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

I rise to oppose the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014, which of course is one of the many measures that this government has failed to get rid of, notwithstanding the Prime Minister yesterday saying that it was going to be day one of good government. Despite him having said that, not one of the substantive budget measures that are so unpopular with the electorate has been discarded. In that vein, this bill, which is the bill to change the way that higher education works in this country, remains before the House.

I might say that it is disappointing but not surprising that the Liberal Party and the Liberal-National government are continuing to pursue this radical agenda of deregulation of higher education fees, along with the other changes in this legislation. I say 'disappointing but not surprising' because the fact is that every single member of the Liberal front bench—and, in fact, every single Liberal and National in this place and in the other place—supports the radical agenda of the coalition government to deregulate higher education and change the way that higher education operates in this country.

For some reason, it did not occur to the Liberal-National government and the members who voted in the recent spill that maybe it was their policies that might be the problem—that maybe this policy to deregulate higher education, among others, might be part of the problem. They blamed things like the knights and dames fiasco on Australia Day or the terrible result in the Queensland election or the Prime Minister's delivery style or whether a good enough sales job had been done, but of course that is actually not the root of the problem for this Abbott government or for any government that succeeds it, whether it is a Turnbull government or a Bishop government. The problem is that the Australian people absolutely cannot stand, and they abhor, the policies that were announced in last year's budget.

It is no wonder that we have had such a discombobulated coalition over the last few days. They are in such a state that 39 of them voted for a blank space in the leadership spill—39. I think there must be some Taylor Swift fans amongst the coalition when there are 39 voting for a blank space—there was no other candidate looking for the prime ministership, at least not publicly, and yet 39 of them voted for that blank space—and of course there was one informal vote. When I heard about it I, like other Taylor Swift fans, assumed that the person had just written on the ballot paper 'Taylor Swift for Hottest 100'. I know that is how I voted in the Hottest 100. I just assume that there are some Taylor Swift fans on the other side of the House who are voting for Shake It Off. But no-one in the coalition is shaking off the regressive and radical policies of this government that were announced in the 2014 budget. It is a budget that is a terrible shame, really, for the coalition.

Last year, at the beginning of 2014, the Prime Minister had a chance. He was standing there on the deck of the ship looking up at a beautiful albatross. That albatross was the chance to set a budget that really set the agenda for what his government would do for this nation. Instead of appreciating that opportunity, instead of appreciating that albatross, he killed the albatross. He killed it with ideology. He took aim at the albatross, and what have we seen ever since? The ancient mariner has been standing there with the stinking carcass of the albatross hanging around his neck, while the thousand thousand slimy things of his front bench look on. My colleagues know, very much, how unpopular that albatross around the Prime Minister's neck has been because we have all had so many people making representations to us about this stinking budget and about the measures such as the measures that are the subject of this debate today.

I am proud to stand here and defend the right of all Australians to pursue a tertiary education, no matter their circumstances. This bill represents the Liberal-National coalition's view that only people of great means should get a higher education. We reject this view. We believe that university education should be accessible to all Australians who show the aptitude, who work hard and who have the merit, regardless of their personal financial circumstances or those of their parents. Thanks to past Labor governments, including the Whitlam government, Australian students today are not, as in the United States, subjected to crushing lifelong debt when they get a university education. But, under the Liberals' radical and regressive agenda, this will change if this legislation is passed.

The Liberals' plan for $100,000 degrees will make a lot of people think twice before they pursue a university education, whether they are school leavers or they are mature-age students who are considering improving their opportunities and improving their skills and their knowledge. Women students from low-income backgrounds and students from regional Australia will be hardest hit by higher fees. It is a plan for Americanisation of our university system. It is not a plan that passes the fairness test. It is not a plan that passes the national interest test. It is just another broken promise from this Prime Minister and this government.

It was a promise that was made solemnly to the Australian people on the night before the election: there would be no cuts to education. It was made among many other promises, such as the promise that there would be no cuts to health—and we know that that promise has been broken. There was the promise that there would be no cuts to the ABC and the SBS—and we know that that promise has been broken. There was the promise that there would be no change to the GST—and we all know that the $80 billion cuts to health and education over 10 years to the states was intended to put the states in a position where they would have to argue for changes to the GST.

The cuts to education are yet another broken promise. Despite the minister's attempt to make this bill more palatable to the crossbenches and more palatable to the people of Australia, this bill still means $1.9 billion in cuts to Australian universities. It still means $100,000 degrees for undergraduate students. It still means $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; and $80 million in cuts to the Australian Research Council. The cuts to universities remain. The new fee imposts 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 attacks to achieve its ideological goals—attacks aimed at making it harder to get a higher education in this country and making it more expensive to visit the doctor—and would finally see sense and realise that it is its policies that are making this government so unpopular, this bill still intends to change the face of higher education in this country. It still slashes funding for Commonwealth-supported places in undergraduate degrees by an average of 20 per cent—for some courses up to 37 per cent. It still cuts indexation to university funding, which would cost universities $202 million over the forward estimates. On top of these cuts, the government intends to strip almost $174 million from the Research Training Scheme, which supports Australia's PhD students.

The legislation will also introduce fees for PhDs—for Doctors of Philosophy higher research degrees. The Liberals and Nationals want the scientists and academics of tomorrow, who are already giving up at least three years of income to pursue a PhD, to pay fees. People who are studying for PhDs are already being penalised for the time that they are giving up to pursue higher education. To now impose new fees on them is counterproductive for the agenda for productivity and prosperity for this nation. What we want to see is more people engaging in higher level research, engaging in PhDs and contributing to the wealth of knowledge of this nation. Instead, the government would like to impose fees on PhDs for the first time.

Like everything that this government has done since being elected, this bill just seeks to entrench in this country a society of haves and have-nots. You can see that from the policies that are so unpopular. The reason people hate the changes to the indexation of the pension is that that would make it more difficult for pensioners to bear their living costs and would put them in an even more difficult situation than they are already in. It is for the same reason that people hate the changes to the indexation of the Defence Force pension and the disability pension. It is for the same reason that people are so angry about the changes to Medicare—because they will change the way that people have access to health care in this country. Labor will never support any sort of policy approach that makes your ability to get health care contingent on your credit card as opposed to your Medicare card. We believe in universal health care. We believe in access to health care for everyone.

This bill's changes to higher education are actually about moving back to a Menzies-era idea that the worthy poor will have some charitable scholarships thrown to them while the rich will be able to pay for the expensive, elite degrees. You see situations in the US where working-class kids have to find sporting scholarships to go off to university. This country does not believe in a system where the more money you have the greater your access to higher education. We believe in a system based on merit, aptitude, hard work and attitude and not the financial circumstances of the person going to university or of their parents. That is because we are an egalitarian nation, and that goes to the very heart of our national identity. It is for the same reason that Bill Shorten has been talking about an Australian republic. We believe in this country that anyone who works hard can succeed—can even become the head of state. It is not about which class you were born into. It is not about whether you were born into wealth. It is not about the financial circumstances of your parents.

It is for the same reasons that we believe in opportunity for everyone. Yes, there has to be hard work. There is no such thing as handouts. But if you are prepared to work hard and if you are prepared to have the utter persistence that it takes to get through university and to get the marks you need to get in the first place, then we want to see you go to university. We do not want to see you having to decide between a lifelong debt and going to university. It is not part of what Labor stands for. We will always stand for the right of everyone—whether they be working class, middle class or otherwise—to get a university degree, if that is what they want and if they have aptitude for it.

Despite everything the government and the minister has said, there is no evidence that deregulation in education markets acts to reduce costs to students and their families. The experience of deregulation or the removal of price controls across the world in higher education is that fees increase and people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, women and mature age students get left out of higher education. As Labor have said consistently, we will fight this plan in this parliament and we will fight it in the community. Ultimately, we will win, because the community opposes this radical attack on our egalitarian way of life and the values that form a core part of the Australian identity.

We oppose in the strongest terms the removal of price controls on the cost of bachelor and subbachelor degrees. There is modelling that shows that this has the potential to see some degrees cost students $100,000. These are debts that will inevitably lead bright students to have to weigh up whether they can afford to study at the expense of buying a home or raising a family. It is just a nonsense to say that an extra $100,000 of debt is not going to be a material consideration for someone in deciding whether to go to university. It is just a nonsense to say that. It is inconceivable that any government in this country would seek to hamper the future opportunities of this country and of its people. We are seeing an economy that is transitioning away from reliance on mining to one that will rely on knowledge, innovation and services for future economic growth. So why would we hobble the opportunities available to our best and brightest? It is economic vandalism.

Of course, we have heard from the other side the predictable accusations that Labor is running a scare campaign. I love it when I am accused of running a scare campaign!

I remember one year ago this month running in the by-election in Griffith and having the Foreign Minister come to town and accuse me of running a scare campaign about a GP tax and having the Prime Minister come to town and tell 612 ABC that he had no plans for a GP tax. Of course, what transpired a few short months later in the budget? The GP tax transpired. So I know when Liberals accuse Labor of running a scare campaign, of scaremongering, that is code for saying that we are onto something—and we are certainly onto something with this radical change to the way that universities are funded and students are charged. Does anyone seriously believe the scaremongering accusation? And for that matter, can anyone really believe anything that this government says? I do not think anyone can and I do not think anyone will.

The program director at the University of Melbourne's LH Martin Institute, Geoff Sharrock, says the Go8 universities will significantly increase fees to fund research. After the budget he wrote:

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

He also wrote:

For Go8s especially, fee deregulation is almost a license to print HELP debt. Given their high cost base and market leader power they'll want to raise fees considerably, to finance their ambitions in teaching and research.

We know that when you take away price controls, it is just a nonsense to say that fees are not going to go up. Of course fees are going to go up—that is the whole point of taking away price controls.

The NTEU has also done some modelling and found that the average degree could cost from $40,000 to $65,000,with medical degree costs potentially increasing to $180,000.It has been said that those are fair. I do not accept that and neither does Labor. (Time expired)

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given the statements of the previous speaker, I would like to read one quote.

To reject the legislation out of hand—the easy path of populism and publicity—would be to sign the death warrant on a globally respected higher education system. The demise would not be overnight of course, it will be slow and painful.

That was from Vicki Thomson, the former education director of the Australian Technology Network in The Australian 2 July 2014.

The Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014 is the main piece of legislation providing funding for higher education in Australia. It will reform higher education by deregulating fees and extending demand-driven funding to higher education qualifications below the level of bachelor degree including higher education diplomas, advanced diplomas, associate degrees, and also to private universities and non-university higher education providers. This will expand pathways, opportunity and choice for students seeking higher education in Australia. I repeat those wonderful words: expand pathways, opportunity and choice for students seeking higher education in Australia.

As members would know in this place, I have been a long-term advocate for more equitable access to tertiary education for rural and regional students—the students from electorates just like mine in the south-west of Western Australia. I had a very direct example of just how important access is when Labor changed the eligibility for access to Youth Allowance. The response was immediate. Young people and their families were just distraught. For many of them, this meant the end to their higher education plans and dreams. They knew that without Youth Allowance there was no way their families could afford to support their living costs in the city. I will never forget that mother who was heartbroken by having to decide which one of her children she could afford to have living in the city to attend university.

Many of us who represent rural and regional electorates on this side fought Labor's unfair cuts and changes to Youth Allowance for young students living in rural and regional Australia, the words 'expanding pathways, opportunity and choice for students seeking higher education in Australia' represent exactly what we have been working for, for many years. So often, all our young people—the great young people from the south-west of WA in my electorate and right around Australia—are asking for is the opportunity to have a go, the opportunity to simply access higher education, to pursue their education and career dreams, to simply be able to afford to live in Perth and go to a university, which is something students in metropolitan areas take for granted. Often their only issue is: which university offer will I take?

For rural and regional students and their families, the decisions and often sacrifice are much tougher. Students and their families in rural and regional areas are well aware that the HECS-HELP loan scheme means they do not have to pay a dollar up front for their university tuition fees. However, often their hardest problem to solve is: how on earth can I actually afford to live away from home in Perth? I heard it often during the whole Youth Allownace debate and I can still hear it now, 'Can my family afford the at least $20,000 or $30,000 a year extra costs for me relocating to the city and living away from home?' and 'Can my family afford to send not just me but any one of my brothers and sisters to live and attend university in Perth?'

As I said repeatedly, some families had the heartbreaking choice of deciding which one of their children they could afford to send to university. They could afford the university process because it was covered by HECS and HELP but they simply could not afford the living-away-from-home costs.

So I cannot overstate the importance of measures in this bill that are directly designed to improve access to higher education. It is intended that providers will use measures in the bill to provide opportunities for disadvantaged students. Scholarship funds will be used for accommodation, travel, learning support, tuition, and other basic living costs.

Some of the positive news I have heard with this Higher Education and Research Reform Bill is the response from the University of Western Australia, often the university that so many young people in my electorate aspire to attend. Given my experience with the youth allowance issues, there is some very good news for rural and regional students. The headline in the Australian Financial Review stated, 'Uni of WA targets help to rural students'. UWA has identified that students living outside the Perth metropolitan area are, in their words:

… specifically disadvantaged in terms of access to university.

…   …   …

… students from regional and remote Western Australia are likely to attend university at about 60 per cent of the rate of their city counterparts.

Sixty per cent! This is not because they lack university offers:

Analysis shows that WA rural applicants are receiving offers at a comparable rate to metropolitan students, but their acceptance rates are considerably lower.

So what does that tell you?

To put it simply, UWA is directly aware that students who live in rural and regional areas in Western Australia are disadvantaged in their access to university education. The article states:

… 50 per cent defer them in order to meet the "financial independence" requirements to qualify for Austudy and obtain financial support for their living costs while studying.

And that is not all the students. Even worse:

Many who defer do not subsequently take up their offers.

So we lose them. But with the passage of this legislation UWA will have a dedicated scholarship stream to direct to disadvantaged rural and regional students; for instance, those who cannot afford living away from home while they attend university in Perth. UWA has identified that the scholarships they will offer as a result of the passage of this legislation will be targeted at increasing the participation of these types of disadvantaged students.

So as well as with relocation costs, such scholarships may help the young people who have to work to support themselves while they are living away from home so that they can actually spend more time on their studies than on ever-increasing amounts of time in paid employment to help with those simple living-away-from-home costs. In addition to this, there will be a dedicated scholarship fund for universities, with a high proportion of low-SES students funded directly by the Commonwealth on top of the university based scholarships.

But, firstly, before any aspirational young student who desperately wants and needs the opportunity of this university education and living away from home gets that opportunity, the legislation has to be passed by Labor. Labor is blocking this legislation. Labor is saying 'no' to rural and regional students who cannot afford to live in cities. UWA has said that they will fund these types of students and Labor is saying, 'No. No, you can't have that opportunity.' Labor is saying 'no' to students in the south-west of Western Australia who desperately need that scholarship pathway. Labor is actually saying 'no' to young people right around the country; it will not just be UWA that offers this opportunity. I just wonder why Labor is so determined to entrench and extend disadvantage for students, the disadvantage that is clearly acknowledged by UWA.

We need to remember in this place that these students will be disadvantaged for life; it is not short term. Our regions—the growing regions that underpin the economy in this country—will miss out on the economic and social benefit that young professionals bring back to our communities. They go away, they do their education, they often get experience and work elsewhere, and they come back. They know what quality of life they have and they know the opportunities in regional areas. They go on to become a critical part of the future development and the ideas that drive regional areas: the young people in my electorate and in other parts of rural and regional WA and Australia who cannot afford to live away from home while they go to university. These are the people we are talking about.

Labor is also saying 'no' to students right around Australia—again, often those in rural and regional areas. They have to take alternative pathways to a higher education. The South West Institute of Technology, once accredited, could attract federal government funding through the funded students and courses offered. Most importantly, the availability of the HECS-HELP program will be extended and, of course, this will assist in making a range of pathways for providers. This is a really important thing in my part of the world—a range of institutions that have developed out of technical and further education will be able to offer courses and pay off for the first time under the HECS-HELP system. It is important for education providers that face challenges in servicing a state that is the size of Western Australia—a huge geographical area. And most of the population outside of Perth is located in the south-west, in my electorate.

In spite of this, for some regional campuses critical mass—the number of students—is a major issues. For students the choices and availability of course options are even more critical, especially if the student comes from a low-SES background. There is a much higher percentage of students from lower-SES backgrounds in regional areas than in the broader higher education system, again reinforcing why expanding the demand-driven Commonwealth funding system for students studying for higher education diplomas, advanced diplomas and associate degrees is so important—the extension of Commonwealth funding to all Australian higher education students in non-university higher education institutions studying bachelor courses. We will see thousands of students each year given additional support by 2018.

This bill also removes all VET FEE-HELP and FEE-HELP loan fees for students. But with no changes, the universities are facing even greater challenges. I have said repeatedly in this place—and it has been said by others as well—that no change is not an option. Current settings and viability are unsustainable and no change will see continuous decline and long-term damage to the university sector. And it is a sector that is facing global challenges, because it faces disruption through online courses. Some of the best universities in the world are now in this space of online courses, and that offering will expand more and more. The competition for our universities is now global. It is not just domestic. They are in a globally competitive market that will keep changing, so the universities are going to have to constantly adapt to change. There will be new and emerging top 100 universities from around the world, from China and Asia.

Saying no to this legislation means there will not be the largest ever Commonwealth scholarship scheme ever seen in Australia's history. There may be young students sitting out in my electorate, or anywhere around Australia, for whom that type of scholarship is their only opportunity to be able to afford to live away from home and go to university. How do you think those young people are feeling right now, with Labor saying no to their opportunity? That is exactly what is happening. I commend the bill to the House.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014. I feel a sense of deja vu, because I spoke on a similar piece of legislation back in September last year. I thought that this legislation might get pulled because we saw a change, allegedly, by the Prime Minister. He was going to reboot, refit and refurbish the government. I thought that this was one of the barnacles that he talked about at the end of last year that he might get rid of, but no. It is before the chamber yet again. So all we are seeing is no real policy change by the refitted, rebooted, refurbished Abbott government but in fact we have seen the love, affection and amity in the caucus room today, and we are seeing a sort of Liberal Kumbaya coalition cuddle but no change at all to the legislative program that they were going to bring to the House or Senate. The refit, reboot and refurbishment is simply a nonsense.

This bill is very similar to the previous bill. It is a radical re-engineering of Australia's higher education system, and that is what Liberal governments do. When John Howard had the opportunity to bring in Work Choices, he linked funding, when he was in power after 2004, to the higher education sector to workforce protocols and commitments by universities to bring in an industrial relations scheme which was not fair on staff members—whether they were lecturers, cleaners or security guards. Now the Liberals are in power again, having not said anything about this before the election. We now see legislation that had stalled and failed before the Senate back in a refitted, rebooted and refurbished form that is almost exactly the same as the legislation that was debated last year. So we have got a blueprint for $100,000 degrees, we have got the inevitability of universities lifting their fees at least to cover the Abbott government's cuts, and we have got a bill that talks about interest as well. They cut $5.8 billion in the previous legislation, and it is similar here. There is a 20 per cent cut to university supported places. It is a road map for the education sector of haves and have-nots. There is nothing about higher education affordability, accessibility or availability. This is a bolt from the blue for students, for parents and for anyone interested in a fair, accessible and affordable higher education scheme.

We did not hear a thing about this before the last election—nothing. In fact, it is completely at odds with the manifesto that the Liberals took to the last election. In September 2012 the future education minister said, 'While we welcome debate over the quality and standards in our universities, we have no plans to increase fees or cap places.' In February 2013 the now Prime Minister, then the Leader of the Opposition, spoke at a Universities Australia conference and said the following:

If we have to change it, we will consult beforehand rather than impose it unilaterally and argue about it afterwards. We understand the value of stability and certainty, even to universities.

On election eve, he said, 'I want to give people this absolute assurance, no cuts to education'. That blue booklet, 'real solutions', which was hugged so tightly—the bible for Liberal candidates around the country—was absolutely rock solid on the subject of university funding. It said, 'We will ensure the continuation of the current arrangements of university funding.' But then they get on the treasury bench and what happens? It changes. It did not change straightaway. On Sky News in November 2013, the education minister said, 'we want university students to make their contribution. But we're not going to raise fees.' What happened? The budget in May 2014. In November 2013 he said, 'We're not going to change university fees because we promised we would not do it before the election', but in May—a few months later—up it goes. This is a government that cut $30 billion from the education sector in last year's budget.

