoke to a group of young undergraduates and asked them what they were studying, and there was quite a diverse range of courses that they were all engaged in. We then asked why they had chosen those courses and the responses were quite shocking to me when people said, ‘Well, you know, I’d always dreamed of going on and doing this other course, but I looked at how much they each cost and this one was much cheaper, so I thought that I’d do this one instead.’ This is what is happening on the ground.

These huge HECS fees are a massive disincentive to kids following their dreams and pursuing the careers that they long to pursue. They are being priced out of many careers because of the massive level of HECS burdens being placed on them. Sadly, this legislation does nothing to fix this; instead it offers further HECS increases. Contained in this legislation we see a green light for further increases in the HECS levels for students studying accounting, commerce and economics and this is precisely the wrong direction that we should be going.

The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services, of which I am a member, recently held an inquiry into balancing work and family in Australia and heard evidence about the impact that HECS fees were having on young people’s decisions to have families. We have a Treasurer who is quite happy to stand up and tell the people of Australia that they should have one for the mum and one for the dad and one for the country, but let us look at what is actually impacting on decisions. If we really want to increase the birth rate then how about listening to those young people out there who are saying, ‘When we have massive HECS debts, that is not an opportune time for us to make the decision to have a family or to increase the size of our family.’ When you combine that with the ever-increasing cost of homeownership in this country—and first home ownership is becoming more and more unattainable for many young Australians—I think this parliament should be debating the long-term consequences of such a massive HECS burden on young Australian students.

Moving away from the HECS issue, there is sadly another nasty in this legislation when we look at the issue of full fees. This legislation removes the cap on domestic Australian full-fee-paying students and enables wealthy students, who can afford massive up-front fees, to access a higher education that may be denied to more worthy students who have worked harder, received better results and are more qualified. Can anybody really say that this is fairness that this government offers in higher education?

It has also been revealed that for the first time ever Australian universities are able to offer some undergraduate degrees solely to those who can afford to pay for them up front. Lucrative courses such as, say, law or dentistry can now be organised under the changes in this legislation to actually offer zero Commonwealth supported places but a number of up-front fee-paying spots. Personally I find it completely abhorrent that this federal government is today introducing an education system which encourages queue jumping and now rewards earnings over learning. That is where we are at in this debate today. Education in this country must be something that all Australians can access. It cannot be that we have a country where young kids who do not come from a wealthy background now say that there are some degrees which they are being priced out of, that they can never access no matter how hard they study or how worthy they are.

What do we hear from the education minister when we put this to her? The education minister has the gall to come into this parliament and say that what the government is doing with Australian full-fee-paying places is offering Australian people ‘choice’. How out of touch is this government if they cannot recognise that there are a large number of Australians who simply do not have the choice to pay $100,000 or more for a degree! This is not a choice that many Australian families have open to them.

The other argument that we have heard about full-fee-paying places, which the Prime Minister likes to come out with every now and then, is that we on this side of the House are trying to discriminate against Australians because overseas students can come in and pay full fees and access university places. But of course there is one very big difference here. Overseas students have not had parents that have been paying taxes for Australia so that their children can access a higher education system. That is a very key difference which the Prime Minister conveniently omits.

The government members who have contributed to this debate have spent some time reading quotes from vice-chancellors praising the move to remove the fee on full-fee-paying places. There is a very simple reason for this: of course they would. These are the vice-chancellors who are crying out for funds for their universities because this government has neglected them for the last 11 years. These vice-chancellors are now becoming increasingly reliant upon either overseas full-fee-paying students or domestic full-fee-paying students because they need any way to get more funding into their universities as the Howard government has neglected them for far too long.

In my own electorate in Adelaide the Adelaide university vice-chancellor has already indicated that the university would try to lift domestic fee-paying places, hoping for an increase from three per cent to five per cent of enrolments. We have also seen one Australian university reveal that it now receives a massive 45 per cent of its total revenue from overseas students’ up-front fees. This is why the vice-chancellors are coming out and raising this proposal, because they are completely reliant on this funding.

It is really disappointing that we have so many members of this parliament that do not take into consideration the effect that this is having on young Australians when they are being placed further and further out of the higher education sector. I look across this chamber regularly and see so many government ministers, many of whom benefited from a free education in this country, that have absolutely no idea of the financial pressures that they are putting on young Australians today.

