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

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

The government's unfair budget, condemning Australian student to a debt sentence.

I call upon those 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—

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to condemn this government's unfair budget, which attacks both current and future Australian university students, condemning them to a debt sentence. This government's proposed changes to Australia's higher education sector is an ideological frolic from this Minister for Education to ensure that only those who can afford to attain a higher education can get one. Allowing universities to charge students whatever fees they like will take Australia down a path of American universities, where degrees cost students $100,000 or more. Going to university should depend on your ability, hard work and qualifications and not on your parents' bank account. Education is absolutely essential for Australia's opportunities and our economic growth and future. Higher university fees will put this at risk. Let me be clear, this government's higher education proposal is nothing more than a collection of broken promises—not just broken promises made before the election but broken promises made after the election.

I want to take the House through some of these broken promises that those opposite made during the lead-up to last year's election. First, we have the coalition's 'real solutions' pamphlet. Many of those on the other side should remember it—they held it up enough times. But they obviously forgot to read it because what it said is:

We will ensure the continuation of current arrangements of university funding.

The government has since slashed $5.8 billion from the higher education sector—a clear broken promise of their election commitment. Of course, we cannot forget the Prime Minister's pledge on election eve: no cuts to education. He promised the Australian people this. I am not sure what a $5.8 billion cut means to the Prime Minister, but it certainly looks like a broken promise to me. Then, of course, there is the famous media release published on pyneonline, the minister's website, saying the coalition will not cap places or raise HECS. This is yet another broken promise as the deregulation of fees and the compounding interest on HECS and HELP student loans will increase the average student debt by tens of thousands of dollars. No matter what the minister tries to spin, and no matter what the minister tries to say, the evidence is in. University fees are going up and they are going up not by a small amount but by a large amount.

Even after the election people were fed blatant mistruths by the government. The minister went on television on 17 November. It is a very interesting read if anyone would like to read that—it is still on Pyne Online. He said on Sky News a number of things. First, when he was asked about raising university fees, he said:

… we promised that we wouldn't and Tony Abbott made it very clear before the election that we would keep our promises.

As I said, I certainly recommend the 17 November interview to anyone who has not read it because he also stated very clearly, absolutely categorically, that they were not going to raise fees. The deregulation of uni fees and the introduction of $100,000 degrees is another broken promise. Then there was this pearler by the minister:

The days when governments get elected or political parties get elected and then junk their policies and promises, I'm hoping it's over for good.

Of course he forgot that interview. He forgot the assurances he made. He just kept lying to the Australian people. He also said in the same interview:

… 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 …

Why then is the minister not doing a whole lot in universities and not doing a whole lot in schools except breaking his promises?

While the government would like to pretend that they are not breaking their commitments and that they are not cutting $5.8 billion out of higher education, this is real. We know that allowing universities to charge what they want will lead to $100,000 degrees. The minister can say all he likes that this is not true, but that is not what the independent modelling has shown. Indeed, the National Tertiary Education Union's modelling has revealed that universities will lose more than $4.7 billion, the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling has revealed that degrees are likely to double or triple in cost and the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research has revealed that lifelong debt and loan defaults will be a reality under the government's changes.

The minister likes to paint these figures as alarmist propaganda put up by the Labor Party and say that all we are doing is running a fear campaign, but they have been confirmed today. The minister said clearly in question time that the government was not increasing fees. I would like to see him answer the question properly because we saw today that the University of Western Australia is introducing a 30 per cent increase in student fees. So while the minister has been in this House today saying that there will be no increase in fees we have seen on the ground today the announcement of a significant increase in fees. That is the reality. This is not based on research and modelling—and I think that modelling has been very credible—this is real.

We hear the minister often saying that $100,000 degrees are not real. If he looked at the details and took time to look at the announcement today, he would see that someone who wants to be a lawyer and go to the University of Western Australia will have $95,000 of debt and students undertaking medicine will be forced to shoulder well over $100,000 worth of debt. This minister is condemning Australian students to a debt sentence well in excess of $100,000. The Americanisation of Australian universities with $100,000 degrees will shut the door on young people.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Seriously?

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The parliamentary secretary should talk to his constituents. If he talked to his constituents, he would know that it is not just students, teachers and university lecturers who are upset; mums and dads are upset about this. They are angry about this. Grandparents are upset about this. He needs to start talking to his electorate and start paying attention.

Then we have the really important aspect that the minister was bragging about today—that is, indexation of student debt. The proposed changes will lead to indexation of student debt, a compounding rate of student debt. Many on the other side promised that they would lobby the minister and the Prime Minister on this. Unfortunately, their lobbying fell on deaf ears because in the proposal we will see the bond rate applied. This will have a significant impact on so many people.

