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

Here we are again with this Higher Education and Research Reform Bill. It is just as bad as the first one—the Minister for Education has brought it back to the House after it was thoroughly defeated by the Senate. I am speaking against this bill because it continues to be unfair to students and prospective students looking to study at university, and it is bad policy for our country. It also creates uncertainty for many in our community, whether they be universities or students, and it is just an ideological frolic of the Minister for Education. It is not just an ideological frolic and unfair—it is a broken promise. The minister and the Prime Minister said that the current arrangements for university funding would not change. They said that before the election and indeed even after the election. The minister went on television saying that there would be no increases in HECS fees. Well, this bill clearly shows a broken promise. But it is more than that: this bill is a monument to the failures of this government.

The first bill was ill conceived, with virtually no consultation, and was dumped on the Australian public on budget night. It was incredibly flawed. But this new policy is equally flawed. Of course, we have those on the other side—39 of them, to be precise—that will say it was merely a victim of poor salesmanship from the minister and the Prime Minister. But we know that it is much deeper than that, that the policy is flawed, not the salesperson. With the government at Christmas time so desperate to try and have a win, they spent $15 million of taxpayers' money to spruik a reform package that had just been defeated in the Senate. It had been rejected by the Australian people and rejected by the Senate, but we saw the desperation of this government, spending $15 million trying to convince the Australian people that this was not what they thought it was, that it was not bad policy; it was good public policy.

This bill in its current form is, as was the former legislation, unfair and very poor policy for Australia. The Labor Party could see this first up. That is why we have been continuing to campaign against these unfair changes. The Senate saw this legislation was unfair, rejecting it, and the Australian people saw it: like many on this side of the House and, I am sure, on the other side of the House, I had many, many people—constituents, families, people in the electorate—talking to me about how unfair this legislation was.

The minister would have us believe that the government has compromised, that this is a new package. But the bill before us today does a number of things that really punish those seeking to have an education, to obtain a university degree. But it also punishes the community in Australia and it punishes universities. This bill slashes the funding for Commonwealth supported places in undergraduate degrees by 20 per cent and, in some instances, up to 37 per cent. It cuts $1.9 billion out of our universities, but it also provides the opportunity for universities to move that cost onto students, which will lead—as we have seen—to $100,000 degrees for undergraduate students. We have seen $171 million worth of cuts to equity programs supporting our brightest who may not have the opportunity to go to university—support needed so that they can achieve their dream—$200 million worth of cuts to indexation of grant programs, $170 million worth of cuts to research training, fees for PhD students for the first time ever in this country's history and $80 million worth of cuts to the Australian Research Council. We can see that this bill is no different. Tinkering around the edges does not change it. The substance is still there. This package is still grossly unfair. It is as flawed as the one that was defeated in December. No amount of weasel words from the Minister for Education can change that.

The bill has already been defeated once. The minister would have you believe that it was just a fear campaign that spoiled his moment in the House in December. But what the Minister for Education refuses to acknowledge is that the defeat of the first bill was the will of the Australian people. Countless phone calls, emails and letters to Labor members and senators have been coming in thick and fast. Australians right across the country have voiced their fundamental opposition to $100,000 degrees. The Australian community have already assessed these reforms and found them wanting.

Labor has led the fight against this unfair package, not as a fear campaign but because the legislation will punish and deter everyday Australians from disadvantaged backgrounds, from middle-class backgrounds—those that have the smarts but do not have the money to obtain a university degree—not to mention those coming from migrant communities and mature age individuals who would seek to improve their lot in life by getting a university degree. Labor will fight these unfair reforms, and our fight has continued over the summer. This time, in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, I hope that those on the other side will see the light and get rid of these unfair reforms.

The bill, much like its predecessor, if passed will slash the funding of Commonwealth supported places by 20 per cent and, as I have said, in some instances by a lot more. This cut automatically puts universities on the back foot and forces them to charge students the difference between what they are getting paid and what they would be getting paid after the cut that will be made by the government. This will be just to break even. And, once universities have been deregulated, the increase in fees will be a lot more. Far from giving universities greater freedom and flexibility, this cut of 20 per cent condemns universities to make up the difference, slugging students for the same cost of a degree.

Once universities are deregulated, then they will be free to set their own price, and the financial pressure on students and families right across the country will automatically prevent many from ever obtaining a university education. The Minister for Education remains on the fence about whether the 20 per cent cut is in or out. Well, it is in this bill before the House tonight. It is an appalling cut to our universities and will have a big impact on students. Our universities and our students deserve better than this. The minister needs to stop using this cruel and unusual cut as a bargaining chip in his war on Australian university students and clarify once and for all whether this cut is in.