Labor opposed the legislation last year and we will oppose it again. I was one of many people who spoke about it. We on this side of the chamber think that higher education offers a pathway for greater opportunity. We do not believe that the quality of Australia's education system should depend on your credit card and your ability to pay. My electorate of Blair in South-East Queensland is home to terrific campuses of the University of Southern Queensland. The first is at Springfield and recently the University of Southern Queensland took over the campus in Ipswich central which was formerly run by the University of Queensland. It is also home to a number of other higher education providers, such as Evocca College. I was there last week with branch manager Mark Cresswell, speaking to the staff and students. They offer qualifications in youth services, community services and counselling. We have a TAFE campus at Bremer and, indeed, there is also a campus at Bundamba, where staff were sacked by the Campbell Newman government and many courses have gone.

I am honoured, as many members of this chamber would be, to attend many graduation ceremonies across Blair—joyful occasions filled with families and friends. We know how important it is for a highly skilled and trained workforce. We understand the contributions universities make to the public good and how they enrich our communities—not just employment but provision of opportunity and research as well. They really are engines for our innovation system. Their research drives the jobs of the future.

The coalition has never ever understood this. Now, faced with our opposition to their proposal to radically re-engineer Australia's higher education system, the Minister for Education and Training tried to bring his renowned charm on the crossbenchers and he failed. The subtle persuasion failed, because even the crossbenchers understood that this is a recipe for a have and have-not system of higher education. But the education minister is not one for turning. He declared that parliament would inevitably support this bill. Well, here we are today. Labor is inevitably not going to support this bill, because we think it is wrong.

To add further insult to injury, we have seen on TV the disgraceful advertising campaign, costing $15 million, according to media reports. What an utter waste of public money. The minister for education claimed that the advertising campaign was requested by Independent senator, John Madigan—a claim that the senator flatly and angrily rejected. On his Facebook page he says this: 'Unequivocally, I never called for an advertising campaign using tax payers' money and I would never support such a measure.'

Nothing of substance has really changed in this bill and our opposition to it remains. It is a recipe for massive cuts to the university sector and a new fee impost in students. There is $1.9 billion in cuts to Australia's universities, $171 million in cuts to equity programs; $200 million in cuts to indexation of grant programs; $170 million in cuts to research training which supports PhD students—fees for PhD students, for the first time ever, will be subject to what impost this government is doing in terms of the bills; and $80 million in cuts to the Australian Research Council.

The bill boasts—and I have heard members opposite talking about this—the biggest Commonwealth scholarships fund in Australia's history. This is nothing more than a sham. The only thing the Commonwealth will contribute to the Commonwealth scholarships fund is the adjective, saying it is the Commonwealth's. It is nothing. There is not a dollar put in by the Abbott government into the Commonwealth scholarships fund. There is not a cent put in. It is entirely funded by students paying higher fees. One dollar for every extra five dollars these students will pay in extra fees will go into these scholarships. And those opposite have the nerve and hide to come into this chamber and talk about us opposing Commonwealth scholarships. There is not a dollar of public funds put in. It is all being funded by higher fees in the higher education sector. The education minister will not say how big the scholarship fund will grow to, because then it will reveal how much low- and middle-income kids will pay to fund other kids who are just a little poorer. The Commonwealth scholarships fund is a red herring.

In reality, this is a fundamentally flawed package, reducing the number of people from low- and middle-income families who attend university. It will force thousands and thousands of capable students to choose between a university education and a debt it will place them under. It will force them to consider the hindrance that that debt will place on them starting a family or buying a home. We know the financial institutions are already asking applicants for the details of their HECS debt.

Through this bill, the Abbott government is determined to increase the cost of university degrees and place it fairly and squarely on students. This is a plan for university degrees to cost tens of thousands of dollars extra. We know the central two measures in this rehash bill will force fees to skyrocket up. First, the bill still cuts funding to universities for Commonwealth supported places that subsidise the cost of undergraduate degrees for most Australian students. The bill still cuts funding to universities. While the funding cut varies across the degree types, it averages out to about 20 per cent. According to Universities Australia, courses such as engineering and science will increase their fees by about 58 per cent, nursing by 24 per cent, education by about 20 per cent and agriculture by 24 per cent. Where are the Nats on that, by the way? The Abbott government will change course indexation. We are talking about massive cuts to the higher education sector. Where did those opposite mention this before the election? Where did they ever campaign on this before they took their places in this chamber?

Second, the government provides universities with the means of recouping these funds by deregulating course fees. This will see the cost skyrocket. Anyone who thinks that the deregulation will reduce the cost to students has to look at the UK where it is a finance fiasco and the sustainability of the system is really in peril, according to recent reports, or the United States where university fee costs exceed credit card costs and the total amount of the debt that people owe. This will see the skyrocketing of university costs and debts to students—a dissuasion, a hindrance, an obstacle to low- and middle-income families to go to university.

Under the current system the amount a university can charge for an undergraduate degree is limited by the maximum student contribution cap for that type of degree. This cap, in conjunction with the legislated Commonwealth funding levels for all undergraduate degrees, protects students from excessive course fees. This bill scraps the maximum student contribution cap and allows universities to set their own fees. We know analysis—and my colleagues on this side of the chamber have quoted this before—from the Group of Eight universities to the National Tertiary Education Union agrees that student fees will rise by about 30 per cent just to make up for the Abbott government's cuts. We know also that there has been modelling done by the National Tertiary Education Union that sees an increase in student fees by $2,120 per student per year, 27.5 per cent. Some degrees, according to modelling, will go up to 60 per cent. The University of Western Australia has already settled to charge students $16,000 extra a year—more than double the cost for an arts degree.

So what those opposite will do, yet again, when it comes to voting on this bill is make the cost of education for the young people and the mature age students in their electorates more difficult. This is an attack on those people who aspire to better their financial security, better themselves educationally and professionally, and help with their future prospects. Many of these people will never had anyone in their family go to university before. Those opposite say that they are a party of aspiration. What they are doing here is putting a roadblock in the way of young people and those people who aspire better financial security.

Labor will never support this type of legislation. It is unfair. It creates a disproportionate impact on the poor and middle income families and it creates a country where there will be an education divide—division of wealth and postcode. The Nats and those from rural areas should hang their heads in shame. They should never support this legislation.

Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is appropriate that I get to respond to that talk from the member for Blair on this Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014 as I am a member of the National Party representing a rural area and have a passion for the value of higher education and how it can help people. There is no doubt that we need to diversify our rural economies. One of the ways we will diversify our rural economies is to make sure our country kids have access to higher education. Higher education has a purpose; it has a role. We have some very smart and dedicated country people.

'Labor will never support this' is what I heard. I listened to that speech for 15 minutes. I sat here quietly and did not interject. 'Labor will never support this' seems to be the theme running through this parliament. We need to look at reforms; we need to look at things and how we can make them better. Sometimes change is bad and sometimes change is good. To have a blanket rule that 'Labor will never support this' does make it very difficult to take them as a credible future government, because they have not put forward any ideas. I listened to the last 15 minutes. There was lots of criticism about what is wrong with it but not one solution, one suggestion or even hint about how we can make it better.

Do we need change? Yes, because the fundamental problem is we are encouraging more people to do higher education. That is not a bad problem, but it is one that raises the issues of affordability and sustainability. If we want people to do higher education we need to make sure that both they can afford it and the country can afford it in order for them to be able to follow their dreams and aspirations.

Will these changes improve things? When I spoke on this bill the first time round I said there were some key things that did need to be seriously considered and amended in the legislation. I said we needed to be looking at freezing HECS to the CPI and not the government bond rate. That has been amended in this legislation now. I said we needed greater spending on the Higher Education Participation Program to recognise that some of our poorer regional towns have some disadvantage and there needed to be an additional scholarship program. That has been addressed in this legislation.

I still think there is value in socialising the Commonwealth scholarship funds. They do have 'Commonwealth' in the name for a reason—because they are to make the common people enjoy the wealth of Australia. They should be socialised so people in country towns can access the opportunities that some people in the cities have. I do think there does need to be additional recognition of the burden on families when a person is not able to do a course in the regional city and has to travel. One of the greatest costs for country kids that many city kids do not have is the cost of living away from home. It can be in the vicinity of $20,000 per family. That is a significant cost. That is well above consideration of HECS.

I was told the story the other day of a father who was so proud that he had sent his three kids to university. This was the first time in his family's history that anyone had had higher education. He was so proud that his son had a business card. He said to me, 'Can you imagine, my son has a business card?' When he went to the open day at the university he was inquiring about accommodation for his son. He was living in Mildura where the family was and he had to travel to Melbourne, so it was a six-hour drive. The lady there he was talking to was complaining fiercely about the price of HECS, the price of fees—fees, I might add, under this legislation that have a very low interest rate and you do not actually pay back until you earn over $50,000 a year. She was waxing lyrical about this. The humble farmer said: 'I am not actually so worried about the HECS fees. That is an amazing system. You do not have to pay that until you are earning. I am worried about how we are going to come up with $100,000 over the years, considering where grape prices are and what we are getting paid, to keep a roof over his head and keep him fed.'

This is one of the concerns about higher education—ensuring equity. Country kids have to travel further. Country kids whilst they are living away from home feel somewhat guilty that the family is working very hard to put a roof over their head and they sometimes do not finish their course.

I listened to the 15-minute rant I suppose from the Labor Party asking what the Nats are doing. It showed me that they have no comprehension of the issues about regionality and access to higher education. I also tackle them on what I think has been one of the greatest travesties out of this whole debate—and that is the politicking around it. There is no doubt that we do need to change within our universities. We want to have affordability for the student, affordability for the country and sustainability. We do need change, but in the debate around this we have had the Labor Party going out publicly and talking about $100,000 degrees.

La Trobe University has a campus in Mildura and they have made it very clear that next year the fees to enrol will only go up by a maximum of 10 per cent. So you are talking about $16,000 to do a degree. To scare people and play politics and talk about $100,000 degrees is so irresponsible. I do not usually get very angry in this place, but I do get angry about that, because in my electorate in 2015 enrolment numbers are down. People are saying to me that they do want to do a degree but not a $100,000 degree. The misinformation—which was made, just to score a political point—has taken away the aspirations of some of the young people in my electorate, and I think that is appalling. I think that people in this place should be able to engage in a political debate without exaggeration, without overstatement, and with an understanding that the impact of the words they say in this place can have a bearing on other people's lives.

