Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Rankin proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Government's unfair and short-sighted attack on universities and students.

I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The cuts to higher education in this budget are breathtaking in their scope, in their spitefulness, in their short-sightedness and in their stupidity. What rubs salt into the wound for students right around the country is that the Minister for Education, who does not like students very much, went on the Insiders program on Sunday and said:

… students will always be the winners …

But what he forgot to mention was that, when he said students will be the winners, he did not mean students from low-SES backgrounds; he did not mean women; he did not mean students from regional areas; he did not mean students who do not have the limitless funds that are required now to pay for his university degrees; he did not mean the types of kids that we want in our university system, who now might balk at the extraordinary cost that it takes—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Rankin will just resume his seat for a moment. Those members who are leaving the chamber will leave or return to their places in this chamber and give the member for Rankin the courtesy that he deserves in an MPI.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy Speaker.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Blair might not have heard that, but he might either leave or return to his place. The member for Rankin has the call.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. On this side of the House, we reject their narrow and elitist view of higher education, just as we reject their narrow and elitist view of the country more generally. It says it all about the government that they want university study to be the preserve of the wealthiest people in our community, the preserve of the few, and not something that the broad range of Australians, whether they are from lower SES backgrounds or otherwise, can access. They want to take us back to the bad old days, where university was just for the kids from the fanciest suburbs, with the most well-to-do parents and from the most expensive schools, and we reject their approach.

The problem with this government is that, while the whole world is concentrating on how they combat inequality, how they invest in human capital, how they do the right thing by the broad mass of their people to get the right kind of economic growth—while the rest of the world is seeing that as a challenge—this government sees rising inequality as an objective. We know this because the cuts that it has made to the higher education system in this budget will hurt the poorest kids the most.

On this side of the House, we believe that access to higher education should be about the contents of your mind and the contents of your imagination and not the contents of your wallet. If we are serious about building the right kind of economy into the future, we should be investing in all of our young people and giving them the access to higher education that they deserve.

The reality about this budget is that the government have Australia hurtling in the wrong direction. It is worth reminding the House of the list of cuts that they have put into higher education in this budget. There is $5 billion in cuts to higher education in the budget. There is $3.2 billion in cuts to HECS. There is $1.9 billion in cuts to universities by reductions in government course subsidies. There is $202 million in cuts by indexing university grants to the CPI. There is $172 million in cuts to funding to promote and reward universities for enrolling low-SES students. There is $173 million in cuts to the training of Australia's research students, the scientists and academics of tomorrow. There is a $75 million cut to the Australian Research Council. There is a $31 million cut to the national regulator. They have abolished the $3.5 billion Education Investment Fund, and they have deregulated student fees from 1 January 2016, leading to higher fees and spiralling student debt.

Earlier on, in question time, the member for Hotham asked a very good question about how many of the current cabinet had had access to a free university education or affordable HECS. In his answer, the Minister for Education said that he has not done a study of that front bench. Well, we have. We have done a study of their front bench. What we discovered is that—depending on which biography you have a look at—something like 12 or 13 of the 19 people in the Abbott cabinet benefited from either a free education or affordable HECS. Twelve or 13 of the 19 had some aspect of their university education provided for free by the taxpayer. I will not take the House's time by running through them all, but, when the education minister got up here before and talked about the opportunities provided to kids, the reality is that, as the member for Hotham said, he is slamming the door on people who want the same sorts of opportunities that he had when it comes to affordable HECS.

I agree with the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Canberra, Stephen Parker, who said:

I … think it is unethical for a generation of leaders who by and large benefited from free higher education to burden the generations behind them in this way …

I think he makes a very good point. The education minister went on the Alan Jones show yesterday, and he said:

… they should be buying a bunch of flowers and a box of chocolates and visiting a home near them where they know someone hasn't been to university, knocking on the front door and saying thank you very much for paying for my education.

My advice to the Minister for Education is: he should go into some of the lower SES areas and knock on their door and explain to them why he wants to extinguish the dreams that they have for a higher education in this country. The reality is that those opposite are in denial and disarray when it comes to higher education in this country.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Rankin will resume his seat. I call the member for Higgins on a point of order.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, this is on a question, an intervention—whether the speaker will accept a question.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. The member for Higgins will resume her seat. That is not a point of order. An intervention is not allowed in the chamber.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are in disarray when it comes to the higher education policy. I thought that, given the higher education theme of this speech, I would ask a multiple-choice question: which of the following statements have turned out to be true? Which of the following have turned out to be true: (a) the coalition's Real Solutions election document, which stated, 'We will ensure the continuation of the current arrangements of university funding'?

Opposition members interjecting—

What about this one: (b) the education minister's claim on Insiders on Sunday, 'Anybody who was enrolled before May 14, nothing will change in terms of their arrangements'?

Opposition members: No!

No. Or (c) the Treasurer's statement that HECS loans 'shouldn't be different to any other loan'? Is it (a), (b), (c) or (d) none of the above? The answer, of course, is that none of the above turned out to be true.