But we have seen a cut in funding not just to the undergraduate funding but also to the postgraduate funding. The cut to the money that universities get to support PhD students is also an appalling attack on the research capability of this country. We know that PhD students do not get a huge amount of income, but they contribute considerably to our economic and scientific capability. They provide input to our intellectual capacity as a nation. This cut to students, which leads to universities charging PhD students for the first time to do their degree, is very poor public policy indeed. We know that students under this package will face not only increasing undergraduate costs but PhD costs. What incentive will there be for students to take a career in academia or research? We will become a poorer nation, not a smarter nation, if this bill is supported.

Deregulation remains the central plank of this bill. The deregulation of university fees, allowing universities to charge undergraduate students what they want, is still at the core of this bill and still at the core of the unfairness of this bill. We only need to look as far as the United Kingdom or the United States of America. If we take the United States of America, national student debt has now reached $1.3 trillion. This is evidence of the devastating result of fee deregulation. That debt hangs around the neck of those students, preventing students in the United States of America from getting capital to start a new business, to raise a family or to buy a house. This is not the type of system that we want here in Australia.

The experience in the UK also demonstrates that this is fundamentally flawed. A report from Britain's Higher Education Commission, Too good to fail: the financial sustainability of higher education in England,warned that the deregulation system introduced there in 2012 'represents the worst of both worlds, where all parties feel they are getting a bad deal' and where the government is effectively funding universities to write off student debt rather than investing directly in teaching grants. Is that the sort of system we want here in Australia? We have a proud history of education in Australia with a well-performing system, but of course the government wants to continue to take us down the ideological path that has been proven, time and time again, not to deliver for the country.

Another major stumbling block for the government in pushing through their deregulation agenda is the level of debt expected to never be repaid, or doubtful debt. As noted in the evidence to the Senate Standing Committees on Education and Employment, Professor Bruce Chapman of the ANU lamented:

The problem, as I see it, is that doubtful debt is a cost to the taxpayer but the universities are essentially controlling what that cost is going to be because the doubtful debt is a direct function of the loans that are outstanding and if the universities control what those fees are then that they will ultimately be controlling the levers that determine what that doubtful debt is and what the taxpayers pay. It is akin to a blank cheque being handed from the government to the universities on the matter of doubtful debt.

These sentiments were echoed by Professor Chapman's colleague, Dr Timothy Higgins, when he added that doubtful debt 'will go through the roof'.

So, quite frankly, this legislation not only is unfair and not only is a broken promise but also is bad policy when it comes to government debt. As highlighted in the UK Higher Education Commission report Regulating higher education,there are serious concerns in the UK around the effect that deregulation has had on global reputation and quality standards in United Kingdom universities. The report goes on to call on the UK government to prioritise legislation to provide students with greater financial protections and to secure the UK's international reputation for excellence in higher education. Clearly, this is the evidence that the government is working on. The evidence is starting to show the concerns around deregulation and the problems with deregulation. Instead, here in Australia we have a government that continues to pursue an ideological path that is not in the interests of our universities, not in the interests of our students and not in the interests of the Australian taxpayer.

We know what the government can be like at times when they cannot get their legislation through. We have seen the Prime Minister often not listening to the Australian people. Not listening to his backbench and not listening to the Australian people got him in the trouble that he saw himself in today. We have seen that, when it comes to higher education, the government will threaten to get their changes. We were reminded in The Australian today that the government is prepared to axe research programs supporting 30,000 scientists and employing 1,500 staff as retribution if this package fails to get through the parliament. If that is not threatening behaviour to our universities, I am not sure what is.

The National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy is a government funded program designed to foster collaboration between the research sector and industry. Described as the backbone of research by Universities Australia, Labor stands appalled by the minister's short-sighted tactic of holding Australia's research sector to ransom in pursuit of his ideological agenda. It is no secret that these programs are structurally unrelated to the government's proposed higher education changes, with any cut to research as a result of the blocked package of this bill being nothing more than retribution and payback. It is a desperate attempt by the Prime Minister and indeed the minister in their desire to get a win. We understand they need a win on the board and we understand they need something to hang their hat on, but it should not be at the cost of students, universities and the betterment of this country in terms of our research capability.

In stark contrast to the government's plan that will see the Americanisation of our universities and will condemn students to $100,000 degrees, Labor has a very strong record on higher education, and I think it speaks for itself. I will highlight a number of positive achievements. Under the former Labor government, total budgeted funding for teaching, research and student support at universities was increased by around 100 per cent from 2007 through to 2017—a doubling of university funding in 10 years. Had this funding model gone unchanged the Commonwealth investment in universities would have been $17 billion a year by 2017. This is a good investment in our future. Under Labor, investment in universities rose from $8 billion in $2007 to $14 billion in 2013. Despite the fiction peddled by those opposite, Labor saw a real student funding increase by 12.4 per cent between 2007 and 2012, while at the same time the numbers of students increased by about 190,000.