In contrast, for a long time we have been talking on this side of the House about the need for an education revolution. This does not just include the higher education sector. We are talking about early childhood education, schools, trades, training institutions and our universities. We also believe that it is the Commonwealth government that has the responsibility to adequately fund our universities. We talk about this not only because it is a social issue—and I unashamedly believe that education is one of the best ways to improve people’s prospects of life and improve their future prosperity—but we also argue it because this is a really important economic debate. We need to realise that as we move forward into the 21st century education is not just social expenditure; it is in fact integral to our economic growth. We are a nation intent on competing on the international stage as a knowledge based economy, and investment in education and human capital is surely our very best chance to do that. Investing in our best and brightest is surely the only way to do that. Australia’s future prosperity will be built on fostering education, skills and trades amongst our people, enabling us to compete in a competitive global market not just by pursuing an outdated ideological approach to outsource the cost of our education and increasingly push the burden further and further away from the Commonwealth government and more and more onto the shoulders of young Australians who can least afford it. There are some shameful elements of this legislation, particularly the full-fee-paying measures and any moves to further increase HECS. It is time we got serious about debating the long-term consequences that this is having on the young people that we should be investing in and educating today.

Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007. Interestingly, it appears that class warfare is alive and well in the Labor Party. Education revolution? I imagine that would come from the Che Guevara school of education. The Minister for Education, Science and Training has put in place the final pieces to end the administrative and educational straitjacket that was imposed on institutions of higher education under the former minister John Dawkins. The bill also reflects the philosophy of the coalition which underpins legislation, that is, fairness and freedom to choose.

This is in stark contrast to the typical Labor position of one-size-fits-all and the arrogant and misplaced authoritarianism of ‘we know what’s best and what’s good for you’. The concepts underpinning the first-class education system are: access, quality, sustainability and equity. I shall address each of these in turn and this will illustrate how the initiatives of the coalition government are ensuring that higher education in Australia is the envy of the world. We aim for quality and accessibility for students who wish to avail themselves of further education.

The first aspect is access to relevant and needed courses. We live in a world of constant change, and nowhere is that more evident than in the workplace. There are many jobs today that we hardly even conceived of a decade or two ago. Science and technology are two areas in which that is especially pertinent. Many established professions have new disciplines, areas of expertise and requirements. It is imperative that our education system can move with the times and provide the education and training that business and the public sector demand. The main impact of this bill will be in the area of institutional freedom and relevance.

Universities have for some time been calling for more flexibility and fewer artificial caps. Contrary to the picture being painted by the Labor Party, some Commonwealth supported places are unfilled. These places are currently being wasted because they cannot be transferred to an area of unmet need. In contrast, under the coalition government’s reforms, higher education institutions, HEIs, will have more flexibility to respond to supply and demand, especially from employers. They are in the best position to ascertain and to advise about future skills and training needs in their industries. These reforms will also relieve the administrative burden to a considerable extent by simplifying funding structures. This new flexibility will be backed up by funding to support HEIs during the reform process. This will ensure that all HEIs are able to obtain the maximum benefit from these important changes.

The next aspect of education I wish to address is quality. Having a longstanding interest in science, I was particularly gratified to note the extra funding going into maths, statistics, engineering, science and surveying, to name but a few areas. Frankly, there is no getting past the need for investment in producing graduates in hard sciences; that is, those technical areas that underpin our infrastructure, manufacturing and technical skills base. I also support any measure that will attract more young people to science related courses. For too long science has been the poor relation in many HEIs and has had difficulty in attracting students, partly I suspect because of the rigorous nature of the courses. At one Western Australian university a few years ago the TER required get into the physiotherapy course was in the mid 90s, whereas to get into the nanotechnology honours degree the TER was in the 70s. Therefore, I support any measure that makes science related subjects more attractive.

Equity is one of the opposition’s favourite catchcries. To Labor, equity means preferential treatment for those demographic groups that will be prepared to show their gratitude by delivering block votes to the Australian Labor Party. One area of this bill, about which there has been much debate and which relates directly to access and equity and which is, of course, continuously and wilfully misrepresented by the opposition, is Commonwealth supported places, that is HECS-HELP places.