The education minister has been running around today trying to pretend that these changes will cost an extra $3 a week for students, or $5 a week, something like the middy that the Treasurer talks about so regularly. I refer him to the Universities Australia modelling which was released today, which shows that an engineering graduate's HECS debt will go from $49,000 to $119,000 and take 26 years to pay off instead of 18 years. That is the magnitude of the changes we are talking about. That is why the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Adelaide said:

… it is starting to look as if the student debt burden for many under the proposed reforms might well be worse than in the US.

The House should be aware that the United States' student debt has tripled in the last eight years. That vice-chancellor is talking about Australia dwarfing that outcome.

We did some of our own calculations. Instead of $3 to $5 a week, based on the Universities Australia report a nurse might pay an extra $15 a week—that is a very conservative estimate—and an engineering graduate who takes some time off for work might pay an extra $82 a week, so I think we can dismiss the $3 to $5 figures pretty easily. The Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sydney said:

It's the ordinary Australians that I think aren't getting enough of a guernsey in this conversation …

He is right. So many different vice-chancellors and people who know more about the education system than the Minister for Education have expressed their alarm about this.

The reality is that this goes to the core of what kind of country we want to be in the future. How we invest in higher education is one of the most important determinants of how we will go as a nation into the future. Instead of tackling those sorts of big issues we have an education minister who goes on Insiders on Sunday and talks about student politics, still fighting the Cold War on the uni campus. He says, 'My job is to fight the Left,' and he puffs his chest up about student politics. There are all kinds of quotes that reveal that this is about settling scores from when he was at university. This should be a far more important conversation than the Minister for Education implies in those sorts of comments. It goes to the type of country we want to be. It goes to whether we have a big vision for Australia or whether we have a narrow, elitist vision for Australia. In that sense it goes to the very core of our national identity.

If we are serious about building economic growth into the future, we want more people to have the types of tools of success that you get at university, not less. We do not want to narrow or diminish the pool of success stories that we can have into the future in our economy. We want to have a more expansive higher education system, not less. We want a more inclusive economy in this country. What the government shows with the cuts to higher education in this budget and what it shows about the difference between that side and this side is that on this side of the House we want fairness and access in higher education to be part of the country's future and on that side of the House they just want it to be part of their past. (Time expired)

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is my great privilege to stand up and rebut this MPI. The member for Rankin should know better—the member for Rankin, who has a PhD, just like the member for Fraser. The member for Rankin and the member for Fraser should know that the future of the higher education sector in this country relies on deregulation. It relies on excellence. It relies on quality. It relies on choice. I am very proud to be a member of a government that has produced an important budget which will pay back Labor's debt—nearly $300 billion—over the next 10 years and will put in place measures which will encourage growth, encourage job creation and boost productivity. Central to that thesis is our higher education reforms, the greatest reforms in 30 years. We are the party of Menzies, and Menzies gave us the Murray committee and the Wills committee and an expansion in the university sector. This is the next stage in strengthening our higher education sector. You opposite have no ideas, no alternatives and no policies. The member for Maribyrnong gets up here in his budget reply speech full of cliches but no policies, no alternatives, no hope for the higher education sector.

The measures in this budget as they relate to higher education are a great leap forward for the sector. What do they do? For the first time they put significant government support in favour of students who are undertaking diplomas, students who are undertaking pre-bachelor degrees. For the first time they will receive significant support: up to 80,000 students will for the first time get their opportunity as a result of the federal government giving them support. We are saying to apprentices that they will be able to access government loans in the same way that tertiary students can, because taxpayers should not just support those people who go to university, they should also support those people who undertake apprenticeships.

What is more, in these reforms, $1 in $5 that is taken by the universities as a result of the deregulation in fees will go towards Commonwealth scholarships to help those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and from the regions—the very people that you are now turning your back on by denying us support for these higher education reforms. Those opposite are standing in the way of a commitment by this government to increase the funding for higher education: $900 million of additional Commonwealth funding that will go to higher education and research over the next four years. And how much for schools? An extra $3½ billion in additional funding will go to schools as a result of this budget.

This is an education budget. This is a budget for the future of Australia and Australians. We are investing in higher education, in research, to the tune of more than $900 million in additional money over the next four years and $3½ billion of additional money to schools—money that would never have flowed if you had been successful last year in the election. Not to mention the $20 billion investment in the Medical Research Future Fund: the biggest investment of its kind anywhere in the world. That is going to be our legacy. That is what those opposite are in denial about.

When you see those students rioting about these changes, you could be forgiven for thinking that they were paying for their university education up-front. No, they are not. Do you know why? Because you do not pay $1 back on your university funding until your income is above $50,000.

Let me repeat that. You do not pay $1 upfront for your tertiary degree until your income is above $50,000. And what is more—and the Minister for Education has pointed this out repeatedly in the House, in the press and at every opportunity—even when, as a student, you have paid back your higher education fees through HECS-HELP you have only contributed 40 per cent of the cost of your higher education. Sixty per cent of the cost of your higher education is picked up by the taxpayer. That is an important point: even when you have paid back your HECS-HELP fees, you have only paid back 40 per cent of the cost of your degree.

As has also been pointed out, people who undertake a university degree, on average, earn 75 per cent more over their working lifetime than those who do not get the benefit of a university degree. It accounts to about $1 million extra income earned by those who have a university degree, as opposed to those who do not.

