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

Most Australian universities are accepting their responsibilities with regard to the changes to the Higher Education Act. In fact, the University of Western Sydney was the first university in New South Wales to freeze its student fees for 2014 to ensure certainty for its students. This was a responsible move by the university and it is a strong indicator about how the sector will respond to the demand-driven and autonomous proposal by the government and assess and determine how they will maximise the opportunities presented in this amendment bill.

Aside from the opportunities that these reforms present Australian universities, I think it is critical to emphasise the benefits for Australian students. I have already commented that the competition enabled by these reforms will be a win for all students, and I believe it is important to highlight that, as is the case at the moment, students will not have to pay a single dollar up-front. Fees will be repayable when students are in the workforce earning a sustainable income.

The Australian HECS structure is to be commended. It has seen thousands of first-generation students, like myself, gain a higher education degree. The coalition, however, identified barriers to higher education and I am pleased that this amendment bill will go some way to overcoming these. The current arrangements disadvantage students who want to study sub-bachelor higher education qualifications such as diplomas, advanced diplomas and associate degrees. These provide excellent pathways to create opportunities for students needing time to develop both the skills and qualifications necessary for a bachelor's degree and many other tickets to jobs for work-ready graduates. I myself studied through the TAFE system. I worked full-time whilst I was studying through TAFE and, through the Western Sydney Institute of TAFE, was able to gateway into the University of Western Sydney, where I obtained a Bachelor of Business with a major in marketing.

I am proud to have come through the higher education system in this way and I am proud to be part of a government that seeks to support students by providing access to universities. We are also supporting students by providing HECS to subsidise students who seek these types of pathway qualifications. This move alone is expected to provide an additional 80,000 higher education opportunities for more students annually, with Commonwealth support by 2018.

Minister for Education and I anticipate that this move will overcome some of the disparity in my own electorate. During the consideration in detail in June I raised with the minister concerns I had about access to education in Western Sydney. For instance, in Glenmore Park in the south-west of Lindsay the median income for couple with children is $2,474, which is higher than the New South Wales average. Further, 33.5 per cent of people are attending some form of educational institution, be it primary, secondary or tertiary, and 11.1 per cent are currently enrolled in university or tertiary education.

To the west of my electorate is North St Marys, about 13 kilometres from Glenmore Park. The average income there for families with children is $1,935, which is $539 per week less than that of Glenmore Park and lower than the New South Wales average. In North St Marys, 33.8 per cent of people are attending an academic institution. Only 5.1 per cent of the community go on to tertiary education. Let me repeat: in Glenmore Park 11.1 per cent people are currently enrolled in tertiary education; in North St Marys that figure is 5.1 per cent—less than half as many. This is despite North St Marys being much closer to the local University of Western Sydney campus.

This added Commonwealth support for higher education is welcome news for the people of North St Marys, who will now have a greater opportunity to go on to university, should they choose to. Further to these measures, the new Commonwealth Scholarships scheme will promote access for students from disadvantaged backgrounds and ensure they share in the benefits of a deregulated environment. This will allow providers the flexibility to provide individual support tailored to the unique needs of students and is welcome news for aspiring students in communities like North St Marys.

There is a general consensus among those in the sector and the government that we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to shape an Australian higher education system that is sustainable, affordable and equitable in serving the best interests of our nation. As the Treasurer said on budget night, we should aspire to have a world-class tertiary education sector. By deregulating the sector, I believe we can achieve this and create a tertiary education sector that this country deserves. It is in this way that I commend the bill to the House. (Time expired)

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am vehemently opposed to this bill, the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014. It is another broken election promise from the Abbott government. This bill, which seeks to increase the cost of university fees and impose more debt on students, is grossly unfair and it undermines the educational opportunities of young Australians.

On 1 September 2013 the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, on the Insiders program said this:

… I want to give people this absolute assurance, no cuts to education …

The Liberal Party's policy document for the last election, Real solutions, states on page 41:

On 17 November 2013 the shadow education minister, Christopher Pyne, said on Sky News:

… we want university students to make their contribution. But we're not going to raise fees …

They are the commitments that the Abbott government gave the young people of Australia prior to the last election. In this bill, in this proposal before the parliament today, they blow those commitments out of the water. They are lies. They have lied to the Australian public about this dastardly reform. It introduces an outdated principle into higher education in Australia, and that principle is the capacity to pay—access to education based not on merit but on your family's bank balance.