In yet another tediously predictable scare campaign about this legislation, the opposition spokesman painted a worst-case scenario as the one most likely to happen. He foretold that universities would choose to remove Commonwealth supported places from certain areas such as law, medicine and dentistry so that only full-fee-paying students would be able to enrol. Indeed, I heard the member for Adelaide mouthing much the same. There are at least three reasons that the opposition spokesman is wrong in his doom and gloom predictions. The member for Perth, channelling Chicken Little for all he is worth, knows he is wrong, or he should do—just as he was wrong about common-law contracts recently in an ABC interview.

The first reason that his dire predictions will not eventuate is the continuation of the policy ensuring that HEIs must fill their Commonwealth supplemented places in each discipline cluster before offering any full-fee-paying places. Members should be aware that only a handful of courses in a handful of universities got near the cap of 35 per cent, or in the case of medicine 25 per cent, for full-fee-paying students. Therefore, the idea of Mercedes loads of rich kids keeping out the deserving poor is yet another Labor myth, thanks to the higher education funding of the past 10 years.

Secondly, if an HEI tried to close off an area of study to HECS-HELP students, the minister has the discretion to insist on places being provided in certain areas. Therefore, this minister is taking direct responsibility for ensuring that HEI places are distributed fairly and equitably. She has also displayed great faith and trust in our universities and colleges that they will behave in a credible, responsible and ethical manner. Members should compare that attitude to the opposition’s attitude. Judging from the words of the opposition spokesman on education and training, clearly he and the opposition believe higher education institutions are the bastions of feudal attitudes that are run by elitists who will keep out the hoi polloi in favour of the wealthy. That is not a very fair or balanced view of our educational institutions, and it is one that I am sure any vice-chancellor would repudiate in an instant.

I understand that many HEIs have already told the government that they would not permit that imbalance to occur. Any significant shift in student loads would also become apparent quite quickly. Apart from the altruistic philosophical attitudes of equity, fairness and giving opportunities to those who could not afford to attend higher education institutions without assistance, there are also far simpler reasons: competition and choice. As these are concepts which are beyond the ken of members opposite, I shall speak slowly. I apologise for the lack of subtitles.

There is no doubt that some of the brightest, most hardworking and motivated students are those who have been given a Commonwealth supported place. These students are determined not to squander this opportunity and to ensure that they get the maximum benefit from this assistance. Labor would have you believe that universities and colleges will deliberately exclude these students, who would bring great credit, if not prestige and recognition, to their alma maters for their achievements and instead, they would favour full-fee-paying students.

I cannot accept that university administrations are so mean and greedy and anti-egalitarian as to take this course of action, even if Labor clearly does. This is yet another attempt to dress up tired, old class warfare and the  politics of envy—ideological wolves—with the sheep’s clothing of concern for students. In fact, this expressed disdain, bordering on hatred, of so-called ‘rich’ people was never better exposed than in the words of a close friend of the member for Kingsford Smith, who would fall into the despised category of ‘rich’ himself. Rob Hirst, former drummer and songwriter for Midnight Oil, described the permitting of full-fee-paying students in the Bulletin of 26 January as:

We’re getting thicker. Our unis are filling up with dumb, rich kids whose daddies have paid to queue-jump them over the heads of their brighter, poorer peers.

That sounds exactly like what I have heard from so many members opposite.

Apart from the inherent sexism of implying that only fathers earn enough to pay university fees—and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would have something to say about that—the almost comically dated political rhetoric of these comments show an appalling lack of knowledge of the situation within Australian universities. This is the third reason why Labor’s predictions of wilful education deprivation will not eventuate, not under a coalition government, anyway. There are currently more higher education students and more places available than ever before. In fact, between 2004 and 2011, there will be 50,000 more places. This exposes the misinformation being peddled by those opposite. The issue of student places being held back by government is rubbish and manifestly disingenuous. Not only are there so many more places but the funding has increased significantly.