These reforms are not just about boosting the quantity of students who are able to get a good education, boosting choice and helping those in the regions to get the best education; it is also about excellence. Because when we look at the world rankings of universities, we see that Australia has five in the top 100 and not one in the top 30. We as a country put great emphasis on excellence and everything we do and, in most endeavours, we will be in the top 30 of the world. But not in higher education.

These reforms are designed to give universities flexibility and to empower them to take extra money and reinvest it in the classroom, in the best-quality teachers, in the best possible infrastructure, in the best possible technology and to compete against other universities, particularly in our region, which are receiving more funding.

I do not want you to take my word for the fact that this is a good package of measures, I want to read some of the third-party endorsements. The Regional Universities Network said, following the budget:

The Regional Universities Network (RUN) welcomes the announcement in the Budget of an ambitious program of reform for higher education which recognises the importance of the sector to Australia. The Treasurer and the Minister are to be congratulated for highlighting the important role Universities play in Australia's future.

What about the statement from the University of Adelaide's vice-chancellor, who is probably well known to the member for Hindmarsh:

The Federal Budget has outlined massive and much needed reform to the higher education sector.

What about the statement from outgoing vice-chancellor, Professor Ed Byrne, of Monash University, a university I was proud to attend? He said:

The approach in the budget lays out a series of steps for an ambitious deregulation of the sector.

The future of universities will be more in their own hands than ever before. Those are very powerful words. They are testimonies, as the member for Riverina has pointed out, of the significance of the budget reforms that we have put in place.

It would not be a speech in response to Labor's MPI unless we quoted the member for Fraser, the shadow Assistant Treasurer. I am quoting from Imagining Australia. I am not imagining Australia; I am quoting from Imagining Australia. I am not imagining this; this is from his book Imagining Australia. I bet he wishes he was imagining this! This is what the member for Fraser, the shadow Assistant Treasurer, said:

Australian universities (should) be free to set student fees according to the market value of their degrees. A deregulated or market-based HECS will make the student contribution system fairer, because the fees students pay will more closely approximate the value they receive through future earnings.

I could not have said it better myself. In fact, the member for Fraser should have been the first speaker on our side. This MPI is a load of rubbish, it is not even believed by those opposite. We have the better policies for higher education. (Time expired)

Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While the list of those in the Australian community betrayed by the recent Abbott government's budget is a long one, there is no betrayal that is more bitter than the betrayal of the people in our community who are dreaming of building a better life for themselves through hard work and education.

Before the last election, the coalition's Real Solutions policy pamphlet promised Australians who hoped to one day earn a university degree that the Liberal Party would:

… ensure the continuation of the current arrangements of university funding.

We now know that that was just another lie, a fib, a fabrication, a falsehood. Existing funding arrangements for our universities will not continue under the policies released in the federal budget. In fact, the budget indicates that Commonwealth government higher education expenditure for this year will actually decline in real terms.

At the same time, students will be slugged with massive increases in both their upfront uni fees and the costs of their university debts. In fact, Universities Australia today said:

With the reduction in the Government contribution, the student contribution to course fees will rise by an average of 23 per cent. For some courses the increase will be closer to 60 per cent. This could be much higher at institutions with strong market power and in the absence of an upfront cost to mute the price signal.

Professor Bruce Chapman, the man who designed the original HECS policy, has stated that as a result of these changes:

Fees will go up and they will go up quite significantly …

And further:

I expect most universities will increase tuition fees to international student fee levels, which are currently about three times higher. The Group of Eight universities will do that pretty quickly.

Professor Chapman also slapped down the desperate claims of those opposite that competition might prevent this from occurring, stating blankly:

The idea fees will go down anywhere is frankly fantasy land.

In the face of this betrayal, the Minister for Education had the hide to tell the ABC's Insiders program: 'Students will always be the winners,' as a result of the Abbott government's massive university fees hike.

If students will always be the winners, my question for the Minister for Education is: how will students be winners of what the vice-chancellor of the University of Adelaide has suggested could be a 'student debt burden that is worse than that in the United States.' Student debt burden in that country has tripled in the last eight years and is now larger than total US credit card debt. How will students be winners from decades of debt and a new interest obligation that will increase an unpaid student debt of $40,000 to almost $60,000 over a ten-year period? How will existing students be winners from having the debt burden of their already incurred university debts retrospectively jacked up to a rolling average of the government bond rate? It's an utter nonsense and those opposite know it. To bastardise Hot Chocolate: 'Everyone's a winner, baby—that's a lie!'

The biggest losers from the government's plans to massively hike university fees will be families from disadvantaged backgrounds like some families in my electorate. There are few things that give people more pride than seeing the first member of their family attend university. I have seen families in my electorate speak about this. It is a great achievement and one that requires a lot of hard work and sacrifice, not only from the students themselves but from the family members around them. The government's plan to massively hike university fees will destroy this dream for many of these families. The Vice-Chancellor of Victoria University in my own electorate, Professor Peter Dawkins, has already said that the equity impacts of the government's proposals are 'the biggest question mark against these reforms'. In the inaugural Mitchell Institute policy lecture, Professor Dawkins noted:

It is clear that the burden on students will rise significantly and with interest being charged from the time the student commences, significantly higher levels of debt will accumulate.