Cuts to university funding, deregulation of fees and the application of higher interest rates to student debt are the most despicable betrayal of the interests of young people in Australia in my lifetime. The Prime Minister lied to thousands of young Australians when he said that there would be no cuts to education. The cuts themselves are unconscionable, but to mislead young Australians regarding their access to education is unforgivable.

If members opposite believe that I am embellishing the truth in my views on this, they only need to look at some of the emails that I have received from constituents to see their anger about what this government is doing. On 26 August this year I got an email from Karen Privat in my electorate, who wrote:

As someone who grew up in the USA and had to go through the process of paying back university fees, e.g. my small university charged approximately US $26,000 in intuition, room and board per year … one of the things that has struck me about living in Australia is the accessibility of higher education to all students who have the marks to qualify.

She went on to state:

My family, my fellow colleagues who work with me here at UNSW, and my friends who have an interest in Australia's ability to grow, develop, and compete on an international level both economically and creatively, join with me in supporting you to vote against this proposed legislation when it comes before you in parliament.

On 28 August this year Rabeya Akter from my electorate wrote:

I am very disappointed about the proposed changes to higher education announced in the Federal Budget. Allowing universities to set their own fees will burden future generations of students with significantly increased debts … Young people have been told to earn or learn and yet the Government is making it harder to get a quality education. Access to universities should be based on merit, not on the size of your bank balance.

I could not agree more. These are the views of the people of my electorate. These are the views of the people of Australia regarding this dastardly reform that the government seeks to introduce in the parliament today. These are the people who know that their opportunity and their kids' opportunity to learn, to better themselves, is being whittled away by the Abbott government.

In terms of the elements of this bill, the bill will allow universities to charge what they like for courses. It deregulates university fees, which are currently capped at the maximum student contribution. This will increase the cost of a university degree—no doubt.

At the moment the average cost of a law degree at a public universities is about $30,000. At private universities such as Bond University the cost of a law degree is $127,000, four times the cost of that of a public university. This is what universities will be allowed to charge in a free market. Universities Australia have done some modelling on the expected costs and increases to university fees which will come about as a result of this reform. They find at the medium fee increase scenario, with a four per cent interest rate, an engineering graduate working full time faces a HELP debt of between $98,952 and $113,169 and will repay it over a period of 20 to 25 years. This is compared with $46,701 to $49,284 debt and 14 to 18 years repayment time under the existing arrangements. A nursing graduate working under a medium fee scenario, who works part time for six years, would pay off a debt of $51,620 over 20 years, compared to a current HELP debt of $24,666. That gives you an example of the additional costs of education for young people in Australia just to get a degree, if this reform is introduced.

What is the Minister for Education's response to this? The education minister says that that is fine because students can just take out a loan and over the lifetime of their earning capacity they will be able to pay it off—no problem. That is the way it works in the United States of America. Now you are making it even harder to get a loan. Not only are university fees increasing but also the debt associated with taking out a loan is increasing. Currently HECS or HELP debt is indexed to the consumer price index which is sitting at about 2.6 per cent. Under this proposal, student debt would be indexed to the government bond rate, capped at six per cent. The government bond rate at the moment is quite low at 3½ per cent. There is an immediate one per cent increase in the cost of debt. This reform will not only in the future; it will apply retrospectively. So anyone who currently has a HECS debt will immediately face that debt going up—affecting 1.2 million.

So a degree will cost more and it will take longer to pay off. This will have a disproportionate effect on low-income people in Australia and, importantly, on people who take time out of the workforce to raise a family—as we know, they are predominantly women. These people will bear the greater burden of this reform. The longer it takes to pay off the HECS or HELP debt, the more you will pay because the interest on the loan is compounding.

Those opposite have no concern for families who have the great aspiration of seeing their kids do better than they have done by getting a better education. For struggling families in my electorate who are just scraping by and making ends meet, that makes it harder for the kids to get a higher education. In that respect this reform must be condemned.