Despite Labor’s propaganda, here are some more facts which those opposite refuse to acknowledge. Since 1995-96, there has been a 31 per cent real increase in the funding of higher education. I will repeat that for the selectively deaf members opposite: a 31 per cent real increase. That is a fact, despite Labor’s claims that Australia’s public funding of universities has gone backwards. Not only that, but it is all thanks to the excellent financial management of this government and the Prime Minister and Treasurer, in particular, which has permitted this exceptional funding increase to be possible. Why? This is something else which those opposite, especially the member for Brand, will not want to hear. This directly relates to the fourth concept underpinning the coalition’s educational reforms, which I referred to at the beginning of my speech: sustainability. The funding in this year’s budget for higher education is around $8.8 billion, a huge financial commitment. Coincidentally, that figure is also significant for another reason.

That figure of around $8 billion was what it was costing the Australian taxpayer each year in interest payments for the great Australian debt black hole, courtesy of 13 years of Labor. We are funding our higher education system simply by the savings we have made in interest payments. This expenditure not only shows the coalition’s commitment to higher education but also how critical sound financial management is in being able to provide such education. Thanks to the coalition government, that black hole has been closed off and it will no longer suck the financial lifeblood of this country. Education is merely one of the many beneficiaries.

There is a further reason why Labor’s phoney hand-wringing about Commonwealth supported places is so easily exposed as baseless. The government has received some extensive research into the issue of unmet need. This was estimated to be about 13,000 places. In other words, there were 13,000 Australians seeking a higher education place who were unable to get in. This is where the true significance of the government’s budget measures can best be appreciated. From next financial year, the government will fully fund over-enrolment in courses by up to five per cent. Keep in mind that there is an unmet need of 13,000 places. If we apply the five per cent overenrolment allowance to every course in every higher education institution, it would allow the creation of over 21,000 extra Commonwealth supported places. This is about 8,000 places more than is currently anticipated will be needed. That is one of the major planks in ensuring true access to quality and sustainable education for all those who want it in this country.

On 10 May 2007 the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was asked at a doorstop why Labor cannot say if it is going to stick to the policy position that it will not be allowing some full-fee-paying students. The member for Griffith has left the door open. What a perfect opportunity to articulate a major aspect of higher education policy. What was the deputy leader’s incisive response? She said, ‘These are matters that will be dealt with by my colleagues, most particularly Stephen Smith, so I will leave it at that.’ There are only three reasons for such a hopeless answer: (1) she did not know the answer, (2) she did not like the answer or, (3) the most likely: the answer is up in the air. There was not enough focus group consultation, perhaps.

That same day it was reported by Samantha Maiden and Steve Lewis that ‘the opposition leader shocked his own frontbench by refusing to rule out a backflip on full-fee degrees’. On the same day, Michelle Grattan wrote:

Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd has left the way open for a Labor government to retain full-fee-paying places for domestic undergraduates. This is despite Labor’s platform, endorsed recently, saying these would be phased out.

Labor’s policy is unclear. Perhaps a bit more focus was required. Such indecision should make the Leader of the Opposition the Vicky Pollard of Canberra: ‘Yeah, but no, but yeah, but’!

Having thought that he had dug himself out of that particular hole, the Leader of the Opposition was then faced with the university response to phasing out full-fee degrees. Not surprisingly, they are saying that they want to be compensated for the loss of money. Who could have guessed that? Just about everyone, except those ‘proven unsuccessful people’, as Mr Keating called them. One wonders just how hard it is to toss a coin. Furthermore, University of Sydney Vice-Chancellor Gavin Brown said:

I’m saddened that, for ideological reasons, thousands of students would be denied educational opportunities of their choice.

Finally, let me share one story which illustrates why full fees are still important. A few years ago a young lady in my electorate did not achieve the TEE marks she needed for her chosen course. She was utterly distraught. Her parents went with her to the university open day in January. She was told by the most helpful Dean of Students from Curtin, Mr Alan Rendell, that she could pay full fees for the first year and that, if she passed her exams, she could then be accepted as a HECS student. Her parents were not rich—just ordinary, hardworking Australians who wanted the best for their kids. They paid full fees for their daughter for the first year. In return, she worked part time in the final two years of a full-time law degree, working 2½ days a week and studying at night. This is the sort of dedicated young person that the member for Kingsford Smith’s friend sneeringly refers to as a dumb, rich queue-jumper. Nothing could be further from the truth. She did very well, completed her degree under the HECS system and went on to several other postgraduate qualifications. She now has a great job with a fine future, thanks to the opportunity to undertake this course—something which those opposite would deny her in a heartbeat because of some misplaced 19th century chip-on-the-shoulder ideology.