His conclusion was that this risked discouraging students from low socio-economic backgrounds from starting university. This view is shared by the man who designed the original HECS scheme, Bruce Chapman, who recently noted:

Past changes to HECS didn't deter students from entering university, but now that there will be a real rate of interest on the debt we are in uncharted waters.

He noted that the 'real interest subsidy' in the original HECS scheme was an important and deliberate feature of the scheme designed to ensure the policy's equity. He further noted:

The interest rate subsidy is there for protection. A lot of people, particularly women, will spend time out of the labour force, child-rearing, or people will have accidents and have bad luck and end up in poor jobs. When you think HECS you've got to think about insurance all the time. That's what it is—it insures you against bad luck … Once you put a real interest rate on that, that's gone.

Bruce Chapman is right. This government's plans to massively increase university fees take the equity out of our higher education system. If this legislation gets through the equity is gone. It will be a broken promise that betrays Australia's future. Labor has always fought for an accessible, high-quality education system. We would never introduce a system as unfair and inequitable as the one that those opposite are proposing and we will fight to make sure that the proposals never eventuate.

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not know whether the member for Gellibrand actually went to university but it is not 'bastardise', it is 'paraphrase', and I did not go to university. Anyone who goes around quoting Hot Chocolate really has to have a really hard look at themselves. Maybe you could quote some Bruce Springsteen or someone like that, 'down by the river' or something like that, so you have something really worth going to. I have sat through 15 minutes of this now and I have to ask what the actual question is here. What is actually being asked here? It seems to me that in this matter of public importance they are asking for free education. They seem to be saying that all fees are bad, there is nothing good in this. We have to go back and say, 'Where were you guys when HECS was brought in by your party?' That is okay. So some debt is okay but it is just Liberal debt that is not okay.

When you go through this you really have to sit there and look at it. It is their ability to latch on to change. We would have thought that with the last parliament they would have been right up with change, that there will be no problems with change at all. 'There will be no carbon tax on the government I lead—hey, we are for a carbon tax. Away we go. We are not going to change private health—hey, we are up for a change of private health. We can accept change, we accept change all the time.' Oh no, when it is proposed by somebody else it is all out: we cannot change anything. 'Don't change anything, because we are glass half empty people.'

I will tell you a couple of things about this. We are coming up to the World Cup. In the last World Cup we had the member for Grayndler saying we were a vuvuzela of negativity. I cannot wait to see the musical instrument that the Brazilians will be using, but can I tell you I might wax lyrical about the Brazilians! There is a complete and utter lack of any coherence in anything that they are doing at the moment other than saying it is bad. Whether they choose to believe anything that we put forward, no-one in this parliament can deny that over the last six years you guys clocked up over $190 billion worth of debt. The first thing you have to do is figure that out. So we have to look at ways of making sure that people have access. When things are broke, when there is no cash, who pays? The poorest pay. So we have to look at getting people who are the most exposed into higher education. That is what our policy does: it opens up another 80,000 places. For every $5 extra that is paid in HECS one dollar goes into the Commonwealth scholarship scheme, the greatest scholarship scheme this country will ever see. It is specifically targeting low SES people who would never otherwise get a chance. But 'No, we don't want that, we don't want that.' You blokes just talk a good game about people from disadvantaged backgrounds.

I come from Townsville where we have James Cook University. It has three campuses, in Townsville, Cairns and Singapore. They are keen for competition. They say, 'Bring on the competition because we are up for it because we have a science degree that stands alone on absolutely everything. We have people coming from all over the world for our science degree and our marine science degrees and our coral reef studies. We have people coming from all over the place, from all over the world to get into that degree. In our science degree we have our Daintree outlook, we have our cattle station and we have Orpheus Island. There is a degree that will stand alone against any form of competition for anything. James Cook University is rated number one in the world on coral reef studies and marine sciences. They say, 'Bring on the competition because we can handle the competition.' We just invested another $42 million in James Cook University for the Australian Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine. There are 3.6 billion people of middle-class by 2035 to the north of Australia in the Asian century and we are ready for it because we embrace competition. We open it up and say, 'Bring it on.' Those opposite are looking at their bellybuttons saying, 'Nothing can change, just roll on past like a tumbleweed.' You are wasting everyone's time. Just get out of the road because you guys are in the Melbourne Cup and you have not gone past the post the first time. We are coming down the straight again and you are standing there dawdling in the road. Get the fag out of your mouth, move out of the road and get yourself a job.

Clare O'Neil (Hotham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They say you do not really get to know a government until they deliver their first budget. In the last three weeks, boy, have we learned a lot about this government! It is one that has pensioners, young people and working families right in the gun, but wealthy women, big polluters and ballet schools will always be the winners with these guys. Nowhere are there more half-truths, more out and out lies, more perversities and more contradictions than in the proposed changes to higher education.

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order—

Clare O'Neil (Hotham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I listened to that dribble for five minutes!