It will also affect the quality of courses offered at universities. What will develop under this scenario is a two-tiered university system in Australia, much the same as in the United States. For courses which are in high demand, typically at the Group of Eight universities, the sandstone universities such as Monash and the University of Queensland where there are courses such as medicine, engineering and economics in high demand, universities will be able to charge what they wish. They will be able to charge whatever they like because the demand is there. Subsequently, those universities will raise more revenue. That is where the good academics will wish to go and that is where the research and development dollars in Australia will go.

What will happen to second-tier universities? What will happen to universities in rural and regional areas throughout Australia? I will tell you what will happen. The dollars will flow out of them, the academics will flow out of them, the research and development will flow out of them and they will become second-rate universities throughout this country.

So rather than a system that promotes equality, rather than a system which promotes access particularly to kids in rural and regional areas to a decent degree, it will make it harder for kids to stay in those areas and, importantly, for some of the courses which are not in high demand to attract students. They typically are very important degrees—teaching, early childhood development, sociology—degrees which have an emotional element attached to them and which we have undervalued in Australia. It will also ensure that universities are encouraged to push low-cost degrees. When you have a free market such as this, universities will seek to reduce the cost of offerings to the public to make more revenue. So courses that are popular but do not cost as much will be the ones that universities and private providers will be pushing. The more expensive and more important courses such as science, languages and engineering, which are very important to Australia's economic development, will not be encouraged because universities will not be up to make the same buck out of they will under the low-cost scenario.

So these reforms not only push up the cost of university education in this country but they will also reduce the quality of courses that are offered, particularly in rural and regional areas. But do you see anyone from the National Party over there standing up for kids in their communities? Do you see anyone from those rural and regional electorates over there standing up to what the Minister for Education and the Prime Minister are attempting to do in this reform? No, you do not. Once again, they have gone silent. They have destroyed the interests of young people in their communities.

I thought that this reform had some redeeming features when I saw that there is a requirement for university education providers with more than 500 students to offer Commonwealth scholarships under the Commonwealth Scholarship scheme, to support disadvantaged students. But, when you read the fine print, again they have duped the Australian public on this reform, because there is no additional Commonwealth funding going into support this program. The government are not putting any money into these Commonwealth scholarships at all. Guess where the money is coming from. It is coming from the pockets of students who seek to do degrees, because they are funding it through the increase in university fees. It is effectively an additional tax on students that will fund the scholarships that the government are attempting to introduce. And they are promoting this under the banner of doing their bit for disadvantaged students and promoting a new Commonwealth Scholarship scheme. Well, blow me over; again, the duplicity and the misleading nature of the government are absolutely spellbinding—duping the Australian young people into paying more tax so that they can fund the scholarships.

This bill represents a despicable betrayal of Australia's young people and their educational aspirations. It is unfair. It affects low-income families to a much greater degree. It is unbalanced because it introduces a two-tier education system into Australia. And it is based on a lie and a broken promise. That is why this bill must be defeated.

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

Australia is a land of opportunity and a fair go. I support the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014 as I believe that it proposes a well-considered solution to the problems facing higher education today. It will usher in a fairer and more secure system that provides greater opportunity to a greater number of students than ever before.

Around this time of year, the thoughts of year 12 students around the country turn to what they will be studying next year. On top of Australian students, countless others from abroad will also be looking to continue their studies. In a country with over 40 universities and many more private colleges, they should be spoilt for choice. After all, we hold Australia to be at the cutting edge of higher education. We like to think of our universities as having a world-class standard. In many ways they do, though in others our universities have come up lacking. A look at how we stand in international rankings paints a startling picture of how we are going. The 2014 Times Higher Education world university rankings puts our highest-ranking university at 43rd in the world, while the 2014 Academic Ranking of World Universities puts our highest-ranking university at 44th. In previous years, we have hovered around that range, hardly a place for a country that prides itself on educational excellence. The relative decline of Australian higher education can be put down to many things; however, costs, increasing debt and excessive regulation stand out as major culprits in this situation.

These reforms aim at stopping the rot in higher education and deliver a strong, secure, sustainably competitive international university sector. This bill serves to create more opportunities for people to commence further study, as people from disadvantaged and rural and regional areas have greater access to higher education than ever before. Students from rural and regional areas will now have greater choice, as education providers innovate and compete in a deregulated market. Courses that once would have required mandatory attendance in one of the capital cities could soon turn online, giving many students the opportunity to study from their homes. How great it will be when the sons and daughters of Australian farmers can study beyond secondary school without leaving their families and homes behind. The benefits for these students would be immense.