Mr Nikolic interjecting—

I hear the member for Bass interjecting. I heard with my own ears him saying: 'I am going to lobby the Prime Minister on this one. I am going to make sure that we do not have real interest rates.' Unfortunately, the member for Bass failed to be heard in his own caucus. What we are talking about is compounding interest not just for new students but for anyone with a HECS debt. In New South Wales over 340,000 Australians with an existing loan will be forced to pay extra. In South Australia 85,000 people with pre-existing student debt will be forced to pay real compounding interest. Queensland members will be asking 345,000 of their constituents to pay more.

This is a broken promise because I could not find in the Real Solutions pamphlet where they said anyone with a student debt will end up paying more for their debt. They will pay more interest on it. It is surprising that we are getting the Treasurer and the Minister for Education beating their chests about how important this is because they indeed protested against any increase in any fees back in their university days. I distinctly remember the Treasurer saying that $250 was a lot of money for students and they should not have to pay that. How times have changed. Now the Treasurer is asking students not to blink an eye at $100,000.

What we see here is a shocking piece of policy. It is an ideological frolic from this government. Most importantly, it is an absolute broken promise that throws out fairness. This is a budget of broken promises and a budget of unfairness.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to rise to speak on this matter of public importance, which attacks the Abbott government's reform package for higher education. And, as is typical of this opposition, it is strong on complaint but there is no plan of its own. By contrast, the Abbott government does have a plan.

The fundamental problem with this MPI is threefold: firstly, the government's higher education reforms strengthen the system and create more opportunities for students; secondly, this package is consistent with core principles of fairness—that is, if you get substantial private value from a university degree, you should bear a fair share of the cost of providing that degree; and, thirdly, this MPI makes no mention of the key equity safeguards that are built into the package but that are ignored in Labor's dishonest scare campaign.

These reforms strengthen the system and create more opportunities for students. Thanks to these reforms, there will be an additional 80,000 Commonwealth supported places by 2018, there will be 35,000 bachelor degree places and there will be 48,000 places for diploma, advanced diploma and associate degree students. There is an expansion of funding beyond the current players in the system to any registered higher education institution, including TAFES, private colleges and universities. These reforms allow a stronger university system in Australia; they allow Australian universities to maintain and, over time, improve their global ratings, which of course serve the interests of Australian students and gives more of them a globally recognised credential.

But do not just take my word for it. What is it that the Vice Chancellor of the Australian Catholic University, Professor Greg Craven, had to say? He said:

There are three good reasons … universities must be able to set their own fees …otherwise we cannot fund vital national research; the international perception of Australian higher education will decline; and students will get an education that is admittedly cheap but increasingly nasty.

These are the things that Professor Greg Craven says will happen if this Abbot government reform package does not go through.

Professor Sandra Harding of James Cook University said:

We shouldn't underestimate the size of these reforms or the need or urgency for these reforms. The status quo is not an option.

These reforms maintain and continue the reform direction laid down by the Bradley review of higher education in 2008. That review recommended opening up universities to everybody with the desire and the requisite ability to attend. The previous Labor government did half the job: they deregulated the number of places, but they rejected the Bradley recommendation that base funding per student going into the system should increase. And so we have an outcome where the number of places has increased, but at the same time the previous Labor government cut funding. And isn't this an absolutely classic Labor approach: great rhetoric, worthy goals, but no performance, no delivery, no plan as to how to make these outcomes actually materialise.

Belinda Robinson, of Universities Australia, said yesterday in the Australian Financial Review:

It is simply not possible to maintain the standards that students expect or the international reputation that Australia's university system enjoys without full fee deregulation.

So the reforms contained in the package that the Abbott government is putting forward, which education minister, Christopher Pyne, is leading, are reforms designed to strengthen the university system and, in turn, create more opportunities for Australian students.

The second point that goes to the fallacy of this MPI is that the policy approach the Abbott government is pursuing is consistent with a core principle of fairness—that is, if you get substantial private value from a university degree, it is only fair that you bear some of the cost. Again, do not just take my word for it. Former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating in 1995 said:

There is no such thing of course as free education—somebody has to pay.

Or the current shadow Treasurer, in his widely read 2013 book Hearts and Minds, said:

The Hawke Government also introduced the Higher Education Contribution Scheme as a way of raising more revenue to finance the extension of the number of university places … I supported it because I could see the inherent logic: our incomes would be higher because we had been to university.

Or, indeed, former Prime Minister Bob Hawke, interviewed in 1998 for Collective wisdom, said about HECS:

I don't have any problem with the concept of fees …. one of the greatest stupidities was the proposition that the Whitlam Labor government introduced of "free" education.

Or, of course, there is the man whose thoughts we turn to so often in this chamber, the shadow Assistant Treasurer, Andrew Leigh, who had this to say:

… government alone cannot provide all of the additional funding necessary for our universities to become top notch. More money is required from all sources, including students.

It is consistent with these basic principles of fairness, articulated by a series of Labor thinkers who I have quoted in this debate today, which underpins the logic of the approach the Abbott government is taking in its reforms in higher education to shift the proportion of the cost of a university degree, which is met by the student taking the degree from today's 40 per cent on average to 50 per cent on average.