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Member for Herbert, I will ask the member for Hotham to not use the word 'lie', because by imputation it is a reflection on the chair.

Clare O'Neil (Hotham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand, Deputy Speaker. I went a little overboard there. I do apologise. But I will say that there are half-truths, there are perversities and there are contradictions and no more so than in the proposed changes to higher education. When we think about winners and losers, I can tell you that the losers from these changes will be the young people who are sitting out there watching this debate today from the gallery. These changes will see universities auctioning their degrees to the highest bidders. The introduction of commercial, compound interest rates will see those much higher loans growing every year. What experts are saying is that, with the new changes, universities will charge what they are currently charging overseas students today. Overseas students doing a law degree at Sydney University pay $140,000. For a nursing degree at Sydney university, they pay $88,500. The interest rate changes will mean that a student who finishes university with a $40,000 debt will pay $75,000. A woman who finishes her university degree and goes into a job that is not particularly high paid may never pay off her loan in her whole working life.

Remember, these changes are being made by a cabinet, of whom 12, as we know, went to university completely for free. It is absolutely perverse. They use their free education to get power and position and now they are using that power and position to slam the door in the face of other young people in Australia who want to access those opportunities. We know from what other speakers have talked about that, very unfortunately but not surprisingly, the biggest impact of these changes is going to be on students from low-income families. I probably should not need to say this, but, without equal access to education, all of us are going to lose. The member for Rankin spoke quite eloquently about the need to try to not limit access to university education but get as many young people in this country to university as we can.

The government has argued that young people from low-income families will not be deterred by these huge fees. This is hogwash. It absolutely defies expert opinion and just plain common sense. A detailed study by Deloitte Access Economics on changes to HECS has shown that, where reductions in university demand have happened in Australia, they have been almost all from students who have come from disadvantaged backgrounds. I have talked to quite a lot of local principals about the changes, and their frustration is absolutely palpable. I want to quote one of the local principals who said to me: 'The amounts that are being talked about will absolutely scare my students away. For these kids, a sum like $100,000 is a TattsLotto win. It's an unimaginable amount of money.' They point out to me the pressure that these young people are already facing within their families to go out and earn more quickly. They think that these increases in fees will be enough to shift the balance, not just subtly but a lot. But the biggest impost they point to with these changes is the impact they could have on the culture in their schools right down the line. These principals tell me that they work so hard to produce environments of excellence and a belief that these students can go on to do anything they want in life, but this culture is being completely undermined by a university system that will see many of them locked out of tertiary education.

The government has argued that there are increases to Commonwealth scholarships and therefore this, of course, answers the access question. This is staggeringly unfair. Why should only a handful of the best and brightest young Australians from low-income families go to university when students from much wealthier homes will get much broader access to education? In Australia, that is just not how we do things. I can say that, as Labor, we will never tell Australians that the quality of their education depends on their capacity to pay. A country like ours should be a meritocracy and nothing aside from your intellect and drive should determine whether and where you go to university. But this is not how things are in Tony Abbott's Australia. If you are a white, privileged male, the government has got your back. But if you are poor, if you are a woman, if you drive a car, if you live in a region, if you are an older Australian, if you are a student, if you are a single mum, and especially if you are a young person, you had better watch out, because these guys are coming for you.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank the member for Hotham for her question in question time. It was a brilliant question—a brilliant question about who brought in HECS in Australia. I think it was fascinating to remind the House that it was the Keating administration who first came up with the notion that it was fair, very fair, for a student to contribute to the cost of their education. It is a fair principle. It is a principle that we should seek to reinforce in Australian education today, and this government is seeking to reinforce it. The only thing that could have made the member for Hotham's presentation a little better would have been a glass of chardonnay, because it was chardonnay socialism at its best. This is not about poor students. This is not about people on the breadline. This is about reinforcing the privileges of those upper middle-class kids at uni who are being paid for by poor students who do not go universities. That is what this is about. People who go to universities are subsidised by the rest of our community. They are subsidised by people who never have a prospect of entering university and who, on average, have much lower incomes. We know that, when you get an education degree, it is an economic asset; it stays with you for the rest of your life. It is only fair that you make a contribution to that.

The fact is that this government is expanding this scheme. We are not just expanding the cost incurred by a student; we are expanding access. The MPI that has come up today is really from the D team. There is no shadow minister. Nobody of really any note moved this motion. It is the D team. Maybe it is the F team.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The interjections are from the F team. Those opposite say that this measure is unfair when the government is expanding access for the first time under the HECS to diploma, advanced diploma and associated degrees—a notion that any Labor government should have been proud of. It is a notion that the Hawke government would have been proud to put forward. It is a notion that the Keating government would have been happy to put forward. But we have this new chardonnay socialism from those over there. These members from the inner city suburbs of Melbourne really need to get out more. They need to leave the inner city of Melbourne and get out more and find a real student, a real struggling student. This is the same Labor Party that supported compulsory unionism for students. It supported high fees for students, making them pay out of their pockets, regardless of the equity issues, compulsory union fees. They were happy to take $1,000. When I went to Sydney university they were happy to take money from me for their compulsory student unionism even though I came from Western Sydney and did not have a high income.