Labor is also committed to the proper indexation of university funds to clean up the Howard government's neglect of the university sector. Had we kept the Howard government's funding model as we found it, universities today would be worse off to the tune of $3 billion. Labor has much to be proud of when it comes to higher education. There are 750,000 students at Australian universities today, with one in every four of them there as a result of the hard work of the former Labor government. As I said, we put 190,000 more students into university. We boosted Indigenous student numbers by 26 per cent. We boosted regional student numbers by 30 per cent. We helped 36,000 extra students from low-income families into university when compared to the 2007 figures.

Labor wants to build up Australia's higher education sector, and this government wants to tear it down. I echo the sentiments of the Leader of the Opposition by saying to the Minister for Education that if this government is so committed to improving our universities, reverse the cuts already implemented, scrap this legislation and seek a mandate from the Australian people.

Of course, as I said previously, the government is quite desperate to get a win, and this minister, in response to his legislation being defeated in the parliament, has undertaken a confected attempt to try to con the Australian people into accepting his package. Never before, I think, has a government wasted $15 million of taxpayer money to sell reforms that have just been defeated by the parliament. This is a flagrant disrespect for public spending and flies in the face not only of the electorate who, in fact, have footed the bill for the minister's advertising blitz, but also contradicts the Short-Term Interim Guidelines on Information and Advertising Campaigns. Senator Carr has raised this issue very publicly.

I think it is prudent to remind this place and all those who may listen to this debate of the government's solemn pledge on public spending in the lead-up to the last election. It was the Prime Minister who, on 25 August 2013, pledged with his hand on his heart:

We know that you expect us to be as frugal and prudent with your money, which we hold on trust from you, as you would be with your own hard-earned savings.

What the Prime Minister failed to mention is that this government reserves the right to run a campaign of deceit and misdirection at the taxpayers' expense, and should the public dare to disagree with any of it then the government just introduces new legislation.

So embarrassed was the minister of his advertising blitz that he went to ground, blaming Senator Madigan, of all people, for the campaign's very existence. It was not until Senator Carr had written to the Secretary of the Department of Finance, the Secretary of the Department of Education and, finally, the Auditor-General that the truth behind the government's reckless addiction to spending was finally revealed. Yet when Senator Carr asked about the planned advertising campaign in last year's Senate estimates he was met with an evasive answer and sideways glances from the representing minister. Perhaps the Minister for Education needs to stop covering up his intent to run an expensive, incorrect advertising program and to stop wasting millions of dollars of taxpayers' money.

We all know that there has been a second round of advertising budgeted for, and it will likely be upon us once this bill reaches the other place. I would say to the Prime Minister, to the minister and to the government: stop treating the Australian people like mugs. Stop pretending that you know better and that you have the wisdom of all knowledge, and stop spending taxpayers' money on actually misleading the Australian people. The Australian people are smarter than that, and will be able to call you out. No amount of taxpayer funded advertising can ever make this unfair bill palatable to the public or to this parliament. No amount of advertising can erase the fact that this bill is a broken promise; a promise not only made before the election but a promise actually made after the election. Not only is this campaign a waste of public money but is actually based entirely on misinformation.

As Senator Carr pointed out in his letter to the Auditor-General, the government's claim within the higher education advertisements that the Australian government will continue to pay for half the cost of undergraduate degrees for students fails on all accounts: it is neither accurate nor verifiable, and it attempts to mislead recipients of the advertising.

As the minister continues to claim that under his reform package the government will cover 50 per cent of tuition fees for university students, we are actually starting to see the evidence come in that this is completely false and completely untrue. Under the 2016 fee schedule for the University of Western Australia, students in some cases will be forced to pay around 90 per cent of the cost of their degree. The University of Western Australia have introduced an annual student fee of $16,000 from 2016 onward in anticipation of the successful passage of this legislation through the parliament.

The price hike applies to all of the university's Commonwealth supported places for undergraduate studies encompassing arts, commerce, design and science. But given that the Commonwealth only contributes $1,805 a year for a commerce degree under the government's five-tiered system, the University of Western Australia students will be forced to meet 89.96 per cent of the cost of their degree. Similarly, arts students will be forced to meet 72.66 per cent of the total cost of their degree. This is an increase of 160 per cent, while the University of Western Australia's science degrees will skyrocket by 80 per cent.