The third point I want to make in the time available today is that we have had a disgraceful scare campaign, a dishonest scare campaign from the Labor Party about the likely outcomes in the education market place as universities go about setting their fees once they are given the freedom to do so. It is a disgraceful scare campaign, which ignores many of the facts and the opinions of key participants in the sector. What did the Vice Chancellor of La Trobe University have to say in the Financial Review on 15 September? He said:

… if given the freedom, universities can be trusted to be sensible on how they will price courses.

He added:

The best way to ensure moderate fee increases is to not set a ceiling on prices.

Indeed, much of the overblown commentary—the dire threats of the kind of fee level we might expect—seems to ignore the operation of a competitive market and the fact that Australian universities will be subject to competitive disciplines. It will not be feasible for them to set prices which are higher than students will be willing to pay and higher than their competitors charge. And, of course, it is not just domestic competitors but international competitors, online competitors and so on.

One of the other disgraceful misrepresentations which are commonly made in this debate by the Labor Party is that there is going to be in some way a removal of the HECS scheme. In fact, on the contrary, there will continue to be no up-front fees. Students will continue to have available to them the HECS scheme—now known as HELP—under which, rather than being required to pay up-front, they can accumulate a debt and pay that over time, and it is income contingent. You are not required to pay a dollar until such time as you reach the threshold, which is presently slightly over $50,000 a year.

What we also fail to hear about from the Labor Party are all of the other equity measures contained in this comprehensive package. There are measures for low-income students—those from a disadvantaged background. There is the proposed new Commonwealth scholarships scheme, which will benefit thousands of students from a disadvantaged background. Indeed, universities will be required to spend one dollar in five of additional revenue on scholarships for disadvantaged students. There are the elements to improve equity for regional students and regional campuses with a regional loading of $274 million over four years. The support is extended to private universities and non-university higher education providers, many of which have a very good record of getting non-traditional students into tertiary education. Again I quote Greg Craven of Australian Catholic University:

… Pyne has moved decisively to protect students entering lowly paid but socially vital professions.

… the cut to nurses and teachers, for example, will be noticeably less, recognising their relatively limited earning opportunities…

It is vital that there be reforms made to the higher education system to make it stronger and to give more opportunities for students. The coalition has a plan to do that. Labor has no plan; it just has the usual whingeing.

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

Just under 30 years ago a member of this chamber took their first tentative steps into the political fray by nominating themselves as a first-year student for election to the august position of student representative of the University of Adelaide's education standing committee. It was a bashful start; the member in question could not manage to include a picture of themselves in their materials. That being said, they did provide an election statement—a formal statement of their raison d'etre for running for election. In their statement the bashful member said:

I feel it my duty to stand for election and do everything possible to forestall the introduction of fees and indeed to end any movement by the federal government to introduce fees.

I happen to support the imposition of income-contingent, reasonable-deferred-repayment university fees for university students, but I do understand that 30 years ago many idealistic young Labor members opposed fees of this kind. The extraordinary thing is that this election statement was not made by a Labor MP. It was not the member for Adelaide. It was not the member for Kingston. It was not the member for Port Adelaide. Who could this be? It was the Minister for Education, Christopher Pyne.

How could this be? Did the education minister undergo an ideological epiphany from student socialist to high tory over the past 30 years, or is there another explanation? The education minister's comments in a recent interview with the ABC's Fran Kelly about another coalition MP's awkward history in student politics might be enlightening in this regard. Minister for Education Christopher Pyne's explanation for the disconnect between the historical comments and the government's current policy was:

You don't get elected as student politician by saying the opposite to what the voters in your university are thinking.'

Fast forward 30 years, and this is exactly the contemptuous, cynical, deceptive approach that the minister is taking in his latest elected office. Before the last federal election, the coalition's Real Solutions policy pamphlet—another document that, surprisingly enough, is also missing the face of the education minister—made this promise to the Australian people:

We will ensure the continuation of the current arrangements of university funding.

The education minister made the meaning of this commitment crystal clear when he gave an interview on Sky News in November just last year after the election. Responding when asked whether he would like to raise university fees, he said:

I'm not even considering it because we promised that we wouldn't. Tony Abbott made it very clear before the election that we would keep our promises.

Six months later comes the federal budget, and Australians have found that the word of the federal education minister is worth just as little as the word of the student politician. A cut of $1.9 billion in Commonwealth funding for university places, a broken promise that will force universities to start raising fees—for Australian students this means hikes in the cost of their degrees of at least 30 per cent just to replace what the government's broken promise has taken out. It means engineering students will be paying up to 58 people cent more to make up for the cut. Nursing students will pay 24 per cent more for their nursing degrees. Our environmental studies students will have to pay 110 per cent more to study their courses.