But when we say people should make a contribution to their own education, they claim there is something wrong with that. Well, it was Paul Keating's notion. It was a worthy notion and one that this government is expanding because we need to ensure greater equality of access to universities. We need to make sure we have universities of the highest standard in the world. We do not have a university in the top 30; we need to get one. Deregulating the sector is nothing to be afraid of; it is a worthy concept and it is a worthy set of programs to put forward.

When you hear this lame set of arguments from the D team opposite, you really get the sense that this is a revolution without a cause. With the Minister for Education, I had the chance to be in Sydney to see the predictable Green Left Resistance, with their soulless eyes, addictively chanting. They do not even know what they are chanting. 'What are we chanting? Well, we are revolutionaries so let's have a revolution!'—a revolution of revolutionaries. They are like the Zapatistas in Mexico—revolution for revolution's sake. They do not even know what it is about. They do not understand that you do have to pay for things in life, that there is no such thing as a free education.

The member for Rankin is absolutely wrong to come in here and suggest education is free in this country and that somehow he is going to do something to alleviate the need to pay fees. People have to get a signal early in life that you have to make a contribution to your own education. It is only right and proper. A university degree is an economic asset that will stay with you all of your life. On average, people who have one will earn $1 million more than others. This is chardonnay socialism at its worst. This is not on behalf of poor people, this is not on behalf of socially disadvantaged people. It is on behalf of the inner suburbs of Melbourne, the chardonnay socialists in the Labor Party. They are disconnected from their trade union background, they are disconnected from the ordinary worker, they are disconnected from their base—and I say long may it remain so. Keep fighting for those inner city spivs in Melbourne and Sydney, stick up for them hard! It is only right and proper that people make a contribution to their education. It is a principle established by both Labor and Liberal governments. Really, this motion today is absolutely pathetic. (Time expired)

Pat Conroy (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I enjoy being lectured about career achievement by a man who has spent seven years in here not making a single mark! If we are the F Troop, he has got to be the Z Troop—and he is sitting amongst others there! This is a debate about a nasty government pursuing an ideological agenda. The inconsistency on their side is remarkable. We heard from the first speaker about paying down Labor's debt. And then we had the black is white story, that this is actually about equality of access, that liberating students from their money will give them greater chances in their attempt to get an education. The truth is that education is a great enabler. Like many on this side, I am proud that I am the first on my mum's side of the family to go to uni. I am not one of these chardonnay socialists. I am someone who went to university. I paid HECS in an affordable manner, indexed to the CPI, and had plenty of time to pay it back. What they are doing on that side is shutting the door on more kids from working-class backgrounds going to uni. They are shutting the door by introducing $5 billion of funding cuts. They are shutting the door by jacking up fees. They are shutting the door by applying commercial interest rates that will force working-class students to think twice about going to uni.

In my regional seat of Charlton 34 per cent of graduates are nurses, teachers or from allied health occupations. They are not lawyers, they are not doctors. They disprove the myth being peddled by the Minister for Education that all graduates will earn $1 million more than average workers. That is utter rubbish! I am proud that I have in my electorate the biggest hospital between Brisbane and Sydney. It has 120 nurse graduates entering this year. But it is going to struggle to get new nurses coming through because they are going to be turned off by this fee hike. According to research by Universities Australia a new nurse entering training now will see their fees go up—once you add the interest—from $23,000 to $98,000. How is that fair? How is it fair to ask a poor working-class kid, who wants to be a nurse to help out in our health system, to pay $98,000 instead of $23,000 over a reasonable amount of time with CPI indexation? They will be paying that money for 25 years. They will be 48 before they are able to pay off their debt—if they are lucky.

And teachers do not earn $1 million more than an average worker. I received an email from Jacqui, a year 11 student at Jesmond High in my region. She said: 'For a long time now, all I have wanted to do is study primary school teaching at Newcastle uni. I was disappointed and angry to discover that instead of my degree costing $19,000 over four years it will now cost around double that. I have worked out that, on a teacher's salary of $59,000 per year, it will take nearly 14 years to pay back my HECS debt. With interest, I would have paid a total of around $90,000. This figure will be higher if it takes me longer to get a job or I spend time out of the workforce for family reasons.'

That is the truth behind this inequitable policy. This is the truth when you look at students who go to the University of Newcastle, the best uni in Australia under 50 years of age, where 27 per cent of students come from a low-SES background. They are not the chardonnay socialists the member for Mitchell railed against; they are kids from low- and middle-income families who will be turned off by these huge fee hikes and by the deregulation of uni fees. This will place a real barrier against their entry to university. This is a great betrayal of the Australian people.