I will leave you with the comments of a migrant who came here for a better life for himself and his family. He says:

We brought three kids with us plus our graduate and post graduate qualifications. The eldest child has just qualified as a mechanical engineer, the second child is going into third year engineering and the youngest child is in second year psychology. All this on the wonderful HECS scheme where for the price of a small new car you get a first class university education. We are Australian citizens—the ceremony was a milestone in our lives. And yes, we support John Howard, all of us.

Dave Tollner (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am honoured to speak today on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007. The bill will amend two acts—the Higher Education Support Act and the Australian Research Council Act. I am pleased that the amendment to the Higher Education Support Act will enable the expansion of the Commonwealth scholarships program to provide an additional 3,500 Commonwealth scholarships annually. Two thousand of these new scholarships will be available to students who may not otherwise qualify for a higher education place to study a two-year associate degree as a pathway to a full degree. Northern Territory students are set to gain from this amendment.

The bill provides an additional year of funding for 700 Commonwealth Education Costs Scholarships and 210 Commonwealth accommodation scholarships for Indigenous students undertaking a higher education enabling course. The Commonwealth scholarships program will also be expanded to include a one-off payment of $4,000 to eligible Indigenous students to assist with the costs of attending university. In this way, up to 1,000 Indigenous higher education students will be assisted each year. The increase in scholarships provides students from low-income backgrounds, particularly those from rural and regional areas, with increased opportunities to go to university. Participation rates for students in rural and regional areas have been largely unchanged over the last decade. The additional scholarships will provide more help to students who really need it.

The amendment bill will change the current administrative arrangements for the scholarships to ensure that they are offered at around the same time students are offered a place. This will help students make better informed decisions about which offer to accept. Scholarship funding will now be paid directly to students by the Australian government. Commonwealth scholarships provide opportunities to attend university for students who otherwise might not. The increased number of scholarships will help to build the nation’s skills for the benefit and future prosperity of the country. This bill is further evidence of the Australian government’s commitment to making the higher education sector more responsive to student demand by making a university degree even more accessible to students.

The May federal budget was very much an education budget. For young people, it opened up even more educational opportunities, allowing them to recognise their full potential. The facts speak for themselves. Howard government investment in higher education increased 31 per cent in real terms from 1995-96 to 2007-08. The budget provides $1.9 billion for higher education, plus an additional investment of $5 billion in a perpetual Higher Education Endowment Fund. This includes $222 million for further support for students and practical things like extending rent assistance to full-time students aged 25 years and above who are receiving Austudy. From 1 January 2008, around 11,000 students could be eligible for rent assistance for the first time. The measure will support mature-age participation in higher education and will contribute to increasing the skills base at a time of skills shortages. Mature-age Indigenous students receiving Abstudy are already able to receive this rent assistance.

The bill will also extend the youth allowance and Austudy to students enrolled in an approved masters by coursework program which is required for entry to a profession. This is a bonzer budget for education. Do not just take my word for it. The President of the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee, Gerard Sutton, said that the budget is ‘spectacular’ for the higher education sector. Compare this with Labor’s policy to abolish full-fee-paying places. As the member for Tangney just outlined, this would cost in the order of $500 million over four years, and that is not including private universities, like Bond and Notre Dame, or postgraduate places.

The Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007 removes red tape and constraints on flexibility in a number of areas and provides real opportunities for young people. The bill provides Australian universities with more support for structural reform to promote greater specialisation, diversity and responsiveness to our local labour market needs under the new Diversity and Structural Adjustment Fund. The fund will allocate $209 million over four years to universities that can identify strategies to better meet student and employer demand. The fund will particularly focus on addressing the capacity of universities to meet our local market needs. Priority will be given to universities in regional areas and smaller metropolitan universities which can demonstrate the greatest need for structural reform and the greatest input in local labour markets.

The federal government will reduce the amount of red tape that binds universities by working with the states and territories to streamline the relevant regulatory and legislative requirements. It will ask the states and territories to refer regulatory powers over their financial management of universities, which will prevent duplication and reduce red tape. Specifically, there would be only one layer of financial auditing and associated reporting requirements imposed on universities.