The benefits of higher education are already well documented. On average, students who have higher qualifications earn more and live longer and healthier lives than those who do not. And yet the disadvantages of living in remote areas are also well known. With these reforms, we will see more rural and regional people get higher quality educations that will reap benefits for all concerned. How sad that Labor wants to stand in the way of such opportunity for country Australians. Labor is supposed to represent the average Australian, yet it stands in the way of reforms that would clearly benefit fellow Australians from the bush.

True to form, Labor opposes this bill that would see the creation of the largest ever Commonwealth scholarship scheme for disadvantaged students. I find the scheme to be one of the most exciting developments in education in recent times. The brightest students from disadvantaged backgrounds will be able to study free of charge. The scholarship scheme will be the greatest in Australian history. It will ensure that the best and brightest students from disadvantaged backgrounds have access to free education. This goes on to benefit the families and communities of scholarship recipients and Australia as a whole. This is a nation that believes in the importance of the fair go. With these scholarships, we will give those that need and deserve it the best shot available. These scholarships are funded not by the taxpayer but by the educational institutions themselves. It will soon become the responsibility for every institution with more than 500 Commonwealth-supported students to contribute one dollar out of every five of additional income. The prospect that my constituents may have access to such a scheme is a truly exciting thing.

The difference between the Labor Party and the Liberal Party when it comes to education—and there are many, but the primary difference—comes down to fairness. Labor like to talk fairness, but Liberals deliver fairness. The seismic reforms of which I speak are the foundations of that new fairness in the higher education system.

How is this so? Well, fairness comes from the principle that the person who receives the benefit pays for it, not someone else. How can it be fair that the vast majority of the benefits accruing from enrolling in higher education go to the students but the vast majority of the bill goes to the taxpayer? How is it fair that today students pay approximately 40 per cent of the burden of their university education and taxpayers 60 per cent? But the students will eventually see 100 per cent of the benefit. How is that fair? This package of measures will bring the student-taxpayer balance back to fifty-fifty burden sharing. Research indicates that those who go on to complete third-level, or university, education will, over their lifetime, earn up to 75 per cent more than those who do not.

However, it is not merely a question of the share of the burden and who pays what amount vis-a-vis the taxpayer and the student. It is also a question of fairness and the rate at which students will pay. Why should it be the case, as it is today, that students receive moneys borrowed by the taxpayer at rates less than the taxpayer borrowed at? It is right, proper and fair that the government, acting on behalf and in the best in interests of the taxpayer, asks students to pay the same rate on their share of the amount as the government borrowed the money at. After all, the money was borrowed to pay for that student's education, and all of the benefits will go to that student. It is only right that they pay the rate the government pays, when they reach the qualifying threshold for that repayment. The government will lend to students at a rate that reflects the cost of government borrowings to fund their student loans, with a maximum of six per cent.

This common-sense, prudent, timely and fair measure will bring indexation in line with the cost of borrowing to the government, saving $3.15 billion over four years. This change is necessary to ensure the sustainability of the HELP program. We are absolutely committed to maintaining HELP so that no student pays up-front, which is why we are making these changes to secure its future.

These changes are also necessary to fix the fiscal mess left by Labor. Labor are all about living for today. There is no vision. There is no moral clarity or rectitude. There is no discipline, and no fairness. In government, the Labor philosophy was very much, 'Borrow from tomorrow to live for today.'

When it comes to international and global competition, most nations are absolutely ruthless, and, while Australia may be among the best in the world now, that does not guarantee a place amongst the best in 10, 20, or 30 years time. A great and timely reminder is the rise of Chinese universities through the ranks. The point is that complacency leads to decay. Hubris is not a policy. Not having a long-term plan to secure Australia's place amongst the nations of the world is not smart or fair. How could it ever be fair to wantonly allow the Australian higher education system to fall into mediocrity? How are future generations yet unborn to compete in a global, interconnected business environment? How can they then continue to enjoy the same high standard of living that we enjoy in Australia today?