Even more fundamentally, the deregulation of fees means that universities can charge whatever they would like for these degrees. If the market will bear over $100,000 for a law degree, as it is at the University of Melbourne, that is what students will pay. We saw in WA today that we are already seeing more $100,000 degrees. It is a shift in our higher education system towards the rich and away from the smart. It means our bright young students from disadvantaged families will learn that it is money, not merit that determines their future. It means our universities will cater for a narrow elite, not the egalitarian majority needed by the Australian economy and our society.

But this deception did not end with the budget. No, in the second reading speech of the higher education bills the education minister claimed, 'Students will benefit the most.' In an interview on the ABC's Insiders program the education minister claimed, 'Students will always be the winners.' If students will always be the winners, why didn't you tell them before the election? Why keep it a secret? If it is so great, make it a vote winner.

You have to go back to Victor Hugo to find out the education minister's animated political philosophy:

… he does not speak, he lies. This man lies as other men breathe. He announces an honest intention; be on your guard: he makes an assertion, distrust him: he takes an oath, tremble.

The Australian people did not vote for these changes at the last election and they do not want them. The Australian Labor Party will fight these changes every step of the way through this place. We will fight them every step of the way in our community and we will fight them all the way through the next election, when we kick this deceitful government out.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, rise on a point of order. I did not want to interrupt the member while he was speaking, but he did use some unparliamentary language in relation to the minister, and I ask him to withdraw that unparliamentary language.

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

I did not hear it. Does the member for Gellibrand withdraw?

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

I am happy to withdraw out of respect for you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

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

I thank the member for Gellibrand.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whatever happened to the Labor Party of Hawke and Keating? That is what I want to know, because the member for Gellibrand talks about what happened 30 years ago. I can tell you what happened 30 years ago: Australia elected the Hawke-Keating government. On this side of the House, we proudly say that it was a good government. It was perhaps the best Labor government that Labor has had—and that is not a particularly high standard. It introduced some significant reforms, including economic reforms, deregulation of the economy and the reintroduction of tariffs. But one of the most significant reforms that it introduced was the Higher Education Contribution Scheme, known as HECS. This great Hawke-Keating legacy was to introduce a scheme whereby the students themselves would contribute some money towards their higher education degrees, knowing that, by going to university themselves, they were likely to earn so much more money in the future. It just seemed sensible to the Hawke-Keating government that this was a good scheme to introduce and that students themselves should contribute.

In some respects, the reforms that we are introducing now are a logical extension of those Hawke-Keating reforms. They build on the HECS system which is in place. If you listened to Belinda Robinson, who is the head of Universities Australia, you would know that she herself says that these reforms are the logical evolution of higher education policy. What these reforms do, just like the Hawke HECS reforms, is open up opportunities for tens of thousands more students. We estimate that 80,000 more people will be able to access higher education as a result of the reforms that we are introducing, because, for the very first time, sub-degrees will be part of the HECS system. This means that an associate degree, or a diploma, will now not have to be paid for up-front but will be part of the HECS system. This is so good for people from families who have not previously attended higher education, because they can often use those qualifications as a pathway into a higher education degree. This is what we are talking about with these reforms. They will open up opportunities and create more scholarships than have ever been created in the history of Australia.

Those scholarships will not just help with tuition fees but help with living expenses. At the end of the day, the biggest barrier to higher education is not your Higher Education Contribution Scheme fees—which are all deferred and do not have to be paid until you are earning above $50,000—but your living expenses. Rural students particularly know these barriers, as do low-SES students. The package that we are putting forward will put $1 out of every $5 of increase in HECS towards scholarships. Those scholarships will help underprivileged students access university, paying for their living costs so that they can get there, whereas otherwise they may not get there.

I do not know what happened to the Hawke-Keating era of the Labor Party. It seems to have been abandoned. While the member for Kingston raised this particular matter today, you suspect that the people who are actually driving higher education policy are Senator Kim 'il-Carr' over in the Senate, Senator Hanson-Young and perhaps Adam Bandt. It is the left of the party these days that dominates Labor's education policy. There are still a couple of sensible people on that side of the House. We have mentioned Chris Bowen. We have talked about his book, Hearts & Minds, as the member for Bradfield did. The shadow Treasurer himself supports the HECS system and supports such measures, as does, of course, the shadow Assistant Treasurer, who also supports deregulation of fees. He supports a market based HECS scheme to provide greater opportunities for all. But, sadly, you can be the shadow Treasurer, you can be the Assistant Treasurer and you can even be the leader and believe in these things, but no longer do you get to run higher education policy within the Labor Party, because that is run by the left. It is run by Kim 'il-Carr'; it is run by their Green coalition partners Senator Hanson-Young and Adam Bandt. They are the ones who are dominating Labor, who have abandoned the Hawke-Keating legacy. (Time expired)

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

What a pathetic effort—a pathetic effort to talk about the Hawke and Keating legacy. Over on this side of parliament, we are proud of the Hawke-Keating legacy, and we are the beneficiaries of it. We are the beneficiaries of going to university under an affordable HECS scheme—a HECS scheme that did not bog us down and drag us down with hundred-grand university fees. We are proud of it. On the other side they want to close the door on that generation. They want to close the door on the next generation of working-class kids having a chance to go to university.