When I look at MPI debates, I like to see what those opposite said before the election. I go to that great document Our Plan: Real Solutions for All Australians, which the Prime Minister hid behind. It was his shield whenever a journalist had the temerity to ask him a question about anything before the election. 'Just look at my pamphlet. The pamphlet has got everything I stand by—and it is in writing, so you can trust what I'm saying'—it is in writing, so it must be true! If we go to page 41, we can read a firm commitment from the Prime Minister, a paragon of virtue and honesty: 'We will ensure the continuation of the current arrangements in university funding.' That is pretty direct; there are no ifs or buts. The truth is that this is an important debate because those on the other side stand for the betrayal of low- and middle-income families and their chances of getting a decent education, getting a degree in nursing or teaching, contributing to our society, advancing their family and maybe being the first in their family to go to university. That door is being shut by the heartless mob over there who are just pursuing a nasty ideological agenda. (Time expired)

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a matter of importance to people in my electorate, because regional students have been disadvantaged for a long time. Before I get to that, I must point out the great injustice done by the member for Gellibrand. Hot Chocolate fans all over the world are right now picking up the phone, getting on their computers, sending emails because it is not 'Everyone's a winner, baby, that's no lie'. The great line is: 'Everyone's a winner, baby, that's the truth.' Yes, that is the truth, which is exactly the opposite to what the member for Gellibrand said. As much as I would like to sing in this place, I am sure it would be inappropriate.

This is a serious matter. The people in my electorate are a lot like me. I was born in Bundaberg and had similar opportunities to them. I finished high school in 1986; I graduated with a score which was good enough to get me into university. I had an offer for university, but for me to attend university at that time meant moving to a capital city, and that was an expensive move. Students from regional areas have to travel, pay accommodation, feed themselves. They move away from home; they do not have mum there any more to help them out. They have difficult social challenges. If I had taken that opportunity at that time, the financial disadvantage for my family and my younger brothers would have been far too high, and it was not a price I was willing to pay. So I took a job as an apprentice electrician, and it was a wonderful time. Those four years were absolutely fantastic; I worked with some great people in an industrial workplace—a highly unionised workplace—and they were good, honest, hard-working people. They did their best every single day. I loved being an electrician—getting out and doing that work was absolutely great.

However, one of those chardonnay drinking engineers who came from somewhere else suggested that I was not smart enough to attend university. So that was the reason I did not go—I was not smart enough. I accepted the challenge in 1992 and went to the Queensland University of Technology as an adult student. I used the money I had saved for four years to attend university. If I had gone in 1987, how much HECS would I have paid? Absolutely none! But in 1992 I had to pay HECS.

An honourable member: How much?

Quite a lot, but I tell you now, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I had the chance to talk to my skinnier, younger and less grey self, the advice that I would give is very straightforward: take the loan. At that time 10 per cent was the return on money deposited in banks. I should have put my money somewhere else and taken the cheap loan that was provided by taxpayers; the benefits would have been much greater. Instead, I used my own savings. I paid all those fees and got them out of the way.

Going to university is an opportunity that is not afforded to many regional students, because they simply cannot afford to go. Our policy provides scholarship opportunities for regional students—students from low socio-economic backgrounds, students who would otherwise never get the opportunity to go to university. There are now some universities in my electorate—the University of Southern Queensland's Fraser Coast campus. For first semester 2014 there are 743 students in Hervey Bay. What is the gender split? Seventy-eight per cent are female; 22 per cent male. It is fantastic. There are 29 Indigenous students on campus and 23 external; there are only 11 international students. Of those 743, 367 are mature age and only 187 are school leavers. For a very long time the absolute best export from my electorate was our young talent: they travel to the city, do university and do not come back.

These policies will give opportunities to people in regional areas, make our universities stronger and our regional universities more viable. And that will mean more students. I look forward to the day when our local universities triple in size—not 700, but 2000 in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay—providing opportunities for our local kids so they can stay at home, attend university—opportunities that city kids have had for many years. I am not talking about opportunities provided by the taxpayer, but things they can do for themselves. In regional areas that is what regional kids are about: they do not want a handout, they just want opportunity and they will seize that opportunity with both hands. With that opportunity they will make this a better country and they will certainly be great for my electorate.

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to rise to speak on this matter of public importance. I thank the member for Rankin for his impassioned and fantastic speech. This is such an important issue because it affects not only the lives of individuals but the future of our country as a whole. It is something I am very passionate about. Like other people who have spoken today, I was the first person in my family to go to university. My parents left school at grade 10; I went to James Cook University and then on to the Queensland University of Technology for my bachelor's degree. I am very proud of that and, frankly, I would not have been able to do it, had it not been for Labor reforms to higher education. I am very proud of the Whitlam reforms and the Hawke reforms with the Higher Education Funding Amendment Act of 1989, which members opposite have spoken about.

The Higher Education Funding Amendment Act came into force because of a view that there was a limited private benefit to public education, but the public benefit was overwhelmingly greater than the private benefit of that higher education. We know that graduates earn substantially more over the course of a lifetime. What do they do with that higher income? We have a progressive income tax system and, as a consequence, graduates pay more in income tax. That is the way our taxation system works. Yes, we have a HECS system; we have a Higher Education Contribution Scheme. Why shouldn't we recognise that there is some private benefit, but that ought not mean $100,000 of debt over a lifetime for an engineering graduate. Students should not be saddled with debt for their whole life.