The bill is part of an unprecedented investment in higher education. Together with a range of other measures, it will fundamentally reshape the higher education landscape. This will allow more of our universities to be world-class and encourage greater excellence, diversity and specialisation in the sector. Media coverage of the education component of the budget focused on the $5 billion Higher Education Endowment Fund, which will provide a guaranteed and ongoing stream of earnings to the sector to contribute to improved capital works and research facilities. The Higher Education Endowment Fund is expected to provide a dividend of around $900 million over three years from 2008-09, which will be distributed to universities.

But this is only part of the education good news story. Around 3.4 million students from more than 9,600 schools and school communities across Australia will benefit from more than $1.2 billion in additional funding over four years. This additional funding takes the total level of investment in schooling by the Howard government to over $10 billion in 2007-08. That is a big commitment. New budget measures also support the Australian government’s plan to restore the value of technical and vocational training to help ensure that a high-quality technical qualification is as prized as a university degree. Students, families and school communities across Australia will benefit from the introduction of national teacher training and registration standards announced in the budget. The Howard government will work with the states, territories and other stakeholders to develop a national framework to improve teacher education and to ensure more consistent, high-quality teaching across Australia.

There has never been a better time to be a tertiary student. Only three per cent of domestic undergraduate places are full-fee-paying, and the number of people who want a place at a university but cannot get one is at a historic low. The policy of fully funding overenrolments up to five per cent will effectively mean that every student who wants a university place next year will be able to get one. In broader terms, the amendment bill will benefit higher education providers, who will gain from the increased flexibility that allows them to address areas of skill shortages and who will also receive additional funding for some disciplines.

Students will benefit from additional funding for various disciplines as the quality of courses will be improved—for example, via smaller classes, better course delivery and/or equipment and materials. The higher education sector will benefit from addressing key concerns raised during the review of the Higher Education Support Act 2003—namely, the call for a reduction in the number of clusters to allow institutions to better manage their enrolments and additional funding for key disciplines. A fundamental premise of the Howard government’s education policy is that universities should be accessible to eligible students, whatever their background, and be accountable and transparent to taxpayers, who sustain them. OECD data shows that Australia’s public support for students in tertiary education is 0.4 per cent of GDP—above the OECD average of just 0.25 per cent of GDP. This statistic supports the other tenet of the federal government’s education policy—that Australian universities are expected to not only equip graduates with the skills they need for the 21st century but also create new knowledge that will underpin Australian innovation and global competitiveness.

I would now like to speak a little about Charles Darwin University, one of Australia’s youngest universities, which is in my electorate of Solomon, in Darwin, and exemplifies this approach. It is already becoming a specialist in fields like health, tropical medicine and Indigenous studies. Charles Darwin University is set to receive $1.3 million in 2008 and $2.2 million in 2009 towards the cost of the establishment of an allied health complex at the Casuarina campus. The funds have been allocated through the higher education Capital Development Pool program, which has been used to construct purpose-built allied health and advanced nursing infrastructure to allow the university to effectively deliver its range of health related courses. The complex will include pharmacy dispensing laboratories, a clinical teaching laboratory, flexible ward space and a dedicated lecture theatre and will facilitate an expansion of the programs related to allied rural, remote and Indigenous health.

The Capital Development Pool program supports proposals which assist in new campus developments in suburban growth corridors and regional centres, capital developments to establish or expand courses identified by the government as discipline areas of national importance and communication and IT infrastructure projects which improve the cost-effectiveness and quality of educational delivery. Almost $94 million in additional funding from the Capital Development Pool has been allocated to Australian universities in 2007-09.

The bill we are debating today is also committed to making Australian universities more responsive to student needs and labour market demands while ensuring they are still world class. A good example is the recent funding of Charles Darwin University under the Australian government’s voluntary student unionism transition fund and the Support for Small Businesses on Regional University Campuses Program to construct a sport and recreation precinct and a medical centre. Charles Darwin University will receive $5 million for a sport and recreation precinct and $400,000 for a medical centre at its Casuarina campus. A total of 37 projects have been approved nationwide and they will contribute around $58 million to the higher education sector to assist universities to adjust to the implementation of voluntary student unionism. The projects supported by these grants will provide students all around Australia with improved services and facilities which promote social interaction and good health. The broad principles laid down in this bill will impact directly on Charles Darwin University and all institutions of higher learning nationwide. This is a very positive step for the Northern Territory because it will upgrade quality standards and develop synergies with international universities.