I say this to the Labor Party. I am happy to have a discussion with you about whether we need change. If we do need change, I am happy to have a discussion with you about how we can make it better. But I am very unhappy indeed, that there are probably hundreds of teenagers—17-, 18- or 19-year-olds—who are now probably not going on to university because of your callous way of having a debate. Surely to goodness we can have a reasoned debate in this country that is built on fact and not built on misinformation just score a political point. That has been very disappointing.

The role of regional universities is very important. When we think about how we should change our university funding, there is some scope to make sure that the campus where a student studies receives the benefit of funding for that student. I am concerned that Federation University and Latrobe University—both good universities—want to pool resources back at their main hub. I want to see a program that certainly pushes towards expanding regional opportunities, because not everyone can shift away. I want people—like the single mum, who lives in a town, or the person who, for social or cultural reasons, is not able to move away from their family—to be able to become teachers or nurses, or to pursue their dreams, and not have to shift away, because sometimes they are just not able to shift away.

I am disappointed that Federation University, which used to offer years 1, 2 and 3 of nursing in Horsham, is now only offering years 1 and 2, and the third year is offered back in Ballarat. I know that, usually, where people complete their university is where they put their roots down. Those people that are likely to stay there. We have actually seen this. When La Trobe University did teaching and nursing training in Mildura, that is where our teaching and nurses came from. We spend so much time talking about how we are going to attract people from the city to the country. It is so much easier to skill-up people who are already from the country to stay in the country. In doing that, the funding mechanism has to be developed to recognise the specific campus where people are doing the training and get funding to that campus.

We cannot survive the way we have been. We have significant financial challenges and we have a population that has greater university aspirations. I know that universities can increase your earning capacity. I think it is important that we teach our young people out there that university education is an investment. It is not just a right; it is an investment.

I did not have the luxury of going to university. We tend to think that everyone in this place has higher education and has great skills in that area. I got my education in shearing sheds north of Broken Hill. It was a different education, but it was in education nonetheless. There is good value in educational opportunities in our universities, but we need to make them sustainable and affordable and we need to look after regional Australians. Change can be good. Change can certainly benefit.

I continue to ask for four key things. The first is that HECS—our student loan system, which is a good system—is based on CPI and not the government bond rate. That has been amended in this legislation. The second is that there should be greater spending on the Higher Education Participation Program. That has been amended in this legislation. The third is socialising the Commonwealth Scholarship Fund to make sure that more people can access that fund. The fourth is introducing assistance for those who need to travel a greater distance for their university course. These are four changes that I think we need to adopt.

This bill has a lot of good in it. To scare people and run the narrative that $100,000 university fees are somehow going to be the result of this government policy is irresponsible. I wish the Labor Party would partake in debate for the betterment of the country, rather than creating misinformation and trying to score political points.

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

We learn that the member for Mallee is angry. I can say that however angry he is—and I regret that—it is nowhere near the red-hot anger that the people of Australia feel from the trail of broken promises they have had to endure from this Abbott government—broken promises on Medicare; broken promises on education funding; and, indeed, broken promises when it comes to the bill before the House today. He calls for a reasoned, rational, calm debate. I say to the member for Mallee, and to everyone else on that side of the chamber who has contributed to the debate, that it does not fall well from their mouths when they represent the party that promised that Whyalla—I understand it is a town just up the road from the member's electorate—was going to be wiped off the map and that lamb roasts were going to cost somewhere in the vicinity of $100. When you are able to make claims like that, you really do not have a firm basis on which to call for a calm, rational debate.

So I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on higher education reform and the bill before the House, the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014. It appears in very, very different form, in some respects, to that which was presented to the House before Christmas. I have had a close look through it. There are no offers of submarines to members who voted in favour of the Prime Minister in yesterday's party room, but there are some changes. One of the changes, I regret to say, has not been a change to the title of the bill. I take exception to the word 'reform' being used in the title of the bill, because when most Australians hear the word 'reform' they think that it is going to be attached to a program that is going to improve a subject matter. There is no improvement in the bill before the House. The bill is not an improvement; it is an act of plain vandalism. It is cutting $1.9 billion from Australian universities. It will introduce $100,000 university degrees for undergraduate courses. It represents $171 million in cuts to undergraduate programs and $20 in million cuts to research funding and it will, for the first time in this country, introduce fees for PhD students. It will also cut $80 million from the Australian Research Council. Nowhere, in no reasonable debate, could any of these initiatives be described as reforms. In fact, if the government, with its bill before the House, were bound by the ACCC, it would be slapped with a charge of deceptive and misleading conduct.

The advertising for the bill is just as misleading and deceptive. We have seen an outrageous $8.5 million advertising campaign for a set of changes that have not even passed this House and do not look likely to pass this parliament any time soon. That $8.5 million could have been much better spent on enhancing university education, certainly at the University of Wollongong near my electorate in Throsby.

The bill will lead to the complete deregulation of university fees. The member for Mallee and a number of other speakers complained about some of the facts that the Labor members have attempted to inject into the debate about the consequences of these changes. They do not trust our words. They like to lean upon some of the statements made by Universities Australia. Perhaps they would like to take note of the figures that have been cited by Universities Australia when they talk about the impact of the cuts to funding that are enclosed within this bill. We are told by Universities Australia that to compensate for the near 50 per cent cut to university funding in some courses, an environmental science degree, for example, will need to increase its charges by 110 per cent, a lot more than the 10 per cent that we heard about just previously from the member for Mallee. The cost of engineering and science degrees will increase by about 58 per cent and the cost of nursing degrees by 24 per cent. I know that this is a profession close to your heart, Madam Deputy Speaker Griggs. If you were enrolling in your nursing degree now at a university in Solomon, you would be slapped with a 24 per cent increase in the cost of that degree. An education degree will have a 20 per cent cost increase. I see Parliamentary Secretary Chester there, a member of the National Party. I would have expected him to go a lot harder in his party room over the foreshadowed 43 per cent increase in the cost of an agricultural degree. So, far from spreading fear; these are the facts, the figures, that have been produced by Universities Australia.

Let us not forget that this is on top of the increases that universities will have to put in place to compensate for the money that the government has ripped out. There are two levels of fee increases that are going to occur here. There are the fees that universities will have to put in place to compensate for the money that the government has ripped out, and then there are the fee increases that will flow from an uncapping of university fees. We have talked about $100,000 degrees, and we stand by that. This figure has not been derived by sticking a wet finger in the air. We have looked around at the cost of deregulated degrees in this country and elsewhere. You need look no further than Bond University, a university whose fees are not capped. It is a private university; therefore its fees are not capped. The cost of a law degree at Bond University last year was $127,000. That is right. It is not the current $30,000 that a student would pay if they were enrolled at my university or any other public university throughout Australia but over $120,000 that is being currently paid in an uncapped institution for a law degree today. So, far from being fanciful; this is fact. You will not hear members opposite talk about that, because they are living in cloud-cuckoo-land. They are living in a complete state of denial, the same state of denial that leads you to think that it is the bloke who is riding the horse, not the horse itself, that is the problem that you are encountering as a government. But that is the state we see those members opposite in.

Is there a country around the world that you could look to where the deregulation of university degrees has seen a decrease in the cost of those degrees? The answer, quite obviously, is no. If you look at the UK experience, it is probably the worst of both worlds. You have seen a dramatic increase as a result of the deregulation of university degrees and the charges for those degrees in the United Kingdom. In the United States—and let us not forget this is the country that the Minister for Education, the member for Sturt, is trying to mimic with these changes—we see that student debt has overtaken credit card debt. That is not a situation that we want to see foisted upon students and their families here in this country. This is why—quite sensibly, quite rationally—we stand with families in Australia and say, 'You should aspire to have your kids going to university'. They should not be saddled with $100,000 debts and 30 years or 40 years' worth of repaying those debts. They should be able to enjoy the same sorts of benefits as members of the House—not the same sorts of benefits that the member for Sturt enjoyed because he got a free education, but that other members in this House have enjoyed—and that is fair and reasonable. They should be able to aspire to send their kids to university without being saddled with a $100,000 debt.

Because of the way the government has approached these changes, the entire university sector and all of those students within the university sector are enrolling in courses or deciding whether to enrol in courses this year with uncertainty about the cost of those courses and uncertainty about the money they will have available to them to run those institutions. This is not the way to go about reform; this is the way to wreck a sector, and that is indeed what this government is attempting to do.

There are two groups of members over on that side of the House, and we have heard from many of them in this debate. Apparently there are about 61 one of them who say all is good, this is a great reform, the budget is absolutely fantastic; they stand behind each and every one of the initiatives within the budget and all is good. And then there are about 39 of them who say the problem is with the boss. He is just not cutting through and they have to sack the boss. We on this side of the House say you are both wrong. The problem is not with the jockey, it is with the horse; the problem is not with the message, it is with the product you are attempting to sell.

I saw this in the contribution that was made by the member for one of my neighbouring electorates, Gilmore, in this debate. The member for Gilmore said this is a good bill; it has her 100 per cent support. 'I am 100 per cent supporting this legislation.' After observing that she represents a relatively poor electorate compared to many of those members who sit in this place, that she represents an electorate with people from a low SES background, she went on to make some extraordinary claims in her contribution. This included that it is going to be easier for those people from a low SES background—in fact, it is going to encourage them—to attend university if you jack the fees up. I know they do not like price signals on that side of the House, but if it is true for Medicare, then it must also be true for higher education. If you jack up the price of a good or service, then people are going to sit back and say: 'Should I use that? Should I purchase that? Can I afford that?' That is exactly what is going to happen with these outrageous increases to university fees and it is why the member for Gilmore should reconsider her position.

If the member for Gilmore is to truly represent the needs and aspirations of the people in her electorate, in which the University of Wollongong has a campus, then she should be opposing this legislation. She should not be cheerleading for this legislation. She should be standing here and she should be standing in her party room and saying: 'This is not the way to go. It's going to hurt people in my electorate—in fact, it's going to hurt our government—and instead of talking about tossing out the Prime Minister, we should be talking about the policy problems at the heart of this government.' But instead of this, we see the member for Gilmore not only in lockstep with the Prime Minister but also in lockstep with his policies, and that is very unfortunate indeed.