But don't just take my word on it. How about taking the word of Michael Gallagher, Chief Executive of the Group of Eight universities? He says:

The 2014 Higher Education Budget reforms are necessary. They are logical, coherent, sustainable, equitable and inevitable.

Mr Gallagher went on to say:

My guess is that the detractors of micro-economic reform in Australia’s higher education industry will find themselves on the wrong side of history in resisting efficiency improvement and innovation …

It is no longer acceptable to bury our heads in the sand and pretend our universities are not falling behind when compared to those of our neighbours and the rest of the world. Global university rankings have struggled to include an Australian university in the global top 50 for years. The number of quality further education providers in the Asian region continues to grow, while more and more students seek to study in less traditional ways such as through online courses or through private colleges. Yet Australian universities and private institutions are unable to capitalise on this new trend and are instead held back by burdensome regulations that are ill-suited to the 21st-century global education market.

As such, I applaud initiatives that seek to equip tertiary institutions with the ways and means to take advantage of the circumstances and deliver the best outcomes for students and the nation alike. The benefits of deregulation and the free market are well known, so there is no need for me to labour this point.

However, with these reforms, we will free higher educational institutions from the shackles of regulation and give them the freedom to compete with each other in the education market. By being able to set their own fees, universities will soon have to compete with private colleges and other educational institutions, which will drive all players towards further innovation in areas such as service delivery and student support. With this, students only stand to benefit from the improvements and innovation in the further-education market that is driven by free-market competition. This will help guarantee the future of education in this country.

Education is opportunity. Through these reforms, Australia will see 80,000 extra students enrol in Australia by 2018. There will never be a better time to commence further study in this country, and many of these extra students will be the first from their families to continue studies beyond a secondary level.

Finally, these reforms are poised to bring substantial windfalls to Australian science and research as well. Australia has a proud record of contributing to the scientific community at home and abroad. Yet, under the previous government, nothing was done to ensure the future success of our research sector. I welcome the substantial extra funding the government seeks to provide for research in Australian universities such as through the Future Fellowships scheme and the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy. These schemes were largely abandoned by the previous government and had no proper planning for operation in the following years. By committing increased funding the government will ensure the success of programs such as the Future Fellowships scheme well into the future. Specific research areas also stand to benefit under these reforms as universities become more competitive and attract higher calibre researchers and increased private funding. This all goes towards a brighter and more efficient research sector with benefits for all of us.

This reform bill will enable universities and other institutions to rise to the challenges of the 21st century and ensure that Australia is not left behind by global competition. The passage of this bill will see a greater number of disadvantaged and rural and regional students commence studies when they might not have been able to before.

Somewhere in the middle of this debate is the rub of the thing, which is: who really knows what is best for Australian universities, the universities themselves or some grey, unknown bureaucrat in Canberra? The coalition believes that we have too many Canberra bureaucrats. Why does Labor not trust the university sector to know what is best for their industry?

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Having listened to the member for Tangney it reinforces my opposition to the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill that is before us today. There is a complete lack of understanding, which demonstrates why there is such a huge difference in approach between the Liberal government and the Labor opposition. Labor actually understands the benefit to individuals, to society and to our economy of higher education. Plainly, that is not something that is understood by those opposite.

A few months ago I had the opportunity to meet with students at La Trobe University which borders my electorate of Jagajaga. I listened to a number of students, and I will just mention a few of them: Rose Steele, Betty Belay, Helen Morrison, Jenny Stramilos, Jasmine Ingram and Sebastian Horey. Each of them talked with me about their aspirations for the future. They told me how they wanted to use their university degrees to contribute to society and to make Australia a better place.

The students also talked to me about their fears. Having just listened to some of the contributions from the Liberal members opposite, these fears about this government's proposed higher education reforms are well founded. For these students, instead of planning their future careers with confidence, they are worried about how long it is going to take them to pay off their higher education loans. Instead of applying their creativity to whatever endeavours they might want to pursue, they are anxious about how they will deal with paying higher interest rates of up to six per cent on their student loans. And who can blame them for having such fears?

