Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (2008 Budget Measures) Bill 2008, which was introduced into the House last week. As members will know, this bill deals with a number of issues and proposes a number of measures with respect to higher education. Specifically the bill deals with a range of capital works projects at the James Cook University Dental School, capital infrastructure and additional Commonwealth supported places in medicine, nursing and education at the University of Notre Dame. It makes provision for additional Commonwealth supported places in early childhood education and nursing and for the expansion of undergraduate scholarships over the next four years. There are a number of other measures as well. One of the bill’s major measures, of course, is the reduction in HECS for certain courses, specifically maths and science, down to the minimum rate. For graduates of those courses who go into areas of workforce shortage, specifically teaching, there is a 50 per cent reduction in the HECS repayments. Finally, the bill deals with domestic full-fee-paying places. It provides for the abolition of those places and also provides for what the government says is the necessary number of additional Commonwealth supported places to compensate for the abolition of domestic full-fee places.

I say at the outset that all of these measures and initiatives within the bill were spoken about before the election. We say that quite up front. They were within the Labor Party’s policy platform. Obviously some of them are non-controversial, and by that I refer to the capital infrastructure grants to some of the universities and some of the other measures. Some of them received more prominence than others, specifically the longstanding policy decision by those opposite to abolish domestic full-fee places at Australian universities. The opposition will not be forcing a division on this bill. We do not wish to delay those good parts of the bill for Australian universities or for them to be delayed in the other place. However, let me just say in the brief time available that, with respect to the HECS reductions for maths and science and some of the other courses mentioned, obviously the government’s intention, as they stated before the election, is, firstly, to encourage more people into these courses and, secondly, to encourage them into areas of workforce need, specifically teaching. That intention is a noble one, but it is one we are sceptical about. We would hope to be wrong, but we do not think this approach is a silver bullet, particularly when it comes to teaching.

We think the big issues in teaching—and the shortage of science and maths teachers, if I can just take one example in the short time available—relate more to the teaching profession itself and the lack of performance pay structures and the like. That is a very big debate that is ongoing at the moment. We would all agree in this House that we need to attract the best and brightest into teaching and then we need to keep them there. I think most members here in this House would agree that, for a long period of time, it has not been the case that we have been able to attract the best and the brightest into teaching. We are not keeping them in that profession long enough. The statistics tell the story. It is not a matter of political argument or debate. Too many teachers leave within the first three to five years and we lose them forever.

Another thing we need to do is think about initiatives and incentives that will attract people into the areas of maths and science teaching mid-career. This is a big issue beyond the power of just this House; we need our state counterparts to think about this creatively. We all know intuitively, and members on each side say it in various debates on other issues, that in today’s modern economy in Australia people will change jobs or careers throughout their lifetimes. The structure of teaching is predicated on someone doing a teaching degree and never leaving. We need to be able to attract people in their 30s, 40s and 50s who will be looking for a second career and for whom teaching would be an attractive option. We need to be able to attract them into the profession. We think that, whilst the intent behind the measures within this bill is obviously to make a difference, these bigger issues that I have just canvassed will be what is required to actually make the real difference.

Finally, it is well known that those opposite have always opposed domestic full-fee places at Australian universities. This bill provides for the abolition of those places. We think that is a big mistake. This side of the House believes that students who have just missed out on a HECS funded place or a Commonwealth supported place who want to take up the option of a full-fee domestic place, and who want to work and save and make that sacrifice for their own future, should have the ability to do that. That is why we introduced that option of additional places above and beyond the Commonwealth supported places. Those opposite have been opposed to this for a long time, and we think that it is blind ideological opposition. Those opposite—the Minister for Education and members of the Australian Labor Party—operate on the assumption that there is not one single student occupying one of these places in an Australian university who comes from a poor background. They cannot conceive that someone who has had a difficult year in their final year of high school or has had a disrupted education, who has worked their guts out and who may have just missed out on a place will actually take out a loan and work and take up one of these places. It is their preference that they be denied that choice and that they instead, presumably, fly overseas to take up a full-fee-paying place or that they go to a private university.