I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence, the member for Gippsland, is in the chamber, and that is very good. I know he is a decent fellow. He is a member representing regional Australia and a member of the National Party. There are some coalition members who do not share the member for Sturt's vision of sandstone universities, crammed full of strapping lads in blazers and boater hats, on their way to the dormitory or rowing lessons and sipping their Pimms and lemonade. I know there are some members who do not share that vision, who see that there are universities that do not fit that mould and there are students at universities who do not fit that stereotype. I suspect the member for Gippsland may be such a member. In fact, the National Party, in its policy, said:

… regional universities and regional campuses of city universities play a valuable part—

and—

The Nationals advocate policy solutions to assist students from regional areas in achieving their full potential …

I ask the member for Gippsland, and I ask all the Nationals MPs: how is it going to assist regional universities, how is it going to assist the students that you claim to represent, get to those universities and get on with their lives and get a higher education if you are jacking up the fees, thus making it less likely they return to those rural areas, where wages are generally lower, when they are going to be saddled with these astronomical debts? I call on them, and the member for Gilmore, to do the right thing and reject this legislation.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to again lend my support for the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014. It is sad to see the Australian Labor Party reduced to this. It is not the way to go about reform the previous speaker said, and then he offered absolutely nothing in alternative plans or visions for the education sector. What we have seen from the Labor Party over the past 16 or 17 months is one long whinge session. Unfortunately, the modern Labor Party seems to have perfected the complaints department, but it does not have an ideas department. It is disappointing. It is disappointing for the people who actually voted for Labor members that they have actually given up on being constructive participants in the democratic processes in this parliament. As the member for Throsby leaves the chamber, I encourage him to get on board with the government's attempts to reform the higher education sector and to come up with some constructive suggestions just as other senators have in the other place.

As a regional MP, I think it is important to speak on this bill again because a lot has happened in the months since I last spoke in September last year. Obviously as this bill stands, it is destined to pass the lower house. I would like to congratulate the Minister for Education for the mountain of work he has done in developing and refining this bill and I would like to pay special mention to the minister and his staff for being prepared to listen and negotiate with members from the crossbench in the other place. For reasons which I will go into in a little more detail later on, I believe this bill should pass through the Senate. I will be urging those crossbench senators to consider their position on this higher education reform.

It is good to see that the majority of the crossbench senators have actually been acting in very good faith in assessing these reforms and taking the time to negotiate with minister. I pay special mention to Senators Day, Xenophon, Madigan, Leyonhjelm and my Gippsland senator Senator Ricky Muir for being prepared to at least listen to the government's case in relation to this which is in stark contrast to the Labor Party's position in this debate. At least the senators were prepared to provide some feedback on the original reforms that passed through the lower house. That feedback has been acted on largely by the Minister for Education and included in this latest package of reforms.

Feedback has also been via the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee. It was chaired by my good friend and Nationals colleague Senator Bridget McKenzie. I congratulate Senator McKenzie for the work she has been doing not only on higher education reform but also on the broader issue of access to universities for regional students. The committee that was chaired by Senator McKenzie sought input from the vice-chancellors of all the Australian universities, who articulated very well what is at stake here. The bottom line is deregulation is the only option and in fact it is the only plan that is on the table.

The Labor Party seem to have vacated the field in relation to higher education reform. The support for the government and its work in this regard has come from across the sector. I will not go through every single quote of support but support has come from Universities Australia, Regional Universities Network, Australian Technology Network, Innovative Research Universities, Group of Eight, TAFE Directors Australia, Australian Council for Private Education and Teaching and Council of Private Higher Education. They all support the higher education reforms with amendments as proposed by the minister. There is broad community support and broad sector support for the reforms proposed by this government.

It is regrettable that governments in any circumstance have to make savings through budgetary pressures. I know those opposite would understand that because when they were in government they actually cut $6.6 billion from higher education. So it seems odd that they are not prepared to be part of the debate about how we make sure that the university sector is sustainable in the longer term. The vice-chancellors have told us that deregulation is a sensible development from the early reform process that the previous government undertook. In fact, it is regarded as one of the most significant reforms since the Dawkins review itself.

I challenge the Labor Party, as I did the previous speaker, to outline their alternate plan. What is their alternate vision? Surely the Labor Party are not going to be in here all day, as we have seen in the last couple of hours, and just whinge and complain, and suggest that there is no need for any reform whatsoever in the university sector. Surely, that is not the Labor Party's position. Are they seriously saying that there is no reform required? If that is their position, that is fine. They can say that the university sector can stagnate into the future. Surely, if they recognise that reform is required, they should be prepared to get on board and do the responsible thing and suggest possible alternative policy positions that the minister could take on board. I fear it is going to be left to the crossbench senators to negotiate this important reform through the Senate.

There is an alternative. The Labor Party could come to their senses and offer some bipartisan support. I am not sure why they have chosen this path of relentless negativity. Surely, the Labor Party could at least consider some bipartisan support. There are actually a few things we agreed on in this place when it comes to higher education. We all want better access to high quality tertiary institutions. I am sure that those opposite agree that we all want a sustainable HECS system. We all want our universities to provide world-class courses and training. We all want more young people from the country to go to university. We all want young people who cannot get the ATAR score they need to still have the opportunity through different pathways to go on to tertiary studies through the expansion of the number of Commonwealth supported places that are available.

Members opposite would also agree we all believe we should have a sustainable HECS system so tertiary education remains affordable with no upfront costs and where you only pay it back when you earn a decent wage. I think members opposite would also agree with me that we all believe that people who desire a tertiary education should have to pay a significant proportion of the course they benefit from. One other area where I think regional members would agree with me is that we want those young people who are the first in their family to go to university to be given that chance to achieve their full potential.

The coalition have a plan on the table to achieve these things. I commend the minister for the work he has done in this regard. I do not understand why the opposition, with no alternative plan on the table, choose to simply obstruct the government in its efforts to make the higher education sector more sustainable in the longer term. I think it speaks volumes that the Minister for Education has been so willing to listen to universities and students on this particular issue.

Some significant changes have been made to the original bill that was before the House last year. Some of the changes the government have been willing to make include withdrawing the proposed Treasury bond rate and retaining the CPI indexation for HECS debt; providing the indexation pause for new parents; providing a structural adjustment fund to help universities adjust to the changes, in particular for our regional universities; introducing an additional scholarship fund for universities with high proportions of disadvantaged students; and guaranteeing domestic fees are lower than what international students are charged. That is an indication that the minister has been prepared to listen and to negotiate with senators in the other place. I implore and encourage the Labor Party to consider being part of the solution rather than just being involved in this 18-month long whinge session, and not providing any constructive alternative policies or alternative plans for the Australian people.

Access to university education is something that I have been passionate about since I was first elected in 2008. In fact, in my inaugural speech I mentioned that one of the biggest barriers for country youth is the cost of moving from home to another town or capital city to go to university. It is not just about the cost of the course fees. That is why I have been so passionate over these past six years in advocating for a proper system of student income support, or a tertiary access allowance, in addition to the existing youth allowance scheme.

I have heard other members speak in relation to this. The member for Forrest spoke extensively on the challenges facing regional students. Throughout the course of this government I am very keen to work on that with members from regional electorates so that we can achieve.

Access to university is a critical issue for Aboriginal students, and their families are at a huge cost disadvantage right now—not in relation to the course fees, but in relation to the costs of living away from home. I think we can do a lot better and a lot more in that regard in the months and the years ahead. It is an important point when we look at the bigger picture of the higher education reforms, because earlier this month my parliamentary colleague the Deputy Prime Minister—the member for Wide Bay—and my fellow Nationals colleagues—

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A good man; a very good man.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I agree with the member for Mayo: he is a very good man. The member for Wide Bay has made an important contribution in this place and made an important contribution in relation to the debate on higher education reform. The Nationals team met in the beautiful city of Wodonga for our annual start-of-the-year party-room meeting, and one of the big issues that was discussed at that meeting was the need for a more complete regional youth policy which includes improving access to tertiary education.

This is at the crux of the argument. The previous speaker talked about it, but the problem is that the Labor Party only ever talked about it. In government, the Labor Party made some amendments to youth allowance which made it even more difficult for a lot of students in regional areas, and since then has failed to participate in the debate in any constructive way. This is the crux of the argument for deregulation, with these important changes that are before the House this evening. There will be improved access to tertiary education for young people from regional areas under these reforms, and the coalition government is committed to expanding the demand-driven Commonwealth funding system for students studying for higher education diplomas, advanced diplomas and associate degrees. The coalition is also committed to removing all HELP loan fees, which are currently imposed on some students undertaking higher education, vocational education and training.

It is good that throughout this debate some members opposite have shown an interest in a little thing called debt. They have been worried about young Australians being burdened with debt. It is good that they have finally come to the conclusion that burdening future generations with debt is a problem, because this government has been left with the Labor legacy of debt which is already costing about $1 billion a month in net interest payments. But the claim that there will be $100,000 degrees has really just been reduced to a sloganeering scare campaign which is grossly misleading and withstands no scrutiny whatsoever. But worse than that, over the past six months, that scare campaign has been effective in scaring students away from even applying for university. The vice-chancellors I have spoken to inform me that from the moment the Labor Party started its scare campaign the level of interest and inquiry in relation to future study at their campuses has reduced, such was the diminished confidence amongst the students who had been scared by the Labor Party's campaign.

It is irresponsible to conduct such a scare campaign. It is okay that those on the opposite side of the chamber would want to score a political point. I do not mind that. I do not mind the Labor Party scoring political points at our expense. But when they start running scare campaigns of any substance, members opposite need to realise they are playing with the lives of young Australians. The scare campaign has to stop because it is irresponsible and it is completely inconsistent with the facts.