The real interest rate on HECS-HELP loans means a degree will end up costing a lot more than the course fee and will take a lot longer to pay off. With compounding interest, young people who are on lower incomes, or who take time out of the workforce to raise a family, will end up paying the most. I just want to go through some of this in detail. According to NATSEM, students could pay up to three times as much for their degree, even if fees only increase by 50 per cent. This is considered to be a conservative estimate, given the projected fee hikes. Assuming a compound interest rate of five per cent, the full impact of Prime Minister Abbott's higher education changes becomes evident.

A young Australian woman studying science at university currently takes around eight years to repay a debt of just over $44,000. According to NATSEM, under Tony Abbott's higher education reforms, the same degree would cost $170,863 and would take 20 years to repay. This is the real impact. This is what we are really talking about. These are huge debts that this government is going to saddle young people with. Young Australians should not be crippled with such debts.

It is not just NATSEM that have drawn this conclusion from the government's proposals. According to Universities Australia, a nursing graduate under a medium-fee increase scenario, who works part-time for six years after working full-time for six years,—obviously, someone who is going to work part-time because she is looking after her family—will pay off their student loan of $51,620 over 20 years compared with 17 years to repay a HELP debt of $24,500 under existing arrangements. These are the real impacts on young people who are going to be told by this government, 'You have the choice of getting a higher education degree or buying a home and starting a family.'

The Program Director at the University of Melbourne's L H Martin Institute, Geoff Sharrock, said that the Group of Eight universities will significantly increase fees. He said:

Most universities will raise fees to at least offset their loss of income from government subsidies. Many will go further to boost the total level of income they'd receive, above 2014 levels. Either way, Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) debts will balloon.

Bruce Chapman, the architect of the Hawke g overnment's HECS program, said:

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

And, of course, higher fees will deter many students from undertaking a degree in the first place. Students, particularly those from low-socioeconomic families, may decide not to follow their dreams and enrol in university because the cost is simply too high.

And who do we have to thank for this higher education bill that will increase course fees, cut funding and create inequality? None other than the Minister for Education, Christopher Pyne, the member for Sturt—the man who himself denied before the last election that an Abbott government would increase university fees. Last year in an interview, the minister—before he became the Minister for Education—said that the Abbott government was not considering increases to university fees because:

We promised that we wouldn't—

increase fees—

and Tony Abbott made it very clear before the election that we keep our promises.

And there is more. Last year the minister said:

The public want a period of stable government where the government keeps its promises .... And there's much I can do in universities and schools while keeping all my promises.

And it goes on. In a media release on 26 August 2012, the then shadow minister for education—once again, Mr Pyne—said:

While we welcome debate over the quality and standards in our Universities, we have no plans to increase fees or cap places.

Yet here is this legislation that we are debating in this parliament today. It is a bald-faced lie. That is what we are debating today—a bald-faced lie that was told before the election. And the government does not even have any embarrassment about coming in and—

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

None—no shame.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No shame whatsoever. There is not even any attempt to hide the fact that these bald-faced lies were told. It is the same old story throughout my portfolio. Before the election we heard time and time again from Mr Abbott that there would be no cuts and no changes to pensions. We now know that that was a lie. The government said before the election that there would be no cuts to health and no cuts to education—that is a lie; no cuts to the ABC and no cuts to SBS—that is lie; and no adverse changes to superannuation—and we saw the filthy deal done between the government, Mr Abbott, and the Leader of the Palmer United Party that will see significant adverse effects to superannuation.

Another thing they said before the election was that there would be no new taxes—another lie. And of course we have the one we are debating today—said so many times before the election, particularly by the now Minister for Education—which is that there would be no increase to university fees. Yet here we are today in this parliament debating this proposal from the government to increase university fees. On every single one of these issues, this Prime Minister and this Minister for Education have broken their promises. This government just lied through their teeth before the last government—over and over and over again.

Let us not forget that the author of this bill, the Minister for Education, is the same minister who spent every day in the last parliament moralising about honesty and integrity in politics. What a sham! Here we are almost at the first anniversary of this government and they have not even been able to get through one year without breaking all of these promises. If this bill passes the parliament—and I sincerely hope, for the sake of the future of our country, that it does not—this minister will forever be known as the man who broke the hearts of so many young Australians and destroyed their aspirations by saddling them with these terrible levels of debt. This bill will reduce participation by young Australians in our universities. How on earth can that be in the national interest? How on earth can it be in the national interest to discourage young people—or not so young people—from going on to further their education at university?