That is not a surprise because it comes from the worst education minister we have seen since Senator Amanda Vanstone. It is no coincidence that his mentor was Senator Amanda Vanstone in the other place. At least Amanda got three years in Rome out of her effort. He got three days in Rome for his duplicity—three days at a cost of $30,000. I can imagine him there on the Vespa going down the boulevards, maybe having a pasta and a bit of chianti, proud of his efforts to destroy a fair and equitable education system in this country. What a shadow of a man he is. What a disgrace he is. He has gone a long way from being the Liberal wets' attack dog to being the lap-dog for Prime Minister Abbott. What a disgrace.

The truth is that everyone in this place talks about education. Everyone in this place talks about why education is a great enabler and a great economic tool to improve society. But the key test is not what you say; it is what you do—it is what you do; not what you say. I am proud of Labor's record. I am proud that, between 2007 and 2013, we nearly doubled education funding. Higher education funding went from $8 billion to $14 billion, student admissions to universities increased by a third, funding for regional universities increased by 56 per cent and there was a 30 per cent boost in regional student numbers—all under the last government, a Labor government committed to education, just like the Hawke and Keating governments.

On the other hand, we have this pale, pathetic government over here that is trying to close the door, a government that has cut funding by $5.8 billion, a government that has cut funding for undergraduate places by 20 per cent, a government that is jacking up interest rates not just on prospective student loans but on current student loans. So people who are paying student debts from 10 years ago will be facing much higher interest rates because of this government. As the member for Gellibrand said, there is no mention of that in Real Solutions. What are the results of this? As we saw with the University of Western Australia today, the result is an increase in fees. They are increasing their fees by 30 per cent.

We are going to see an explosion in debt. This is not some scare campaign. We are quoting facts and figures from organisations those opposite are quoting. Why is it fine to quote Belinda Robinson from Universities Australia but not mention the modelling they commissioned—modelling that found that a female engineer will have a debt of $203,000 and will take 32 years to pay it off? A female registered nurse will have a debt of $100,000 and will have that debt until the age of 46. They will have to pay it off until then. What a disgrace. Unlike what the Minister for Education says, a registered nurse will not earn $1 million more than an average worker over the life of their career. Look at what NATSEM modelling says. NATSEM, the organisation the Prime Minister said in opposition was the premier modelling organisation in this country, found that the cost of an education degree will be $87,000. This is a disgrace. Those opposite are attacking the classic first degrees for working-class families—teaching and nursing. These are degrees where people do not earn $1 million more than average people. They are closing the door on the next generation of working-class kids to get into uni. This is their legacy.

It is not a surprise, because we have got an education minister who is more interested in anything but talking about education. We have an education minister who is more interested in flying to Europe than talking about education. We have got an education minister who is more interested in conspiring against the former member for Fisher than talking about education policy. We have an education minister who is more interested in masterminding the loss of the unlosable state election in South Australia than talking about education policy. This guy is as much a campaign mastermind as a political mastermind. This is an absolute disgrace and this government will stand condemned in history.

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

I think we all enjoyed that puff of hot air from the member for Charlton, who seemed more intent on besmirching people rather than actually debating the points before us today. We are talking about some really significant issues here to do with higher education reforms, reforms that will strengthen our university sector, that will create more opportunities for our students and our young Australians. How many opportunities will there be? Eighty thousand more students each year will be provided with additional university spaces by 2018. That is 35,000 bachelor degrees and 48,000 diploma courses.

These higher education reforms are about fairness and about opportunity. Let us not forget that no student will need to pay one dollar up front. FEE-HELP will remain. The Commonwealth taxpayer will continue to meet 50 per cent of the cost. The government is proud of these reforms. They are reforms designed to save the university sector. Quite simply, in the words of Belinda Robinson in TheFinancial Review today:

The short answer is because the existing funding model is not sustainable and a new approach is needed.

…   …   …

If the Government's package is opposed outright, the quality of the things that our great universities do so well - teaching and research - could be jeopardised. It is simply not possible to maintain the standards that students expect or the international reputation that Australia's university system enjoys without full fee deregulation.

…   …   …

In embracing the rare and privileged opportunity they have to shape this key element of long-term structural reform, crossbenchers can create a higher education legacy of which they can be proud.

That is what Belinda Robinson, the Chief Executive of Universities Australia, said. I am sure the member for Kingston refers to Belinda Robinson as an ideological frolic. Sure—that is an interesting way to look at it.