What the Labor Party refuses to acknowledge in its discussion of this issue is that no student actually has to pay a cent up front. No-one needs to pay anything until they are earning over $50,000 a year, so higher education is guaranteed to be affordable and accessible for people in that regard. The Labor Party knows—or at least some Labor Party members know—that deregulation of fees will have no negative impacts on disadvantaged students, because the shadow Assistant Treasurer himself, Andrew Leigh—I am not sure if he is on the list to speak—did say in relation to deregulated fees, 'There is no reason to think that it will adversely affect poorer students.' So at least some members opposite understand that in terms of people from rural, regional and lower socioeconomic areas, the deregulation debate is not the bogeyman they have tried to present it to be. I call on those opposite to think before they conduct their scare campaign. They are actually having an impact on the choices that people are making in the community today.

In summary, all the vitriol, the attempts to scare students and the Labor Party zingers are not going to get us anywhere in relation to this debate. Those who are responsible members of this place, those who are interested in this debate in the Senate, understand that the status quo cannot continue in relation to higher education in this country. It is easy to sit back and criticise, but the relentless negativity from the Labor Party has to stop. Doing nothing is not an option, and I call on those opposite to think about putting forward a constructive plan as part of this debate. I am yet to hear a credible alternative proposition from the Labor Party. I encourage those opposite to try and put aside their partisanship and to look beyond the short-term politics of this. They should not be thinking about the next opinion poll; we need some bipartisanship on this issue.

It is up to this parliament to implement a reform which I believe is fair and which will enable universities to provide more places for students from right across the country, particularly—from my point of view—from regional communities. These are reforms that will ensure that students are not burdened with unreasonable debts, despite the scare campaign of the Labor Party. They are reforms that will help our nation grow. It is time for the Labor Party to sit down with the government in relation to this issue and work through it in a constructive way, to ensure that the higher education deregulation can proceed. I would hate to see the Labor Party—which likes to claim a proud history of involvement in education reform—leave itself out there on a limb, alone, not playing an important part in ensuring that we continue to have a high-quality, sustainable tertiary education system in this country. I commend the bill to the House.

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

One of the things I am quite proud of, which this parliament has done since the budget, is that it has blocked these terrible higher education reforms. I am proud that it has blocked these terrible higher education reforms because these reforms would limit access and would prevent thousands and thousands of young people, thousands and thousands of students from low SES backgrounds and from regional backgrounds, from accessing university.

The system we currently have, which is a legacy of Labor governments, has increased students' participation and people attending university. Because of the efforts of this parliament to block these reforms, there are thousands of students right now preparing themselves to go to university under the current system—students who are packing up and getting ready, some who are moving away from home, to take up an offer to go to one of our many institutions around this country. It is a time of great excitement and great hope.

Two students in my own electorate who are taking up this opportunity and moving to Melbourne to take that first step into higher education are this week spending a week volunteering in my office here in parliament. I asked Jacob, 'What's your story about going to university?' His story is that he has just finished year 12 at Girton Grammar and completed his studies with an ATAR score of 94.55. It is a very high score, for those who know the Victorian education system. Why the University of Melbourne? After attending an open day, he discovered that he really liked the model that they had put forward. Jacob will be studying criminology and politics, a Bachelor of Arts. He liked the diversity of the courses on offer.

When asked, 'What are some of the things you might be worried about?' he said, 'Moving out of home brings excitement, but it's a big step.' Moving to a much bigger and busier city, from Bendigo to Melbourne, can also be quite daunting and a challenge. When asked, 'What are you excited about?' he said the degree excites him—the passion that he has for the potential subjects and courses he could be studying. To be able to be in control of his education, especially after a greatly controlled high school system; to begin a new chapter in his life, moving out of home and starting afresh in a completely new city; to learn about the great variety of things and to become more involved in the world—these are Jacob's hopes. These are exactly the people that we want to be entering education, regardless of where they live, regardless of their demography.

Catherine, who is also with us this week, completed year 12 in Bendigo with an ATAR score of 97.6—again, a bright person who should have a bright future. It should be her entrance mark that determines whether she goes to university, not the size of her parents' pay packet and not how much debt she is willing to get herself into. Catherine was raised by a single mother, a teacher with four children, who managed to put Catherine's three older brothers through university, including postgraduate degrees for two of them, and intends to do the same for Catherine. This is a mother with an ambition that her children would still go to university, all made possible because our current system is not based upon the amount of debt that you are willing to get into or the amount of money your parents earn but upon your ability, your education and your scores.

When I asked Catherine, 'What are you worried about?' again it was the cost of living. Catherine will be moving from Bendigo to the University of Melbourne, and the cost is expensive if you choose to live on campus. She believes that lots of rural students worry about that big change in moving from the country to the city and the costs associated. She is excited about being able to learn not only in depth about subjects but about the breadth of subjects that interest her, history, literature and politics; living in a city that is vastly different to Bendigo and that has its own political interests and cultural events; and meeting, through her course, students from all over the country and the world that have the same interests as she does—the hopes and dreams of young people today. This is exactly who we want to be going to university.

Yet, under these reforms, next year's year 12 students may not have that opportunity if these changes go through. The goal of any government should be that demography should not determine your destiny and whether you go to university. It should be your ability, not your ability to pay, that determines whether you get access to university. What I find so frustrating in this debate is that they are a frontbench that either had free university education or had access to university through an affordable HEC Scheme as long as they had the mark. This proposal is not an affordable HEC Scheme. This proposal of deferring up to or more than $100,000 worth of debt is not an affordable option for so many students. The Catherines, the Jacobs and the thousands of other Bendigo students seeking higher education might not have enrolled if these reforms had been passed last year in this House.

The government's proposal to change higher education tears down the idea that background and circumstance of birth are no barrier to educational excellence and that every Australian can contribute to our nation's success. A university education is one of the most important pathways and opportunities for individuals, for their families and for our communities.

It is really rich for the members opposite to say that Labor is not contributing to this debate. That is why our speaking list is full. This is debate. Just because we do not agree with their ideas and their proposals, it does not mean that we are being obstructionist. It means we are disagreeing with their proposals because they are bad proposals.

For members opposite to stand up here and say that these changes will not result in higher fees that students have to pay means that they are not actually reading the detail of the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014, the bill before us. If you cut by 20 per cent the university funding for student courses, student funding, then the universities have to cut the quality of their courses, find the money from somewhere else or increase fees. And all the universities are coming out to say that if that fee cut goes ahead, if their funding is cut, if the fee per student that they currently get from the government is cut, they will be forced to increase fees. The government has virtually guaranteed that fees will increase because, in these reforms before us today, that 20 per cent cut to student funding for universities is still on the table.

In a recent article in the Bendigo Advertiser, a spokesperson for the university in my electorate, the La Trobe Bendigo campus, said that the university shared my concerns about the government's higher education policies. He said that the university does oppose the 20 per cent cut and has constantly, in its lobbying of the government through the Innovative Research Universities as well as through the peak body Universities Australia, put this case to the government. Wait a minute! Where is the minister for higher education standing up and saying that to this House? The minister for higher education is very quick to quote La Trobe University, but he is not giving the detail that it opposes the 20 per cent cut to student funding. Not many of the speakers opposite have mentioned that in their speeches either. This is why we are continuing to say that when you deregulate university fees and cut the student funding provided to those universities for those courses it will guarantee an increase in the fees that students will have to pay.

At the University of Melbourne some modelling was done to suggest that courses like medicine could cost between $100,000 and $200,000 over the course of the degree. That is a lot of money to be asking somebody to get into debt for. This is what is on the table if we do not set the fees through our government legislation. If you deregulate university fees and allow universities to set the fees, we will see the cost of courses go up as much as that. We will see that happen sooner than the government might like, because they are also cutting funding to the universities.

All experts agree that fees will rise. In some cases, the average cost of degrees could be up from $40,000 to $65,000—for your social work degree or your teaching degree. Medical degrees, as I have said, could be as high as $200,000. The University of Western Australia, the University of Canberra and the University of Melbourne have all come forward to say what would happen at their campuses if this package were to go through in its current form. The impact on regional campuses will be huge. We have already seen regional campuses express their concerns about what will happen to the cohort of students that have come in.

My own campus, La Trobe Bendigo, employs close to 500 people and injects millions of dollars into the local economy. The university is a vital part of our city's culture through the courses that it offers and the students that live here, as well as its academic and support staff. The story for 2015 has begun well for this campus, because these reforms have not gone through. The uptake of university student offers continues to be healthy. The La Trobe campus recently made first-round offers for just over 1,500 places, which is on par with previous years. Forty per cent of those were made to local students. The most popular courses were those within the School of Rural Health, which was funded and built by the former Labor government. The university expects the offers to rise to 1,800 in the next few weeks as it goes to second and direct round offers. The campus this year will have another healthy year of students—but next year it will not, if these reforms go through.

Fee deregulation is a barrier. Saying to somebody that it is okay because you can defer the cost of the course does not give people confidence. Do not place young people in this country in the position that you were never placed in by saying to them: 'You can get yourself into $100,000 worth of student debt, but don't worry. You can defer it.' If this young person then chooses to buy a home or to work overseas, the banks will look at the debt they have to decide whether they will lend them the money or not. We are already hearing cases of people saying that, because they will not earn as much if they choose a career in social work or teaching, they are concerned that over the life of their courses they will not earn enough to pay off this debt.

If we are genuine about trying to ensure that students from low SES go to university and that regional students have the same access to higher education as Jacob, Catherine and thousands of other students from central Victoria moving to university for the first time over the next few weeks, then we have to have an education system that is fair. We have to have an education system that is not based on your willingness to get into debt but upon your ability and on the scores that you have from school.

I just want to mention my second cousin Hayley. She is the first in her immediate family to be offered a university place. My cousin Amanda had Hayley at the age of 18. I was taking my gap year when Hayley was born. In a few weeks, she will start her teaching course at Griffith University. Her family is so proud that one of their children—Hayley—will start university at Griffith to become a teacher. Do not deny other Hayleys the opportunity to be the first in their family to go to university by saying that it is acceptable and okay under fee deregulation for Hayley to pay upwards— (Time expired)

Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Some say that I am a little obsessive when it comes to education in the bush. I make no apology for that. Today I am very pleased to be speaking on the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014 which will lead to great benefits for students in the bush and in the city. For those who can take a long-term view, there will be paybacks for the Australian nation. We will be making possible the world-class education that Australian students need and deserve, opening up higher education to those from low socioeconomic backgrounds and in remote areas, and creating the largest Commonwealth scholarship scheme ever, which can be accessed by my constituents in regional and remote Durack.