Earlier this year, when speaking on another education bill, I alluded to my support for the establishment of a stand-alone United Nations University research and training centre on traditional knowledge in the Northern Territory. The United Nations University has made an in-principle commitment to build a research centre for traditional knowledge and Indigenous studies. CDU won the backing of the UN University to locate the centre in Darwin against strong international pressure, and once again I congratulate its distinguished vice-chancellor, Professor Helen Garnett, for her vision in promoting this collaboration. Considerable matching funding has been sought from both the Northern Territory government and international philanthropic sources. I am still very hopeful that federal funds will be made available for this project. CDU is seeking funding of several million dollars from the federal government as a one-off contribution or, alternatively, as funding contributions on a year-by-year basis over the long term. The UN University has agreed it will contribute several million dollars to the establishment of the centre, provided that there are matching funds from the Australian government. The proposed Indigenous knowledge centre is acknowledged by Indigenous groups as a facility which will advance economic and social outcomes for Aboriginal people nationwide, and indeed overseas, and will make an important contribution to defining the challenges in the field of traditional knowledge.

The UN University functions as a decentralised global network and adopts an interdisciplinary approach to its specialist fields of study. Its headquarters are at the UNU centre in Tokyo and it is supported by a worldwide network of research and training centres in cooperation with local universities. Although Charles Darwin University is a small university, with a total student population of around 5,300, the proposed UN centre has enormous potential for Charles Darwin. The Territory has the potential to become a world leader in fields like Indigenous studies and tropical medicine, and the location of the UN University at CDU would provide some obvious synergies. The Menzies School of Health Research, for example, received $5.3 million in the budget to expand the school in Darwin and extend its Indigenous health research, which is regarded as world class. And there is a need to rationalise Indigenous education courses and develop centres of specialisation and excellence.

As I said in the House earlier this year, I strongly support the idea of a United Nations centre for Indigenous studies which would consolidate all Northern Territory Indigenous educational groups, including the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education, into one world-class centre. The Batchelor institute is controlled and run by Indigenous Australians and specialises in working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students from across Australia, particularly from remote communities. It aims to develop an Indigenous approach to mainstream disciplines and careers. The institute offers higher education and vocational education and training courses ranging from apprenticeships to certificates. The proposed tie-up between CDU and the UN University should strengthen ties between Batchelor institute and Indigenous communities through cooperation in Indigenous research and development.

This will attract overseas students—Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike—as well as academics to the Northern Territory and reinvigorate higher education, scholarships and research in the Indigenous education field. It will also promote partnerships in research and scholarships with other organisations and researchers. New funding sources and grants, for example, would expand and strengthen Batchelor’s research profile and provide research grants for staff. So far, research activity in the institute’s dispersed environment has been very limited to say the least. There are currently no students undertaking higher degrees by research. If the Batchelor institute were to merge into CDU—a move which, by the way, I am very keen to promote—that would allow them to focus on the areas in which they should do best. Those areas are predominantly in the VET sector—for example, training apprentices and the like in a whole range of fields and skills that are sorely needed in most remote communities.

I commend this Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007 to the House. The legislation is part of an important long-term plan to help secure sustainable funding for Australia’s university sector and to ensure that that funding meets the needs of its students. I am particularly concerned about the situation in the Northern Territory, and this bill will go a long way to improving our circumstances and delivering to us the best possible outcomes.

Gary Nairn (Eden-Monaro, Liberal Party, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Minister for Education, Science and Training, I would like to thank all members who spoke on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007. The bill before the House will fundamentally reshape the higher education landscape in Australia. It responds to calls from the sector for greater flexibility and less red tape. It will allow a more diverse and vibrant higher education sector to emerge—one that strives for excellence and shapes its own destiny. No longer is university elitist. No longer is higher education unsustainable, as it was in the 1970s era of Whitlam. The reforms of this government will also enable the sector to break out of the one-size-fits-all straitjacket of the 1980s Dawkins era.