In total, the government's budget measures cut $5.8 billion from higher education teaching and learning and university research. During my visit to La Trobe University I not only met with students but also met with some of the dedicated staff at that university, including members of the National Tertiary Education Union. They told me how devastating these cuts will be to higher education teaching and research at their university—a university that has provided so many opportunities for people in my electorate. They reinforced my view—as does all the evidence—on just how critical quality staff are to the success of our higher education system.

Of the $5.8 billion cuts, this bill on its own will result in $3.9 billion of cuts by: cutting funding for Commonwealth supported places in undergraduate degrees by an average of 20 per cent—and for some courses up to 37 per cent; reducing the indexation arrangements for university funding to CPI in 2016—down from the rate introduced by the previous Labor government; cutting almost $174 million from the Research Training Scheme—a scheme that supports the training of Australia's research students; and introducing a real rate of interest on student debt—a measure which will apply not only to existing and future students but also to the millions of Australians who have an existing HECS-HELP debt. Young Australians do not deserve to face $100,000 worth of debt from their university education. They do not deserve that, particularly when their aspiration is to get ahead and get a decent education. They deserve to have the opportunities that so many others in this House have had to get a great university education.

We want to make sure that we have fairness and equity in our university system, and that is why Labor will vehemently oppose this bill. We oppose the cuts to university funding and student support, and we will not stand by and see a system of higher fees, higher student debt, reduced access and greater inequality. That is what this bill will deliver to our country, and it will set us all back such a long way. So many opportunities will be denied if this legislation gets through this parliament, and that is why we will do everything in our power to oppose it.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I start my contribution, I must mention the appalling contribution from the member for Jagajaga. The member for Jagajaga was a minister of the Crown in the worst government that this country has ever seen, a government that saw this country rack up enormous amounts of debt. She was a minister in a government that has meant the current government has to make some very tough decisions about getting our economy back on track.

This bill is not a measure taken by this government to try and fix up Labor's mess. This bill is about real reform. This bill is to make our tertiary education sector sustainable and relevant in the long term. It is a bill that will enable our universities to not only survive but grow and prosper. This bill will make it possible for people in the electorate of Parkes to obtain a tertiary education—probably the first generation of their family to do so. From the privileged surrounds of the electorate of Jagajaga in Melbourne, maybe that is not important.

The other thing that is important in this is to actually speak the truth. The member for Jagajaga talked about the government putting up fees for students. But there is no talk of the government putting up fees for students. There is an increase in Commonwealth scholarships and an opportunity for more people to attend university. It is very irresponsible for members of the opposition to be running a scare campaign— through their trainees, their future members of parliament, and members of the students' union who are holding rallies and protesting against ministers of the Crown when they visit universities., Unfortunately, they are not speaking the truth.

I am the father of three adult children who have attained a university degree—and some of them have more than one degree—so I do have a fair idea of the trials and tribulations involved in funding a university degree. If you listen to the members opposite, you would think all this was free, that the education fairies rain goodwill upon all students and magically these courses are funded. What we are talking about is a modest increase in fees. Students are paying 40 per cent of their course fee but they will now pay 50 per cent. When my children were deciding where to go to university, and how they were going to fund it, the tuition fees were not a concern. As regional students, they were more concerned about how they were going to fund their accommodation and find part-time work so that they could live away from home. The fees they paid through their HECS debt were not a major concern. They may be grumbling a little now as they pay off their HECS debt—they are now in the workforce—but it is one of the best deals they will ever get. Given that they are able to earn a higher income because of their university degrees, it is not unfair that they should be paying those fees back.

With this scare campaign, students concerned about how they are going to finish their course have been contacting my office. Students who were enrolled before the budget will not be charged any differently from the arrangements they are already under. Students who accept a Commonwealth supported place at a higher education institution after 13 May 2014 will be subject to the existing arrangements until 1 January 2016, when they will move to the new system. I am conscious that the current debate about these changes has led to some inflated claims about the likely fee levels and repayment requirements for students. These claims should be treated with caution. Universities will have more say about their own fee arrangements in due course. No student will need to pay a cent up front, and no-one will need to repay anything until they earn over $50,000 a year. I repeat: the government is not increasing fees. Members of the opposition should stop saying that because it is not correct. The government is not increasing fees.