The bill will provide Commonwealth support for tens of thousands of students who currently do not get support, with over 80,000 students each year being provided with additional support by 2018. This benefit, this pay back will provide pathways into higher education for tens of thousands of students. Higher education support will be extended into non-university institutions, and unfair loan fees will be abolished. This is fair, this is reasonable and it makes sense. All higher education peak bodies such as the Regional Universities Network and TAFE Directors Australia support the reform.

This scare campaign on fees, of course, is false. Let's think like a business would think. If fees were too high, universities would have empty lecture theatres and the institutions would collapse. Clearly, this is not about to happen in Australia with this bill. The adverse implications are severe if the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill is not passed. We must take a long-term view because we do not want to lapse into mediocrity. We do not want our young people heading offshore in droves for a more competitive higher education experience. Our research capability will wane.

There are no credible alternatives to our higher education reforms. We know now is the time and now is the hour. If only we could all put politics aside, because our focus now needs to be on our young people including those living in the seat of Durack. Deregulation of higher education is the big bang reform that we have to have to open up education to more Australians, not fewer. It is indeed a compelling cause, and I ask those opposite—not that there are many there—to work through any impasse for the sake of your children and your grandchildren. This bill is a game-changer, a major piece of legislation that provides significant reform and benefits. It positions us for the 21st century and it deserves full support from both sides of the House.

Whilst Australian universities are developing strategies to boost performance, reputation and marketing, so also are institutions throughout the world; the game is on—global competition is increasing. There is nothing like competition to improve quality, value and options. We see that many times. So we must provide a policy and legislative framework that enables our higher education institutions to do their best. We must ensure they are able to attract our best students and increase our foreign student numbers. If we do not, Australia will be left behind—make no mistake.

The successful passage of this bill will be meaningful in my large electorate of Durack. Meaningful because higher education directly impacts the liveability of my communities such as Karratha and Port Hedland as well as towns in the Pilbara, Gascoyne, Kimberley and mid-west regions, and also in parts of the wheat belt. It resonates because opportunity and access to higher education drives families out of regional communities and into cities, and because it underpins decisions made around predominantly FIFO options. Words I hear all the time, and I am sure you have as well are, 'Can we afford to stay in this region and send the kids to Perth for uni or must we relocate the family to Perth, and then take on the FIFO option?'

The bill will enable reforms to increase access and opportunity in higher education. All providers with more than 500 Commonwealth supported places will be required to invest 20 percent of new revenue in a Commonwealth scholarship scheme for disadvantaged students, thereby enhancing access. It will be new money for scholarships which will enable universities to offer more scholarships. I understand some universities are now indicating that they will use these funds for accommodation costs for underprivileged, disadvantaged and regional students. This is a huge boost for young people and their families, and excellent news for Durack families in particular. FEE-HELP will be available to students studying at a sub-bachelor level—again, good news for young people in Durack who wish to study at TAFE for a trade or the like.

I remind you that my electorate of Durack does stretch far and wide, from the tip of Western Australia—that is, the Kimberley, Moora—to just 150 kilometres north of Perth and east out past Merredin. You may not be surprised to learn that there are limited opportunities for young people to attend higher education institutions. However, one institution is the University of Notre Dame Australia, which is a private Catholic university established in 1989 in Western Australia. Although it is a private university, Notre Dame receives substantial government funding like many others. It established a significant campus in Broome in 1994. Over the last 20 years its offerings have included degrees in nursing, education, the arts and sciences. Regrettably, last year, Notre Dame made the strategic decision to transition its Broome campus into an education pathways, professional training and research hub. Notre Dame ceased offering bachelor degree qualifications in nursing, education, arts and sciences and is now 'teaching out' their current students in these disciplines. Notre Dame is repositioning itself in Broome to ensure it is providing the people of the Kimberley with higher education opportunities in areas of demand.

In offering tertiary enabling pathways and VET programs in Broome, Notre Dame is providing Kimberley students with training and qualifications as well as pathways into higher education degrees. Through the changes in the scholarship scheme proposed in this bill, Notre Dame will be able to use funds to assist Broome students to finish off their higher education degrees at its Fremantle campus, ensuring access and unique learning opportunities for the people of the Kimberley. That is indeed very good news.

And now to the Pilbara, which is such a significant contributor to the national economy. Acting Deputy Speaker Griggs, I know you have heard me say that numerous times. The Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia heard evidence from a very passionate woman Jan Ford of Port Hedland. She talked to us about the Pilbara community's strong desire to have tertiary education service providers in their region, in either Port Hedland or Karratha, or perhaps both, if we were fortunate enough. Jan advised that the community is not seeking a large campus—perhaps initially an offering of first year accounting, engineering and nursing. This keeps families together, provides opportunity, access, and importantly, better affordability, given that the student can continue living in their community rather than relocating to Perth or Melbourne universities, which are often unaffordable. Essentially, a first year regional tertiary offering in the Pilbara would keep the young adults at home for that little bit longer, help the family budget and provide the young adult with an opportunity to perhaps earn some money while living at home, before heading to the city to continue with their education. It would also dissipate or perhaps delay a decision around family relocation and, potentially, a FIFO arrangement.

Another passionate woman in the Pilbara—and there are plenty of them there—is the mayor of the Town of Port Hedland, Kelly Howlett. She agreed with Jan's sentiments and explained that the Pilbara Development Commission has funded a Pilbara tertiary education study, which is currently being undertaken by the University of Western Australia. The study will determine the feasibility of establishing a university offering in the Pilbara, against a background, as Mayor Howlett advises, of declining TAFE services.

Further south, in the mid-west, the City of Greater Geraldton is able to present the successful Geraldton Universities Centre, which is an independent, not-for-profit, incorporated body supporting university courses in Geraldton on behalf of a range of universities, including Central Queensland University, Charles Sturt University and the University of Southern Queensland. This very successful co-operative model is bearing results, with degree courses available in accounting and business, communication, psychology and nursing, early childhood and primary education, and an associate degree in engineering. The objective of the Geraldton Universities Centre is to facilitate, deliver, promote and provide access to university education for people residing in the regional mid-west. It was established in 2002, but was reconstituted in 2010 to the current co-operative model. More than 200 students have graduated with degrees and around 200 students are enrolled for this year.

Their key platforms of success are: they always use online teaching, accompanied by face to face; they ensure equity—that is, value for money—as well as quality, for regional students; and they have local partnerships that are mutually beneficial. By way of example, local accountancy and engineering firms are placing their young staff, on a part-time basis, through the university centre programs. It is a great initiative. This is a model that is working and that might be investigated for wider application not only in the north-west but in other regional areas around Australia.

I have spoken recently with the vice-chancellor of the University of Western Australia, Professor Paul Johnson, about providing tertiary education offerings in WAs north-west. His view is that universities could be encouraged to invest in tertiary education in the north-west if there were possibilities to use existing infrastructure, such as partnering with local TAFE's. There are several local TAFE's in Durack, so I think the plan is feasible, at least on the surface.

You may note that, when I mentioned who was in Geraldton, there is not one Western Australian university currently providing course offerings in Geraldton, which is disappointing for me personally, but so be it. So I would encourage all the Western Australian universities to consider investigating these possibilities and to look at the successful Geraldton Universities Centre model.

I reiterate my support for this bill, which will reform higher education for the 21st century.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014 differentiates the government and the opposition. It really is a 'line in the sand' piece of legislation. It shows the difference between this side of the House and the government in relation to higher education. It is defining legislation. Labor believes in equity and in empowering Australians through education. On this side of the House we realise that it is imperative that all Australians have access to quality education and that a person's ability to attend university, to access university, should be determined by his or her academic ability and not by their ability to pay for education.

We know that education and in particular higher education leads to greater prosperity, more choices in life, and a higher standard of living. Australia needs an educated population, and for that matter an educated well-trained workforce. This is obtained by allowing maximum access to university education. When you have an educated workforce and population then you have an Australia that is ready and prepared for the challenges of the 21st century—an Australia that can engage in the global economy.

I think those on the other side of the House think of a university as just an institution that trains students. But universities are very diverse and have a very diverse role in our community. They are a hub for research. They are a hub for innovation. They provide teaching and create an environment where students are keen to research and learn and think outside the box, all of which are really important attributes for people when they enter the workforce. They are really important attributes that we as a society want to encourage.

One of the most important roles that universities have is to create a partnership with the communities in which they operate. Higher education is the cornerstone of an advanced Australian society. Medical students go to university and then save countless lives in the future. Engineering students go to university and then build a better and more prosperous Australia. They learn and then go out into the community prepared to undertake and oversee innovation. We need quality teachers in universities. We need to encourage students to become quality teachers.

Higher education is an investment. We tend to think about higher education particularly at this time of the year, when students around Australia are preparing to start or re-enter university. For the record, I would like to say that students, their parents and grandparents have been telling me that they do not like the Abbott government's assault on universities and students. They are able to see the implications for the future and they are able to see the implications for themselves. Next week I will be at Newcastle University for O-week and I will be talking to students, listening to them and hearing what they are saying about the Abbott government's changes to higher education. And I will make a commitment to them that Labor will not support an assault on higher education.

Labor will not support this legislation, just as we did not support it when it first came to the House. We will continue to oppose it. It is wrong for the nation, it is wrong for students and it is wrong for families. The government has given up $3.5 billion of its $3.9 billion in savings but it has not fixed the inequity that lies at the heart of this bill. It is still unfair, and that is because this government is unable to make a commitment to fairness. It is a government with a very jaundiced outlook on how it should govern Australia—and, for that matter, how it should govern itself.

The bill contains $1.9 billion in cuts to Australian universities and $100,000 degrees for undergraduate students. I will be talking a little bit more about that later in my contribution to this debate. It contains $171 million in cuts to equity programs—which shows where equity stands as far as this government is concerned. It has $200 million in cuts to indexation of grant programs and $170 million in cuts to research training. That is a $170 million cut to research that could lead to cures for cancer, that could lead to innovation and that could have put Australia at the forefront in the future. But this government does not look at things in that way. This government only looks at now. The bill contains fees for PhD students for the first time ever. So rather than encouraging PhD students, this government wants to put a fee on them. It also contains $80 million in cuts to the Australian Research Council.