The minister has described such fee increases as 'modest'. That shows just how out touch they truly are. But, of course, it also shows that their advertising campaign was a lie. It was a lie and it misled the Australian people. We believe strongly that, first of all, the government should not use taxpayers' money to advertise a campaign for legislation that had failed in the Senate and also that it should not mislead the Australian people. The Australian people will hold them to account.

But it doesn't end there. The Queensland University of Technology have also released their fee structure for 2016. Analysis of these figures reveal that business students at the Queensland University of Technology will be charged 88 per cent of the cost of their degree as a result of the government's changes. Eighty-eight per cent is a long way from the minister's ongoing denial that students will only be making a contribution of 50 per cent of their degree. From these figures, it is easy to infer that other universities across Australia will introduce similar fee structures and then compete on their price signals in attracting the brightest minds to their campuses. Plainly, it is a blatant falsehood for the minister to waste nearly $15 million of public money peddling deceit and untruths.

Labor stand by our belief that these changes will lead to $100,000 degrees and the evidence is in that this will be a reality. It will lead to the brain drain from our regions and will condemn everyday Australians from lower socioeconomic backgrounds from even attaining a university education.

The minister must today apologise to the public for this blatant waste of taxpayers' money, and pledge to abandon any further higher education advertising campaigns.

The government's Americanisation of our university system will—

Mr Tudge interjecting—

I will take the interjection from the member across the table. Of course, one of the things he has failed to recognise is that his government pursued an advertising campaign after a piece of legislation was defeated. It was defeated. It had been voted down by this parliament and the bright sparks over there said: 'I know how we will get our legislation through the parliament. We will start advertising it. We will spend taxpayers' money on advertising it after it has been defeated.' I would say to the minister: go back to the book, have a look at the short-term interim guidelines, maybe re-read them and maybe get someone to have a look at them for you, and you will see that it blatantly contradicts the guidelines.

I will get on to the substance of the bill. The government's Americanisation of our university system will have a significant impact on the shortages of doctors in our region. I have spoken many times in this place about the impact of these higher education changes, but I would like to bring some new evidence that has recently been published. According to the Medical Journal of Australia,the deregulation of Australia's university system will exacerbate the ongoing doctor shortage in rural areas and will in fact funnel more and more students into metropolitan universities opting to undertake medical specialisation.

Of course specialisation is necessary and important, but just as necessary is the need for general practitioners in Australia's regional hubs, small towns and remote townships. Should the government successfully pass this unfair package of reforms, regional universities, students and communities will suffer. Never mind the minister's afterthought of a structural adjustment package for regional universities—this in itself will not help universities actually meet the demands that they will face and we will continue to see them flounder.

It is widely accepted that students who attend university in the regions are more likely to stay in the regions to work and raise a family following their studies. Given the massive potential in Australia's regions—from mining, agriculture, viticulture, construction, engineering and social and medical services—it is astounding that the government is prepared to walk away from this potential through their deregulation arrangements that will affect regional universities.

We have a world-class system of universities here. Despite what the minister will peddle about us having a mediocre university system, we do not. We have an exceptionally good system—one that is getting better and better. It is time that the minister actually stood up for our universities. It is time that the minister stopped cutting money out of the system. It is time the minister stood up for students and actually recognised that students and those looking to study are the economic powerhouse. They are our intellectual infrastructure of the future and instead of punishing them, deterring them and ensuring that the public good that our universities and our undergraduate and postgraduate students make to this country is talked down, the minister should start talking it up.

Of course we have seen the mea culpa from the Prime Minister, and it is time that we heard a mea culpa from the Prime Minister and the minister that they will ensure that this legislation does not go ahead, that they will not Americanise our higher education system, that they will not bring in $100,000 degrees, that they will not cut money out of our universities and that they will not cut the important research dollars that go to our universities to develop the technologies and the ideas of the future. Anything less will show that this Prime Minister has not listened to the Australian people, has not listened to his backbench, and that he should be very worried for the future.

Ann Sudmalis (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand in awe of what is being presented here. I am happy to be corrected, but it is my understanding that $6.6 billion was ripped out of the budget for university education by the Labor Party and that we were in a position where we actually had to put corrections in place. At no stage is this Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014 planned to destroy our universities; it is an act to keep our universities viable, to reverse the cuts put in place by Labor and to give the universities a chance to be sustainable. The Australian people are confused. The Labor government ripped money from the university sector with absolutely no avenue to survive financially. This is actually pretty typical of those who sit in opposition at this time. There was a grab for funds to fix the budget, and our universities were an unintended consequence: 'Oh, well, I guess the Liberals will fix that; they always do.'