I know that those opposite cannot conceive that such people exist. They do. They have been taking up these courses, and this legislation, which will prevent that from occurring, will remove choices for those people. I foreshadowed earlier that I would move a second reading amendment—a pious amendment—in my name on this issue, and I will do that now. I move:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1)

condemns the Government for:

(a)

its blind ideological opposition to domestic full fee paying places in Australian universities;

(b)

its deliberate plan to legislate to prevent an Australian student from taking up a full fee paying place just as overseas students can and will continue to be able to do;

(c)

its restriction of flexibility for our universities to respond to student demand; and

(d)

its constant false claims that those full fee paying students are buying their degree when in fact they must meet the same academic standard as every other student at their university doing their course to pass each year of their course and obtain their degree; and

(2)

notes:

(a)

that students including some from low socio economic backgrounds who may have experienced disruption, difficulty and obstacles in their final year at high school will no longer have the option of making their own individual choice to take out a loan, or work and save, to access a full fee paying place if they have just failed to obtain a Commonwealth supported place;

(b)

the Government’s pious pretence that it cares for those students who may need access to assistance whilst at the same time outlawing access to their desired university course;

(c)

that the bill will further limit pathways for Australian students to get into a desired university course and embark on their chosen career; and

(d)

that this bill restricts further the choices available to Australian students in assessing the best courses to suit their own circumstances”.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment.

Craig Thomson (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The blind hypocrisy of the opposition in relation to this second reading amendment to the Higher Education Support Amendment (2008 Budget Measures) Bill 2008 is absolutely unbelievable. Of the areas that were neglected in our economy—in our country—it is higher education that has suffered more than most over the last 11½ years. Not only has it suffered through a reduction in money being invested there, but the former government’s ideological approach to higher education in trying to tie the unfair Work Choices to the funding for universities makes an absolute mockery of this particular amendment. 

Under the former government, in order to guarantee that they retained their funding, universities were forced to offer AWAs to all university staff. The former government blindly forced an unfair ideology—one that was completely rejected by the Australian people on 24 November—onto both the academic and general staff of universities around this country. The member for Casey came into this place today and moved an amendment that accuses the Rudd government of blind ideology—it just bowls me over. It shows the hypocrisy and the gall of the opposition. It clearly shows that they do not take education seriously. It shows that they have not changed and they have not learnt their lessons from 24 November. What they are about is cheap political stunts to try and cover up for the fact that for 11½ years this was an area that suffered greatly from the neglect of the former government. In fact, the neglect of the former government was so bad that, while other OECD countries on average increased their funding by up to 48 per cent in the 10 years leading up to 2004, in Australia we saw a decline of four per cent. That is a 52 per cent difference between what happens everywhere else and what happens in this country. They did it even though they knew that there was a skills shortage in this country—one that was growing. It was growing because of the inaction of the former government in relation to their approach to education generally but particularly to higher education.

The Higher Education Support Amendment (2008 Budget Measures) Bill 2008 and part of some other bills that were outlined in the budget and are now before this place seek to redress some of these issues and make sure that we can start to look at those capacity constraints that have been brought about by skills shortages throughout the country. In particular, the budget identified two key infrastructure initiatives: the Better Universities Renewal Fund, which is a $500 million fund available now for use by universities to address the rundown in facilities; and the $11 billion Education Investment Fund, which is available from 2009-10 for major infrastructure investments. With this bill we are looking to restore equity to higher education, firstly, by abolishing full fees for domestic students. This is not an ideological position; we are not saying that we are not going to increase the number of places. In fact, universities will have 11,000 new Commonwealth supported places by 2011. With this legislation we are saying that students will be able to compete for these places on merit rather than on ability to pay. That has always been a tenet of Labor Party policy and it is something that those on the opposite side simply do not get. Education is a social imperative, but it is also an economic imperative and it is one that should not be based on someone’s ability to pay.