Deputy Speaker, I will read to you a few things that I have received in my office about this issue. One is from a constituent. I will read it out in full. She says:

Abbott—

the Prime Minister—

is out of touch with reality and his budget will lead to considerably higher university costs for mature age students who are being forced to change career so they can continue working until they're 70+. I'm a divorced 48 year old female who raised 2 children most of my life, hence I don't have enough superannuation to retire. For me, retirement is a pipe dream. My career to date has been in office admin - my salary is therefore capped. I'm changing career to become a lawyer so I can become self employed in my own legal practice and work until I'm 80 years old, my mental faculties permitting. Hence, I'm enrolled in a Bachelor of Law, but the Abbott government needs to keep the funding available to mature age people such as myself who are being forced into re-education and a change of career so they can work longer. Mr Abbott you can't have your cake and eat it too. Fair go.

That is what one of my constituents, who is a mature-age student, has said to me. It is not just young people who are being forced into debt. But when it comes to young people, when you think about that idea of having $100,000 of debt to be paid off over a lifetime—that is for an engineering student, and it is not my number; it is Universities Australia's number—that is 20 to 25 years worth of repayment.

Think about the fact that women will often take more time out of the workforce to raise children. What is the consequence? It takes them longer to pay off their debt. That is the consequence. And when you increase the interest rate to six per cent per annum that debt is going to grow and grow. So you are going to saddle them with more debt, it is going to take them longer to pay it off and their debt is going to be higher because they have taken time out of the workforce. That is the sort of legacy that the Liberal-Nationals are leaving this country. They should be ashamed of themselves.

As I said, these are not my numbers; these are the numbers of Universities Australia, that well-known, as the members opposite have described us, chardonnay socialist group—I don't think. In a press release that I received today and that most of those opposite would also have received today, Universities Australia said:

The peak body representing Australia’s universities has called for a rethink on the design of the proposed changes to the student loan program and the 20 per cent cut in the Government contribution to student fees.

The call comes as Universities Australia released new modelling—

You might want to go and have a look at it—

new modelling on the combined impact that the proposed changes to the Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) and the reduction in Commonwealth support would have on student debt and payback periods.

The modelling is there on their website for all to see.

Of course, when we are talking about the deregulation of university fees so that universities can charge higher fees, the higher interest rate and the lower repayment threshold, let us not forget the massive cuts to higher education in this government's 2014 budget—$5 billion in cuts to higher education and university research. They should be ashamed. (Time expired)

Fiona Scott (Lindsay, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have really enjoyed the scare campaign about universities put forward by the other side. You would think, for some crazy reason, that all universities are going to close down or that everyone is going to be charged a huge amount of money. The thing that those opposite fail to acknowledge is that it is their own side that originally came up with many of these deregulatory ideas.

Let us look at the contribution of the member for Rankin, who spoke about the accessibility of universities to low-socioeconomic demographics. To start with, we are actually extending what we are doing with trade and apprenticeships—$20,000 is what we are going to give to incentivise people to go in through the TAFE system. I went through the TAFE system and then went into the University of Western Sydney. This is where incentivising people through some of the other types of gateway courses is so crucial. If you look at the University of Western Sydney, which is in my electorate, you would think that, by the deregulation, universities are irresponsible institutions. The fact is that universities are not irresponsible institutions. They are thoughtful institutions. They are institutions that think about their students. They are institutions that think about the future, about how they going to create future leaders. Already because of the scare campaign of those opposite we have had eight universities come out and say, 'No, we're actually going to freeze our fees.' They include the University of Western Sydney, the university from my own electorate; Griffith University, I am sure the member for Griffith would like to know that; Deakin University; Victoria University; Flinders University; Murdoch University; and Edith Cowan University. By freezing university fees they are providing security to students so they know what their fees are going to be. The members opposite are running around trying to scare everyone by saying that university fees are going to go into some exorbitant place. What they are not actually saying is that universities are responsible institutions. What they are not talking about is how we are going to provide more gateway opportunities for people to get university. We are talking about 80,000 additional places. That is what we are doing here.

I will go back to the University of Western Sydney. It is a wonderful institution in my electorate. The University of Western Sydney is once again investing. It invests in health and research. It is looking at how it can grow the education sector in this country. It is also going overseas to places like China. It is seeing how it can be more internationally competitive.

We have a fabulous foreign affairs minister, and with the Colombo Plan and what they are doing with taking university students to China and from China back to Australia we are seeing our universities finally become internationally competitive. Under those opposite we saw our universities drop out of the top 100 universities in the world. This deregulation, together with the Colombo Plan and getting people into universities through gateway programs, will see our university sector once again be international competitive. If we want to have future leaders, if we want to have future thought leaders within our communities we need competitive universities. We need universities that are going to lead by example. We need universities that invest in research and funding. We will be investing in research so that our universities can go out there and find the research projects that will take us into the next millennium.

When we look at what this is all about we will see that this is about providing future leaders. This is about providing university to more people. We want to talk about people in low-socioeconomic demographic areas. Sometimes getting through year 12 is not necessarily the easiest thing in the world, so finding gateway programs that will take people into university is so crucial. If you actually want to help people in low-socioeconomic demographic areas—if you want to provide university opportunities to get the mechanic who has done his trade to become a mechanical engineer—you help him get his trade and then you help him get to university to be able to become a mechanical engineer. That is what I did. (Time expired)

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this discussion has now expired.