But even in opposition Labor block policy. Misinformation regarding the potential scholarships for young, talented people to attend university is rife. It is being peddled by Labor and being used as a blocking tactic. The equity of access that they promote is being blocked by their actions and misrepresented. Perhaps the whole bill has not been analysed, or perhaps their reading is a little selective, leaving out the fact that their cuts to university funding were enormous and had to be addressed.

In September of last year I rose to commend the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014 to the House. While the House agreed to the bill, the Senate did not, refusing a second reading on 2 December. By voting down this bill, the Senate is putting at risk the jobs of 1,700 technical and support staff and the work of up to 35,000 researchers by the cessation of vital research infrastructure funding.

When this bill is passed, the following are some of the benefits: the Australian Research Council Future Fellowships will be awarded, meaning that future top researchers will not have to head overseas or abandon their research careers, creating a brain drain. There will be sufficient funding support for the full range of research priorities, such as the Antarctic Gateway, tropical health research at James Cook University and dementia and diabetes research. My electorate of Gilmore is one of the most senior by average age across Australia. Research funding is crucial for both diabetes and dementia. There are many other members in this House on both sides who would also welcome this research funding.

If this bill is passed by the Senate, it will help secure Australia's place at the forefront of research, with $150 million being allocated in 2015-16 for the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy, which was mentioned earlier. There is $139.5 million to deliver 100 new four-year research positions per year under the Future Fellowships scheme. Some examples include $26 million to accelerate research in dementia, $42 million to support research in tropical disease and $24 million to support the Antarctic Gateway Partnership. They are good projects. They will benefit our nation.

This bill is a good bill, with many crucial reforms for Australia and reforms to help guarantee the future of our higher education and tertiary sectors nationwide. We have consulted widely with these stakeholders, and there is a lot of support for the reforms. In December last year, the Regional Universities Network urged the Senate to pass this new bill as soon as possible. They said:

It's not in the interest of students or universities to continue to let this issue drag on.

The network also explained that the bill contains key changes that will, in their words, 'benefit regional students'. Finally, the network wholeheartedly believes that, despite the scare campaign of the $100,000 degrees, this will not be a reality.

We as responsible members of parliament should take note of Universities Australia, who just one week ago pleaded with the senators to pass this bill, saying:

Our appeal to Senators as they return to Canberra is not to ignore the opportunity they have to negotiate with the Government in amending and passing a legislative package that will position Australia's universities to compete with the world's best …

Senators, particularly those on the crossbenches: if you support a better-quality, more competitive higher education system with significant opportunities for rural and regional, disadvantaged and low-socioeconomic-background students, you must support this bill.

On this reform package before the House, let me assure all members that I am 100 per cent in support, particularly because I know from personal experience just how much a cheap loan would have meant to me in my youth. Let me assure the House that I speak on this issue with personal experience in the field of education as a pathway to university. For 10 years I was a high school science teacher, and I was an educator tutor at the University of Wollongong, I also taught high school in the United States as an exchange teacher and was a volunteer teacher in India. The experiences in these countries and in the different levels of education inspired me to see the true value of our own unique education system right here in Australia.

Through this reform package, we will ensure that Australians have a higher education system that ensures equality of opportunity and a chance for every child: the potential to attend university, if that is their choice. For decades to come, the scholarship scheme is a remarkable system. This bill introduces many positive and long-overdue reforms, including the expansion of a demand driven Commonwealth funding system for students studying for higher education diplomas, advanced diplomas and associate degrees, much of which was inaccessible to students in the regions before. It will also extend Commonwealth funding to all Australian students privately studying bachelor courses through other organisations.

Crucially for an area like Gilmore, where youth unemployment is estimated to be over 50 per cent in some of our villages, this bill will allow an opportunity for them to be part of the extra 80,000 students—I repeat: the extra 80,000 students—who could qualify for Commonwealth support. It saddens me that in my electorate of Gilmore only three out of 20 attend university level education. We have one of the lowest participation rates in the country for higher education, so for some of our HSC students this new support scheme is a fabulous opportunity.

However, those of us from rural and regional areas understand that a bachelor's degree is only one option for students. I dare say that the overwhelming majority of jobs in my electorate are not the kind where a bachelor's degree is required, although there is potential for change. Most of our local jobs only require a certificate II, III or IV, and in some cases a diploma or an advanced diploma.

Other major reforms delivered by this bill are the better opportunities for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds to get scholarships—and it will be the greatest scholarship scheme we have ever had. If this bill is passed, it will effectively mean free access to education for the brightest students from the most disadvantaged backgrounds Australia wide.