In relation to capacity constraints that are there, it was very interesting looking at what the Reserve Bank Governor had to say in relation to capacity constraints and the opportunities that the former government had over 11½ years to try to address those issues. Earlier this year in the review of the RBA, Glenn Stevens indicated that indicators of capacity utilisation had reached their highest levels for two decades and firms continued to report considerable difficulty in expanding operations due to shortages of suitable staff. Mr Stevens added:

The economy has for a few years now been approaching a point where the level of utilisation of labour and capital is very high, and we are as fully employed as we have been for 30 years.

The Reserve Bank Governor was making the point that there are capacity constraints because of the need to reskill. These warnings had been given to the former government on numerous occasions, but what did they do in terms of higher education? They effectively cut funding. They did not look to the future; they did not say that there were going to be problems. Their approach was simply to slash and burn and look at reducing the federal contribution to universities. On this side of the House we believe in the education of the country. We believe in an education revolution, and we believe that an education revolution is vital for the economy of the country to put downward pressure on inflation and therefore keep interest rates lower.

The key initiatives in this bill will restore equity to higher education by abolishing full fees; providing incentives to study and work in priority areas for our community and the economy in maths, science and early childhood education; and helping to increase access to higher education by doubling undergraduate scholarships and postgraduate scholarships. As I said, by 2011 there will be 11,000 new Commonwealth supported places. This bill also looks at funding valuable places and infrastructure for the James Cook University Dental School and the University of Notre Dame in medicine, nursing and education. Under the previous government these were areas where we saw cuts in numbers at universities, contributing to the skills crisis that we have.

This is an important bill. It is just one part of the Rudd government’s ongoing education revolution. It is an important piece of legislation that needs to be seen in the context of the other measures that were announced in the budget, and it is a piece of legislation that I commend to the House.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment Participation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I firstly thank those members who spoke on the bill and I commend the member for Dobell for his very compelling contribution to this debate. The Higher Education Support Amendment (2008 Budget Measures) Bill 2008 amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to implement the government’s education revolution 2008-09 budget package for higher education. These measures carry through the government’s election commitments. The government’s immediate priorities for higher education implemented through this bill will address skill shortages in critical areas, restore equity and support access to higher education, and fund places and infrastructure in key areas.

This bill makes important amendments to the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to address urgent and immediate priorities. It will provide for increased funding under the act to provide incentives for students to study priority areas like mathematics, science and early childhood education at university. It will ensure that students gain access to higher education on merit, and not on the ability to pay, by phasing out full-fee-paying undergraduate places for domestic students in public universities from 2009 and providing for additional Commonwealth supported places in early childhood education and nursing. This bill will provide for the expansion of Commonwealth scholarships, including the doubling of the number of undergraduate scholarships from 44,000 to 88,000 by 2012 and the doubling of the total number of the Australian postgraduate award holders to nearly 10,000 by 2012. It will provide for capital infrastructure and additional Commonwealth supported places and clinical outreach funding for the establishment of the James Cook University Dental School and for capital infrastructure and additional Commonwealth supported places in medicine, nursing and education at the University of Notre Dame Australia.

The measures in this bill in addition to our commitment to the $11 billion Education Investment Fund and the $500 million Better Universities Renewal Fund that are not covered by the act represent the start of the government’s education revolution in the higher education area. Again I thank the members who contributed to this debate. It is an important debate, as is of course the bill. I indicate to the House that, as a result of the extensive debate across the chamber, we have I think, particularly when it comes to members on this side, highlighted the important elements of the legislation that is being proposed. Of course we are disappointed that the opposition could not accept the evidence and the compelling arguments put by government as to why they should support the bill. They have moved an amendment, which we do not support. I am very happy to commend the bill to the House.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Casey 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.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.