Competition between higher education providers will force universities to be reasonable in setting fees. If they charge too much, they will have empty lecture theatres. Higher education providers will have to compete for students. When they compete for students, the students win. The government believes in the transformational power of higher education, and that is why we will provide around $37 billion in funding for teaching to higher education institutions over the next four financial years.

Australian university graduates, on average, earn up to 75 per cent more than those who do not go into higher education after secondary school. Over their lifetime, graduates earn around $1 million more than they would if they had not gone to university. Given this, it is only fair that students make a reasonable contribution to the cost of their education. The government will ensure that students are not disadvantaged by these changes. HECS loans will continue to be available to assist Australian students with the cost of their education.

Australian universities are dropping in world rankings and Australia cannot afford to be left behind in an era of increased mobility, rapid innovation and shifting balances of power. Higher education institutions have the ability to respond to these challenges particularly in the face of rising universities in Asia and elsewhere. The government believes that these higher education institutions, not governments, are the best judges of how we can maintain and promote a world-class higher education system.

From 2016, institutions will be responsible for setting their own levels of student contributions, freeing them from bureaucratic restrictions. The extension of Commonwealth subsidies to private universities and non-university higher education institutions will support 80,000 Australian students and encourage institutions to compete on price. When universities and colleges compete for students, students win, as I said before.

Reform to our higher education system is necessary if we are going to stay at the forefront of international education. The government will be providing around $37 billion in funding to higher education institutions over the next four financial years and government spending is going to increase each and every year. Despite what the members of the opposition are peddling—their scare campaign—the government will be increasing education funding to universities over the next four years.

The government is not proposing to increase fees. In fact the fees will be set by the institutions themselves. This offers great opportunities for higher education institutions to offer courses that are suited to their strengths. These changes will not affect students who enrol on 13 May 2014. As I have said, they will be exempt. It is important to note that on average students will earn more over their lifetime and it is not unfair that they should make that contribution. It is also important to know that they will not have to repay that loan until they are earning $50,000 a year.

Labor cut $6.6 billion in funding to higher education while they were in office including $3 billion in their last year in office. So when you are listening to the contributions of those opposite, please keep that in mind—Labor cut $6.6 billion in funding to higher education while they were in office including $3 billion in their last year. There will be more opportunities for students from disadvantaged backgrounds through the Commonwealth Scholarships scheme and this will be great for regional Australia. Quite frankly, why shouldn't a student from a family that may have limited means, who has exceptional ability, be given an opportunity to study at one of the top universities in this country? Isn't that what opportunity is all about?

Regional educators will be able to provide for more students because they will have greater ability to offer a wider range of courses, and I will mention Charles Sturt University, which has a campus in Dubbo in my electorate. I know Professor Van has had some concerns about parts of this package, but I also think that there is an understanding that the university also realises that there needs to be reform and that some of the issues that are, I believe, of concern to Charles Sturt may even be addressed.

The deregulation of tertiary education will allow opportunities, and in Central Queensland the merger between the TAFE and the Central Queensland University is a classic example. This will allow opportunity for students in my electorate to obtain funding to attend diploma and other courses. TAFE Western has over 36,000 students including nearly 7,000 Aboriginal students. TAFE Western is the greatest educator of Aboriginal people in Australia. These reforms will allow those Aboriginal students from Western New South Wales to possibly be the first members of their families to obtain a tertiary education. I think that is incredibly important.

Following on from legislation that came through this place a month or two back, which will allow apprentices to obtain HECS type loans to help them through those first difficult years of an apprenticeship when the wages are indeed low, will also allow many of those young people in Western New South Wales and elsewhere to be the first members of their families to obtain a tertiary qualification. Indeed, isn't that what education is all about? I know from my previous role as chairman of the Gwydir Learning Region, that once people make that first step into furthering their education, then it is much easier to follow on. Quite often people who make that first step go on to complete further studies and, indeed, spend the rest of their life completing their education. Education is a lifelong journey and I believe that these reforms will enable many more people in this wonderful country to obtain that opportunity.

Debate adjourned.