The massive cuts to universities remain. The new fee imposts for students remain. Nothing—I repeat, nothing—of substance has changed. And similarly, Labor's position remains unchanged. We will not support unfair legislation which is going to lead to inequity. We want more students at university, not fewer. We want more innovation, not less. We want access to universities to be fair and equitable for all Australians, which is why we opposed the higher education bill the first time it was introduced. Our position remains exactly the same. Labor will continue to oppose this government's unfair attack on higher education. We oppose the government's cut to public funding to undergraduate courses by 37 per cent, we oppose $100,000 degrees and we oppose the Americanisation of our universities. Research conducted by the Group of Eight universities points to an increase in fees of 30 per cent under deregulation.

I live in one of the great regions of Australia, the Hunter region. Under this legislation, regional universities will suffer. The issue for regional universities is that we have a much thinner market than metropolitan universities have, so we do not have the same density of students for the market to operate. That has been said by the Executive Director of the Regional Universities Network, Caroline Perkins. Prime Minister Abbott's cuts will further widen this gap, and regional universities such as the University of Newcastle will be adversely impacted.

Newcastle University is a fantastic university. It is linked into the Hunter Medical Research Institute and it has a strong connection with the community. It has worked really hard to build those connections. Thirty per cent of its students come from lower socioeconomic regions, but it is a university that reflects the community in which it operates. It is a university that provides a first-class education. It was one of the first universities to introduce a medical degree that was not based just on academic marks but incorporated going out and talking to students, understanding and evaluating whether a student had the skills that would make them a good doctor. It is a university that approaches things in a very different way. It has a fantastic engineering department that has worked very closely with organisations such as Hunter Water; with other countries, such as China; and with overseas consortiums. It is a university that has been at the cutting edge and it is a university that will be particularly disadvantaged by these unfair cuts proposed by the government. In actual fact, it will lost $153 million over three years.

Newcastle University has two campuses. It has the Hunter campus and it also has a campus on the Central Coast. The Central Coast is the region in New South Wales that has the lowest retention rate and the fewest people going on to higher education. A number of programs have been put in place to try to increase the number of people attending university and higher education and, once again, this is going to be jeopardised.

To be quite frank, people living in our region cannot afford $100,000 degrees. Some degrees will go close to increasing by 60 per cent. Under deregulation, university students are looking at a minimum average fee hike of 30 per cent. To be very honest with everyone in this House, that will act as a disincentive for the young people of the Hunter and the young people of the Central Coast to be able to go to university. Nowhere in the world has deregulation led to price competition and lower prices. Deregulation will lead to substantial price hikes. In the UK fees were deregulated in 2012 with a cap of 9,000 pounds. For the 2015-16 academic year there will only be two universities out of 123 that will not charge the 9,000 pounds.

So the maximum becomes the minimum and what it does is ensure that fees are going up. What it does then is ensure that students, like the students in the Hunter and on the Central Coast, cannot afford to go to university. Even without having a 20 per cent cut to contend with, every single university has put its students contribution up to the amount that it was at the time that the Howard government introduced the increases under then minister Brendan Nelson. I talked a little bit about partnerships with the community. Cuts to universities will have much wider impacts than just limiting the number of students and making it much more unaffordable for students to attend university. It will lead to a lack of innovation in communities and it will also lead to a situation where students are disadvantaged.

I could talk on this subject for hours; there is so much to say. It is unfair legislation. It is legislation that is going to disadvantage the people that I represent in this parliament. It is legislation that is turning the clock back. It is legislation that is going back to the pre-1972 days, before Gough Whitlam came to power. It is legislation that is driven by ideology. It is not legislation that is driven by what is best for Australia. What is best for Australia is for the maximum number of students that can possibly attend university to attend. We do not want a system that is going to be Americanised. We want a system that is going to ensure that all students, all young Australians, have the opportunity to go to university if they are good enough—not if they can afford it. Labor is opposed to limiting numbers of students attending university. Labor does not believe that universities are money-generating machines. Instead, we believe higher education is an investment in Australia's future—an investment to build a more innovative Australia and an investment for a more equitable Australia.

Matt Williams (Hindmarsh, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We just heard from the member for Shortland, and we hear this a bit from Labor, about access and equity. Let me put on the record and let us have the member for Shortland and other Labor members opposite listen to a couple of points about access and equity. They fail to acknowledge that the government's reforms will provide better access and more opportunities for low-socioeconomic status students and those living in regional Australia. As part of this package we require universities to invest one dollar out of every five dollars of additional revenue in new government scholarships for students from low-socioeconomic status backgrounds.

Ms Hall interjecting—

These scholarships will support access for disadvantaged students, Member for Shortland, by assisting with living costs and study pressures. Moreover, the Higher Education Loan Program, HELP, will continue to ensure that no Australian student needs to pay a dollar up-front. This is access at its best—no dollar up-front. Students can borrow their full share of the cost of their education through HELP and not a cent of the university's money needs to be paid for by Australian students up-front. No-one has to repay their HELP loan until they are earning a decent wage—over $50,000 a year. Some might earn $30,000 or $40,000, and they do not need to pay it back. Member for Shortland, you might have just overlooked that when you were thinking about your concept of equity. You have no idea what equity means, Member for Shortland.

I move on to congratulate the minister, Christopher Pyne. I see Mark Butler, the member for Port Adelaide, here smiling because he knows that the minister has done a fantastic job with this. His vision and his consultative approach with the universities have put a fantastic bill, the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014, before the House. It is great to see the member for Port Adelaide acknowledging that this afternoon.

I am proud to have an education background. My father was a teacher. I have been involved in the governing council of my local primary school and I went to two fine universities in South Australia. So it gives me great pleasure to speak on these reforms. The government wants to have the best higher education system in the world—something that the member for Shortland and others on the other side just want to sweep under the table. We believe this education reform package will produce the results we are wanting. Through our reforms, Australia will be in a great position to create some of the best universities in the world and the best higher education system. We are good at the moment, but we can get better.

We have attracted many great students in the past to universities in South Australia: Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam, who studied a PhD in Mathematics at the University of Adelaide and is the current President of the Republic of Singapore; and Dr Kong Cheong, the current chairman of the Overseas-Chinese Banking Corporation and a former CEO of Singapore Airlines. The list goes on with a number of others that have dominated the world stage whether it be in business, community, politics or otherwise. Like the universities in South Australia, universities around Australia have produced many fine graduates. But the thing is, this is being threatened because those out of Hong Kong and those out of Singapore are now looking to universities in other parts of the world like China, the US and Europe rather than maybe going to Australia where they have looked previously. This is backed up by comments from Australian government representatives overseas. Also we have heard the High Commissioner in Singapore say one in 30 Singaporeans had studied in Australia. That is a significant number of students.

What does the university sector say? We have brought the university sector with us on this one. The peak body representing Australia's universities says the reforms are a once in a generation opportunity to shape a higher education system that is sustainable, affordable and equitable for students and the nation. Universities Australia Chief Executive Belinda Robertson said the failure of the package will condemn the university system to an 'inevitable decline'. That is a warning.

What have we heard from Labor on this? It is probably best to quote the Labor luminaries, whether it be Gareth Evans, John Dawkins or others. Gareth Evans wrote in The Australian that the university system badly needs rethinking. He made the pertinent point that every university in the country is funded in exactly the same way for its undergraduate students, regardless of the quality or type of education experience its students receive. It is a common factor of our society that you get value for money. The question could be asked in universities: are you getting value for money from the degrees that are consistently funded across Australia?

Let me move to other members of the Hawke-Keating government. John Dawkins recognised the necessity of these changes and told us openly they are appealing to a Labor opposition to listen. Other Labor figures, such as Maxine McKew and the current shadow Treasurer, Andrew Leigh, are supporters of the deregulation.

Other peak bodies around Australia—and I have touched on Universities Australia—such as the Regional Universities Network, the Australian Technology Network, the Innovative Research Universities, TAFE Directors Australia and the Council of Private Higher Education, all want to see change. They all know change is important for the betterment of their institutions.

TAFEs too know that, with the significant challenges they are facing, the funding arrangements we will provide to TAFE students will be beneficial to their constituency. We are providing more funding for those with associate diplomas and more funding for those who want to do TAFE courses. We will be extending access to 80,000 new students a year.

There will also be significant adverse implications if the higher education reform bill is not passed. As Universities Australia warned, competition for students will increase. Key research infrastructure and fellowships will be unfunded because these reforms are needed to meet the funding cliff that Labor left. We know that Labor cut close to $3 billion out of the university sector in their last years in office.

I return to access because expanding the demand-driven Commonwealth funding system is at a cost of $371.5 million over three years. I mentioned before that we are supporting 80,000 new students, including an estimated 48,000 students in diplomas, advanced diplomas and associate degree courses. We are removing all FEE-HELP and VET FEE-HELP loan fees which are currently imposed on some students.

I now want to touch on Australian universities' global position to put in context where this debate lies and the crossroads our universities are at. They are dropping in world rankings. We cannot afford to be left behind with the rise in the power of Chinese universities and other universities around the world. As the group of eight said recently:

Unless there is reform we will continue to drift, we will fall behind the emerging universities of Asia and we will fall out of touch with the vital global centres of knowledge.

It goes further than that. It goes to one of our largest export industries, which is education, that contributes around $15 billion per year. International students we know impact positively on our local economies. They buy apartments, eat in our restaurants and visit local tourism centres. They invite their family and friends to visit and, importantly, they sometimes stay and make a huge contribution to our society.

In closing I want to make a few vital points. These are historic reforms. These are visionary changes. I again congratulate Minister Pyne on his commitment to these reforms. I also want to put on the public record the work of his office in continuing to pursue these reforms and the work they have done in preparing this vital reform package. These reforms are essential for the future prosperity of our nation and the future success of our universities. Through this package we will have a strong competitive research system. We will have the potential to have some of the best universities in the world.

The alternative is unacceptable. We have heard that from former Labor members. We have heard the arguments for presented by our own side. If we do not take this opportunity to transform higher education, we will retain an unsustainable, outdated system. We risk that system declining into mediocrity and leaving Australia behind. We do not want to be on the wrong side of history. If we do not make change now, our universities are threatened. I support this bill.

Debate adjourned.