In previous debates on this bill, I explained that, after I completed high school, I was originally accepted to the University of New South Wales in medicine. But at that point, looking at the cost of moving from Woodford in the mountains to the centre of Sydney, as well as the cost of textbooks and other materials, there was no way I could afford such a course, so instead I gratefully accepted a Department of Education scholarship. I gave up the idea of doing some other degree because I simply could not afford it. Can I say that a cheap loan would have been a wonderful opportunity for me.

We are also strengthening the Higher Education Loans Program that sees taxpayer support to all students' tuition fees up-front and ensures that students only repay their loans once they are earning a decent income. No-one needs to pay a cent up-front. We are also removing all fees on FEE-HELP and VET FEE-HELP loans, which are currently imposed on some students undertaking higher education and vocational education and training.

Through wider consultation with external stakeholders and those on the other side and the crossbench, the government has proposed a number of amendments since last introducing the bill. With our amendments, this reform package will see even greater benefits to students. A negotiated outcome is a recognition of the different perspectives that need to be incorporated. Ultimately, if we work together, good governance can be achieved.

As a candidate in the run-up to the September 2013 election, I was not aware of all the unexpected consequences of the Labor decision-making process in the budget overall or university budgets. In fact, I do not think anyone knew what their changes really meant in a budget where the words 'billions of dollars' are tossed around with little regard to the impact. Under Labor, $6.6 billion was removed from the allocations to universities. That is six thousand, six hundred million dollars. That is enormous. How on earth were our universities meant to recover from that cut—no research fellowships, nothing for infrastructure, nothing to help smart, low-socioeconomic students access university education. Seriously, this had the potential to be a huge problem.

Worse still, in April 2013 Labor capped self-education expenses, leaving thousands of nurses, teachers and middle-Australian professionals financially disadvantaged. For a political party that continually extol their support for middle Australia and the importance of research and university education, the actions that they took defy explanation.

Freeing up our higher education system will make it possible for all Australian students to obtain a higher education of world-class quality, rather than see us fall behind in an intensifying global competition for education and jobs.

Labor left a complicated and unwieldy mess, with large increases in regulation, compliance and reporting, unnecessary red tape and regulatory duplication applying to universities. They spent an estimated $280 million a year on compliance. Did you know that part of the costs imposed on universities, that we hope will be removed with this bill, included such ridiculous reporting as: 'Describe the teaching spaces and their use.' For example, the universities had to write a report on their science laboratories stating their use. It was for teaching science. For the lecture theatres—what were they used for? Guess what? Lectures for students. Labor's poor track record, shown in the two independent reviews of regulation and reporting that came out in 2013, was completely ignored. I mean, really! It is such a shame that the general public did not know of such impositions put in place by Labor.

Our international education went somewhat backwards. Export income for our universities fell by billions of dollars from its 2009-2010 peak because of Labor's neglect. The number of international student enrolments fell by 130,000 students. This represents a decline in enrolments of 16 per cent over that period. That is bad for our economy, for all those who work in education and for all those in the support services such as travel and accommodation.

Many Australian families are not aware that education can be seen as an export. The easiest way to explain this is that the degrees earned in Australia are like a product being manufactured here and sold overseas. Money is earned for Australia from an international source. It is the same for international students studying here in Australia.

There are a whole heap of strong Labor people who have publicly said that the desirability of the Opposition should be in generating a compromise, working through this and getting the deregulation through. The Hon. John Dawkins, the Hon. Maxine McKew and Professor Peter Noonan have all said, 'Get your act together and work together.' Former senior Labor minister the Hon. Gareth Evans is a strong advocate of the need for higher education reform, including deregulation. The truth is that the government's reform package, with amendments, is supported by almost all universities and higher education peak bodies.

Without the additional operational funding, the significant intellectual capital for all of our research places, the expertise built up over nine years of some programs, will dissipate and many people will lose their jobs. This bill allows for the ongoing funding through the Australian Research Council of 100 four-year fellowships each year from 2015. Future Fellowships funds promising mid-career researchers to ensure Australia keeps its internationally competitive researchers now and into the future. Without the passage of this bill, there will be insufficient funding and the program will end.

To conclude, I echo my comments from the last time I spoke and when I commended the original bill, by reminding the House of a simple fact: over the working lifetime of the average university graduate, they are likely to earn significantly more than someone without a degree. Right now we collectively have the chance to open the door of opportunity for so many more of our young Australians and to continue to have a worthwhile income for universities. I strongly urge all honourable senators, especially those on the cross bench, to support this bill for the future of our universities and the future of our nation.