What I find most perplexing is that those opposite think the chancellors and vice-chancellors of all our universities are irresponsible. It is all scare and no substance. In fact, the University of Western Sydney was the first university in New South Wales to grandfather their fees to provide certainty for students. That is really irresponsible, isn't it. John Dewar, Vice-Chancellor of La Trobe University, wrote on the 15th of this month: 'La Trobe University has on Monday taken the first step to the possible brave new world of fee deregulation by offering students enrolled at La Trobe in 2015 a guarantee that their fees will not increase by more than 10 per cent above the regulated student contribution for each year of their degree.' I am confident universities will set prices responsibly. The alternative consigns the sector to a very difficult future. I guess those opposite want to assign universities to an abysmal future.

This has been nothing more than a disgraceful scare campaign put forward by those opposite. How about we take somebody else—Vicki Thomson in The Australian. Don't be fooled by $100,000 degrees. Vicki Thomson said, 'I repeat, there is nothing to fear from deregulated fees for undergraduate degrees.' Those opposite are just full of it. Let us not forget it was the previous government that cut some $6.6 billion out of the higher education sector.

These higher education reforms introduced by the Minister for Education are all about providing opportunity—opportunity for more Australians to access higher education, opportunity for our local universities to excel and become some of the best institutions in the Asia-Pacific and in the world. On budget night, the Treasurer said:

Fellow Australians, we should have at least one university in the top 20 in the world, but we do not, and we should have more in the top 100.

I think it is time we had universities that were globally competitive, but those opposite just want to stand in the way of the future of our universities.

I ask the Leader of the Opposition: what is so wrong with wanting to see our universities excel on the international stage? Let us not forget that our universities will be offering more scholarships and the extension of FEE-HELP across a broader spectrum of higher education providers. This government is committed to unlocking educational opportunities for even greater numbers of Australians. Nowhere is it more critical than in regions like Western Sydney, where the additional training and educational opportunities these reforms will create can drive the transformation of the region's labour market and our economy. (Time expired)

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During a courageous contribution, the member for Lindsay used some unparliamentary language. I grant you, it was not Victor Hugo, but given the ruling you made earlier I would ask if you could ask the member for Lindsay to withdraw.

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

I did not make a ruling before; the member for Charlton volunteered to withdraw.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is probably a good point in this debate to remind the government of what the Hawke-Keating reforms were actually about. The Hawke-Keating reforms were about fees of $100 or thereabouts or, at most, maybe $2,000 for a university degree. These reforms are about $100,000 degrees. You must be some kind of dodgy used car salesman to suggest that these reforms are a natural extension of the original Hawke-Keating reforms—from a couple of hundred dollars to a couple of hundred thousand dollars. This is what this government is proposing.

This government does not appreciate that the ability to pay off a debt of a couple of hundred dollars may be done in your first couple of pay cheques, whereas the ability to pay off a degree and a debt of a couple of hundred thousand dollars is going to take a lifetime. When I say 'a couple of hundred thousand dollars', I am talking about the cost of a medical degree. What Sydney uni, Melbourne uni and the University of WA are saying is that their medical degree costs could go up to $200,000. It is what we have seen in the up-front fee debate, and it is now what we are now seeing for ordinary domestic university students.

Let's talk about the capacity to pay and about why this is a debt for life. Let's talk about regional areas such as Tasmania, regional Victoria and North Queensland where the average wages of people is lower than for those in the metro cities. These people do not have the same capacity to pay back debt because their wages are less, yet their fees for university will be just as high. In metro Victoria, as an example, the number of people earning over $78,000—which may be the beginning of an income which can pay back this debt—is 18.2 per cent. But in regional Victoria it is 11 per cent. So they do not have the wages to pay back these debts. That is why it is a debt for life, and that is just for students who graduate when they are aged in their 20s

Let's talk about all the mature-age students, particularly women who go back to university later on in life. You are going to saddle them with a debt. What happens to their debt when they retire? Who will pay back that debt? Will it go to their children? What will happen to that debt? This government's plan is about locking out mature-age students from university. This government is about saddling them with a lifetime debt or locking them out. This government's plan is about locking out working class kids, because working class kids will have to make that tough call—will they get a university degree or will they buy a house? When you go for a mortgage, banks are already asking you, 'What is your university debt? How are you going to pay it back?' It is already a factor, even before these reforms come in.

These reforms will mean students choose not to go to university, and that will put pressure on regional campuses. I note that the previous speaker mentioned the university of La Trobe, but what she did not mention in her contribution is that the vice-chancellor of the university of La Trobe is already saying that, if these reforms go through, there is a high chance the Bendigo La Trobe campus will close. It will close because student numbers will drop. This is what is going to happen on regional campuses. We have seen it happen in the TAFE sector. When student numbers drop because the debts are too high, courses close. When courses close, academics are laid off, and then the viability of the campus is at risk. It will be a slow death—job by job, course by course, student by student.

What this government is doing is setting the bar way too high on debt levels. What this government is doing is not the Hawke-Keating Labor plan, which was to make a small contribution towards your university fees. This is about a debt for life that is more significant than a car loan, that can only be matched by a mortgage for a home. That is the choice that the government is putting to regional kids.