The decision in the budget to fully fund university overenrolments by up to five per cent of a university’s total funding will potentially create around 21,000 additional Commonwealth supported places. In addition, the Australian government will allocate a further 2,300 new Commonwealth supported places later this year. Essentially, anyone who wants, and is eligible for, a place at university next year should be able to get one. This is a far cry from the days of previous Labor governments, when 100,000 young Australians who were eligible to go to university missed out on a university place. This coincided with unemployment of 11 per cent, when a million Australians were on the unemployment scrap heap.

This bill will relax the caps on Commonwealth supported and domestic full-fee-paying undergraduate student places. Labor has suggested that universities will en masse convert Commonwealth supported places into full-fee-paying places and will turn their backs on students seeking to take up a Commonwealth supported place. The Australian government expects universities to act responsibly and will not let this happen. Government policy remains that universities must offer their Commonwealth supported places in a discipline cluster before they offer full-fee-paying places. Any significant shifts in student load between clusters must be approved through the funding agreements between the Australian government and universities. The Australian government will not let Australian universities walk away from their obligation to ensure access for Australians who want, and who are eligible for, a university education. Today, the member for Perth confirmed that Labor would abolish fee-paying domestic undergraduate places. Where does this leave Bond University and the University of Notre Dame?

This budget provides a massive $6.9 billion for the higher education sector, including the initial investment of $5 billion in the new Higher Education Endowment Fund. This means that funding for higher education has increased by 31 per cent in real terms between 1995-96 and 2007-08. And that does not include income support for students. At the same time, universities are reporting large increases in their operating surpluses and asset bases. The taxpayer is funding record numbers of Commonwealth supported places. This bill provides a further $0.5 billion for many courses, including maths and statistics, allied health, engineering, science, clinical psychology, teaching, nursing, medicine, dentistry and veterinary science. I will mention surveying, which is included in the engineering area. I know that surveyors are needed, and surveying is supported as part of this. In response to calls from the sector, this bill also reduces the number of clusters from 12 to seven.

Reflecting the higher salaries that business graduates can expect to receive over a lifetime, the maximum student contribution for accounting, administration, economics and commerce units and the Commonwealth Grant Scheme subsidy will be aligned with the contribution and subsidy for law. It will be a decision for each institution as to whether it raises the student contribution for these disciplines. The change will only affect students who commence study with a higher education provider from next year. This bill also establishes the new Diversity and Structural Adjustment Fund, which will assist universities, particularly smaller metropolitan universities and those in regional areas, to play to their strengths to ensure a diverse and sustainable sector with a focus on quality, access, efficiency and good governance.

One of the great things that has happened in my electorate of Eden-Monaro in the 11 years of the Howard government is that we now have several hundred people doing full-time university degrees being able to remain where they were brought up and where they live rather than having to do a course by correspondence or having to leave home to attend university. When I was elected in 1996, unless you lived in Queanbeyan and could go to university in Canberra, anywhere else in the electorate you would have had to leave the electorate to attend university or have done a course by distance education. In the interim the University of Wollongong has established access centres in both Batemans Bay and Bega and they have grown. I opened the expansion of the Bega access centre last year. Half a million dollars was provided by the Australian government towards the expansion because it has become so popular. It started by utilising technology so that, by teleconferencing, students could participate in lectures given in Wollongong. It has grown and is employing lecturers and tutors locally. As I said, several hundred people are now doing full-time degrees, something that they would never have dreamed of under previous Labor governments.

This bill also introduces three-year Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding agreements from 2009 to replace the annual agreements. Institutions that finalise a three-year agreement during 2007 will be able to take advantage of this arrangement from 2008. Through this bill the Australian government is increasing the number of Commonwealth scholarships from around 8,500 to 12,000 per year. This is over and above the additional annual scholarships for 1,000 Indigenous higher education students to undertake an undergraduate or enabling course. The current administrative arrangements will also be changed to ensure that scholarships are offered at the same time as students are offered a place and will be paid directly by the Australian government. This will help students make better informed decisions about which offer to accept.

This bill promotes a more diverse, responsive and dynamic higher education sector that delivers benefits for universities, for their students and, in turn, for the wider Australian community. I say to the Australian people: if you cannot manage the economy, you cannot invest in the future. The dividend of strong economic management by this government is that we can provide Australians with a good education and a job. I commend the bill to the House.

Question put:

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