Our job as local MPs is to widen opportunity and give everyone a fair go. That includes the chance to go to university, TAFE or other training organisations, and that is exactly what this bill will achieve. I say again: we have the chance to make the most of our national future and to help our students to make the most of theirs. So let us open the door of opportunity and encourage this bill to get through the House.

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

I oppose this bill. If there ever was an example of the Abbott government being out of touch, look no further than this rehash of an earlier bill that the people of Australia have overwhelmingly rejected—in particular, the parents of Australia, who see the opportunity for their kids to get a university education being whittled away by this government hell-bent on instituting right-wing policies and allowing the market to take prominence in determining whether or not people go to university in this country.

This set of proposals has been well and truly kyboshed by the Senate. Many senators, particularly those on the crossbenches, have said, 'No matter what form you put these amendments in, we will not pass them because they are bad policy.' But the government is persisting. If you ever wanted a case of the government being out of touch with reality and out of touch with the aspirations of ordinary Australians, look no further than this bill. The government is persisting with a broken promise, a set of reforms that are massively unfair and that make it harder for kids from low- and middle-income families to go to university.

This bill also, in my view, downgrades the value of education within our community. It undermines the value of education as a promoter of productivity and a driver of growth within our economy. We all know that the earlier bill that the minister attempted to introduce, the original Higher Education And Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014, was about to be rejected by the Senate. So the minister rehashed many of the provisions, went away and changed some of them, most notably retaining the current measure for the HELP indexation of debt, namely the consumer price index, rather than utilising the Treasury 10-year bond rate. They also seek to introduce an indexation pause on HELP debts for primary carers of children aged under five who are earning under the minimum repayment threshold.

But what the government does not understand is that the reason Australians, in particular Australian parents, are rejecting these reforms is that they are deregulating fees for university courses in this country. They are allowing the market to determine the cost of a degree for kids in our country. And that says everything about the value that this government places on education and on the ability of kids from low socioeconomic backgrounds to get an education and the role that education can play in driving productivity and growth in our economy. These reforms simply price poor students and students from middle-income backgrounds out of the market. They are unfair but they are also really bad public policy because they speak to the value on which Australia places education.

Finally, this is something that the government said they would not do. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Education specifically said that they would not introduce this style of reform if they were elected. In case the memories of those opposite have faded slightly with the frivolities of summer, I would like to remind them of some of the comments, particularly those of the Prime Minister, in the lead-up to the last election when he said on 1 September 2013 on the Insiders program, 'I want to give people this absolute assurance: no cuts to education.' The Liberal Party's policy document for the last election, Real Solutionswhat a wonderful read that would make these days—also states on page 41:

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

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

We want university students to make their contribution but we are not going to raise fees.

Lies damned lies, that is what the government has perpetrated on the Australian people. They are commitments that the Abbott government gave to the young people of Australia prior to the election and they are being broken by the government seeking to introduce this reform into this parliament. They are commitments that the government sought to shirk last year and they are commitments that this government is continuing to shirk this year—an illustration of the fact that they just do not get it; they do not understand the aspirations of ordinary Australians.

The Australian economy is entering a very difficult period. As income from the resources boom begins to dwindle and revenue for the budget begins to dwindle as a result of that, the economy needs to look to areas with growth. Where do Australians need to look for areas with growth? One of those areas is productivity improvement. We need to become a more productive, smarter economy and one that values education, research and development. What does this bill that is before the parliament speak of in terms of values when it comes to education? What does this bill say not only to Australians but to the rest of the world when we talk about how we value education, when we are talking about letting the market determine what students should pay for a university degree in our country? When we are competing against nations, particularly those in Asia-Pacific where our kids will be competing with students of Asian nations in the global jobs market, what are we saying to our students about the way that we value education if these reforms are passed and we are competing against nations where education—and higher education in particular—is encouraged and is provided support by the government?

It is deeply ironic that we have to redebate this bill today. Through its changes to the higher education sector, the government would seek to make tertiary education near impossible for some people from low socioeconomic backgrounds. The desire to widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots infects this government and shows beyond doubt how just how out of touch it is.

I was the first in my family to have the privilege of a university education. In my area, young school students aspire to attend the University of New South Wales. It is one of Australia's leading universities and it is in our community. I had the wonderful privilege to graduate with a degree from the University of New South Wales. I want each and every kid that is currently at school in my community to have that same opportunity. But I know if these reforms are passed that some of those kids, particularly those from public housing estates, particularly those from middle-income families in my community will simply be priced out of the market. It is ironic that the reason they will be priced out of the market is because of the success of University of New South Wales. It is because the university delivers such quality education and courses in a number of important schools most notably in medicine, in law, in engineering, in science, in commerce and in visual arts. These are courses at the University of New South Wales which are in high demand. Students would give the proverbial to get in to some of those courses. As a result, where the course is in high demand, where you have that demand and you allow the market to set the rate students pay to do one of those courses—what are you going to see happen? You are going to see the costs of those courses skyrocket. Because the demand is there, the market will set the fee, not the government working in conjunction with the university and providing support for students to ensure that they can have access, regardless of their income, regardless of their socioeconomic background.