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has been interesting listening to the points raised by colleagues across the chamber. I wonder if those comments would have been the same during the Dawkins period, when the major reforms were occurring, because the changes were significant. They were not minimalist. John Dawkins, the Labor education minister from 1987 to 1992, instigated a series of Australian tertiary education reforms which were announced ultimately in a higher education policy statement—the white paper published in July 1988. The Dawkins reforms were targeted at improving the efficiency and international competitiveness of Australian universities. That is why I thank the member for Kingston—sometimes it does not hurt to go back and reflect on what education ministers have done. Certainly over time the greatest reforms in education were under Dawkins and many cuts were made of a substantial nature, including AbSec and changes to Abstudy which took away advantages for Indigenous Australians.

The Dawkins reforms were targeted at improving the efficiency and international competitiveness of Australian universities as well as addressing the perceived or real brain drain of talented young Australians overseas. I remind those on the other side of the chamber that the Dawkins reforms included income-contingent loans for tuition fees through the HECS, and conversion of all colleges of advanced education into universities, which was opposed by the Group of Eight universities, who argued that by doing that you were dumbing down courses. The expansion into the TAFE sector was a problem from a university perspective. It took a career pathway away from the vocational focus which universities and the TAFE sector were hooked into. Universities were to provide plans, profiles and statistics to justify courses and research.

Further, it was noted that under the higher education reforms the number of undergraduate students increased substantially. They increased under those reforms, when we went from free education to where you had to take out a HECS loan. Education and tertiary pathways do need reform to put us into a contemporary position. That also allows students to pay back those loans. We have heard comments from my colleagues about the rate at which they will pay them back and when the fee payment kicks in. These increases in students took place in an era when universities were given an economies of scale paradigm. This was in contrast to the Whitlam government's free higher education approach. It would have been interesting to have listened to Labor members in their party and the caucus arguing against what Dawkins was putting in. If they were consistent with what they have been saying today, they would have been saying it then and they would have been defending those students who were affected. But they did not—I was around at the time and there was silence.

Tim Watts, in an article on 14 July entitled 'Future of growth, new progressive thinking', wrote of Joseph Stiglitz's recent visit to Australia:

Dawkins needed to create an education system that could produce a dramatically higher number of skilled graduates to power the Australian economy in a competitive, globalised world, while at the same time curbing the spiralling costs of the sector in a tightening fiscal environment. However, crucially, in tackling this fraught task, Dawkins embedded the values of fairness and equality of opportunity in the policy making process.

That is no different from what Minister Pyne is doing in the reforms that he has put forward. He is putting forward a proposition that enables students from regional Australia and all around Australia to access universities and for universities to seek out those who are highly competent and highflyers who they would want in their courses. Scholarships will provide those same pathways. Again, I make the point that when I was going through I had a Commonwealth scholarship. It gave me the opportunity to achieve an outcome.

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Paid for by the Commonwealth?

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was provided by the Commonwealth. It was a good system because it enabled country kids to get into the university pathway. Dawkins certainly had some detractors but Dean Ashenden, in the Essays & Reportage section of Inside Story of 22 November 2012, wrote an interesting article headed 'Decline and fall?' (Time expired)

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

It is great to have the chance to make another contribution on the toxic and unfair first Abbott government budget and in particular to take part in this very important conversation this afternoon about higher education. All of us in the break in sittings have had plenty of time back in our electorates to talk to our constituents about the things they are concerned about. I know that I have been talking to a lot of people about health concerns they have—about the $7 GP copayment. I have heard issues about pensions and the changes being made by those on the other side of the House. It is interesting that no matter who I talk to, whether it is mums, pensioners, young people or even community organisations, pretty much everyone raises a concern about what this government is trying to do with higher education. Day after day in question time the Minister for Education comes in and talks about this perverse equity argument—what about the tradespeople, what about the casual workers, who do not have higher education degrees? I can tell you that that is not how Australians think. The people we talk to in our electorates who do not have higher education do not resent paying taxes so that young people in this country can have equal opportunities. They are concerned about their kids and whether they will get the chance to go to university. They are concerned about their neighbours and their neighbours' children and whether they will have the chance to go to university.

I was lucky over the sitting break to have a wonderful visit to Monash University, near my electorate —the member for Chisholm welcomed us there and we were accompanied by the member of the Kingston, the shadow assistant minister for education. She was fantastic—what a fantastic advocate this woman is for higher education and for equal opportunities in this country. She has done a wonderful job going around the country. We had a crowd of students and a crowd of teachers, and gee we had some interesting conversations. I want to talk about one student I met, a young man named Nic—a student at Monash University. Nic comes from Horsham, and he has been lucky enough to go to Monash but he raised some concerns for me about the impact on regional students. We know that Universities Australia and other organisations have made lots of formal pronouncements about the impact on regional universities, but I found it particularly emotive talking to Nic because this is a young person who is concerned about the young people in Horsham where he come from. He wrote me an email after the event, saying:

I am also extremely concerned about the impact that deregulation … will have on rural areas like Horsham. Horsham is home to Federation University, with only 3 study areas offered … This is a small rural campus, with very little international student attendance … Under deregulation … I just cannot see how the campus can remain open …

If this campus closes, I fear that many people … in the local area would choose to not undertake higher education at all …

My final question is simple: Where are the Nationals in this debate?