The government says: 'The way we will deal with that is to offer Commonwealth scholarships to students from low economic backgrounds so they get the opportunity to participate in some of these courses that are in high demand in quality universities. When I first read the bill and the explanatory memorandum associated with this, I thought: there is some redeeming feature in this bill, in that they are providing Commonwealth scholarships for those from low socioeconomic backgrounds. But, as with everything to do with the Liberal Party, you have to read the fine print. When you read the fine print, you find that the money raised to subsidise these courses, to provide the scholarships for people from low socioeconomic backgrounds, are going to come from—where? From the increasing fees, from the market setting the rates people will pay to go to university, and from the extra money that will be raised—no doubt by people paying more to go to university. That is where the money will come from. That money is going to be used to fund these Commonwealth scholarships. What a farce. What a crime this government is perpetrating on the students of Australia. You ask students to pay more so that they can fund the so-called Commonwealth scholarships for those from low socioeconomic backgrounds.

Labor values education. Labor believes in the empowerment of education. Labor believes education is the driver of growth in our economy; it boosts productivity. In his budget reply speech last year, the Labor leader Bill Shorten said:

Only through education will Australia fully develop our economic potential, our scientific potential, our artistic potential – our people’s potential.

That is why the Prime Minister’s $5 billion cuts to Higher education are so destructive.

Since the budget, we have seen that it is not only Labor that opposes the government's unfair and short-sighted higher education package; Australians oppose these measures also. They oppose cutting public funding to undergraduate courses for up to 37 per cent. They oppose the prospect of $100,000 degrees that are likely to be the result from fee deregulation. They oppose the Americanisation of our world-class university system, which would see quality universities charge what they want for courses in high demand, while some of those regional universities where courses are not in high demand will struggle to attract students. Good academics will leave and research dollars will move out, because the market sets the pace when it comes to those factors. Labor believes it is the government's responsibility to fund higher education and research properly, not students who are already paying among the highest fees in the OECD. This is not the way that Labor would approach education policy, and we will fight these unfair plans that the government is seeking to reintroduce into parliament today.

The government has given up on $3½ billion of its $3.9 billion of savings, but it has not fixed the inequity that lies at the heart of this bill. That is because this bill is rotten to the core. It still contains $1.9 billion in cuts to Australian universities. It still contains the prospect of $100,000 dollar degrees for undergraduate students; $171 million in cuts to equity programs; $200 million in cuts to indexation of grant programs; $170 million in cuts to research training; fees for PhD students for the first time ever; $80 million in cuts to the Australian Research Council. These massive cuts to universities remain. The new fee imposts for students remain. Nothing of substance has changed, and Labor's position remains unchanged.

Despite speculation in recent weeks that the government would give up its budget savings to achieve its ideological goals, this bill still includes massive funding cuts proposed in the budget. It has been roundly criticised. I was blown away when I read a report in the Australian Financial Review some months ago, in which the Australian Medical Association estimated that the cost of a medical degree at a university like the University of New South Wales in our community could skyrocket up to $250,000, a quarter of a million dollars. What hope on earth does a student have—a student coming out of high school, from a low socioeconomic background, from a public housing estate—of meeting a fee like that? That is why this bill is fundamentally unfair and that is why my Labor colleagues and I will fight this bill to the death.

Karen McNamara (Dobell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014. This is the second time I have supported these higher education reforms. These reforms are vital to securing Australia's competitiveness in the tertiary education sector into the future. Sadly, the Labor opposition simple do not care for or understand the significance of this reform. Their vote to defeat this legislation reinforces their desire to seek short-term political gain over long-term substantial reform benefiting all Australians. Moreover, the Labor opposition have displayed their lack of decency by running a shameful scaremongering campaign designed to discourage students seeking and achieving higher education aspirations. For this they should be ashamed. Opposition to such significant and overdue reform should never derive from the desire to derail a government's agenda and sabotage Australian students' economy and future.

This legislation is well conceived, well intentioned and absolutely necessary to improve the standard of Australia's higher education sector. This legislation will enhance the opportunity for students, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds and rural and regional areas, to engage in higher education. Importantly, this legislation will help secure Australia's position on the global market as internationally competitive in the provision of world-leading higher education.