It is a lot of fun for us Labor people to come in and have a red hot go at the Liberals, but you do have to ask where are the Nationals in this debate. He finishes his email by saying in respect of country people:

How can their rights be fought for when none of the Nationals local members are fighting for them in the party room and in the parliament?

I want to make some comments about the impact of these changes on Australian women, because we know that Australian women will pay much more for their degrees than men will under the new system. I do not want to go into too much detail, but we know that a female science graduate will pay about $123,000 for a science degree and still be paying off her degree when she is 40 years old. We know that about 40 per cent of women may never pay off their debts in their lifetime. The truth is that women are going to be less likely to study at prestigious universities as a result of these changes.

If you do not believe what I am saying, can I just refer you to the basic principle of microeconomics which states that, when the price of something goes up, demand goes down. If you do not understand that, not only should you not be running the country but you should not be running a lemonade stand. We will see fewer women educated at premier universities around the country. It is a good example of where we on this side of the House see education as the great leveller of social disadvantage. This is the way that a young person who was born into a migrant family in Springvale in my electorate of Hotham can go on and become a partner in a law firm or a member of this House. But what we see with a system like the one being proposed is that, instead of it being a leveller of social disadvantage through education, it becomes an entrencher of social disadvantage. Those with the most means go to the best universities and do the best degrees, and that is the way these powers are entrenched.

There is so much more that I could talk about, but I do want to mention Real Solutions. It is one of my favourite things to look at. When we need a bit of a laugh in this chamber, we like to bring in Real Solutions. On this serious subject, a promise was made, an ironclad commitment, that university funding would not be changed. This has been a spectacular breach of faith by the education minister; it is one of the worst that we have seen in this budget. Labor will continue to fight these changes to the hilt.

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am going to enjoy talking on this MPI because the whole premise of it seems to be based on dodgy, overblown and exaggerated figures. I think the best way to start the discussion is to quote Vicki Thomson of the Australian Technology Network of Universities:

So let me repeat what has been said a million times: the university sector is not looking to introduce standard $100,000 degrees and deregulation won't deliver them.

Those who have brainwashed some journalists and independent senators to accept that we plan to do just that deserve to be shot down.

It is not only wrong, it is shameful for the fear such myths are creating in the community.

I now turn to the chief brainwashers, who I sometimes think have done so much brainwashing they have brainwashed themselves. The Labor Party have been running a scare campaign on education like the one they ran on pensions. Just the other day we raised pensions again, as we said we would do. And now Labor are doing exactly the same thing with this issue as they did with pensions.

What are we doing? We are expanding the demand-driven system of providing assistance to tertiary education. It means that students studying for higher education diplomas, advanced diplomas and associate degrees will get Commonwealth government support, which equates to $371 million over three years. The people who will benefit from this amount of money are those attending universities in my electorate and at the nearby Charles Sturt University and Southern Cross University. It will also help people who are attending TAFE, because we are also removing all FEE-HELP and VET FEE-HELP loan fees. These fees are currently being imposed on people who have undertaken higher education and vocational education training loans and are on average about $1,600 a year. Over 80,000 extra students will be able to get Commonwealth government support to undertake tertiary education, and 35,000 extra students will end up with a degree or bachelor course. This is going to help people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. A lot more people will get help with alternative entry courses, which is a phenomenon we see not infrequently—in fact, we see it quite often at universities in my electorate. People start off with a diploma, move to an advanced diploma and then the next thing you know they are enrolled in a bachelor degree. This system has been designed to benefit those sorts of students.

The other group who will benefit in is apprentices. We have trade support loans of $20,000. This is a great program and it will mean that apprentices will get assistance as well. Also, if they pay it all back, they will get a 20 per cent bonus. This is much better than the previous system, which was just a $5,000 grant and 'away you go'.

One of the previous speakers mentioned us having an ideological frolic. I would like to go through some of the ideological frolics that the Labor Party undertook in its last period of government. There was $6.6 billion in cuts to higher education. That was a Labor ideological frolic. Talk about a bull in a China shop; it was more like an elephant in a China shop: they cut almost $3 billion in one year alone. Because they were such bad financial managers, they had to cut money from somewhere to fund their ever-expanding debt. Not only that; Labor put a $2,000 cap on teachers, nurses and other professional people attending further education. Regulation and compliance costs for the university system, which they left in chaos, was $280 million a year. Not only that; they attacked the collaborative research infrastructure funding that was about to go off a cliff. We have reintroduced that.

I would like to finish on the words of the member for Fraser, who put it so well when he said:

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.

(Time expired)

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

Order! The discussion is now concluded.