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

I am eager to talk about this horrible, horrible Higher Education and Research Reform Bill and the horrible reforms it represents. I had been discussing the impact on regional universities, and in particular my home University of Newcastle. I want to talk about the example of deregulation in the United Kingdom. The UK is often held up by those opposite as a paragon of what can happen if we deregulate. What has happened in the United Kingdom proves that university deregulation is bad public policy. The Conservative-Liberal coalition government in the United Kingdom deregulated fees in 2012. This resulted in massive fee increases, and two recent reviews are absolutely scathing of the reform. The United Kingdom Higher Education Commission found that deregulation has delivered 'the worst of both worlds, where all parties feel that they are getting a bad deal' and 'where government [is] effectively funding [universities] by writing off student debt rather than investing directly in teaching grants'. The commission's second report, Regulating Higher Education, concluded that deregulation has placed at risk the United Kingdom's reputation for higher education excellence, and called for new regulation to give students greater financial protection and to secure quality standards. These two reports are fairly clear indicators that deregulation has failed in the UK, with real consequences for students and the reputation of British universities.

It is also interesting to note that when fees in the UK were deregulated they were capped at 9,000 pounds. For the 2015-16 academic year, only two universities out of 123 will not be charging 9,000 pound fees—again, real evidence that the Minister for Education's claims on fees cannot be believed. They will rise—universities will raise them as much as possible, and the UK experience demonstrates that. Yet the Abbott government wants to follow the example of the UK failure of deregulation.

Another effect of this UK legislation is the impact on part time and mature age students. I am proud of the fact that 50 per cent of students at the University of Newcastle do not come directly from high school—they are mature age students who perhaps did not get quite the marks they needed so they went out and earned an income and then entered university. That is a great second-chance opportunity. The University of Newcastle has three areas of great expertise—engineering, energy research and the training of Indigenous doctors. It is giving mature age students a great chance. Yet the impact of deregulation will be felt most keenly by these students. In the UK, part-time enrolments in universities after their reform fell from 230,000 to 139,000 in only two years. Within two years of university deregulation almost 100,000 students, over 40 per cent of part-time students, dropped out of the system because of the fee hike—yet the minister and his backers claim that this deregulation can be compensated with the scholarship scheme in their reforms. This is the biggest deception in this bill, because this scholarship scheme will receive no Commonwealth funding. It will be funded by students and universities, who will be required to direct 20 per cent of the extra income raised by higher fees to providing these scholarships. So the Commonwealth is not providing extra funding for these scholarships at all. Universities will be given the freedom to charge students significantly higher fees and then will have to use some of this revenue on scholarships. This will also create a have and have-nots approach to universities, where universities such as the Uni of Newcastle, which have a great tradition of taking students from low-income families, students from Indigenous backgrounds and students who are mature age, will have their best and brightest students cherry picked by, for example, the universities of Sydney and New South Wales with these scholarships. This is just another example of the government arguing that students will benefit from a package when the reality of the situation is the exact opposite.

A university degree that costs $100,000 does not pass the fairness test, and this unpopular aspect of the government's reforms has been overwhelmingly rejected by the Australian people. Members of the government regularly talk about intergenerational equity, and how it is wrong for this generation to burden future generations. How completely disgraceful then that men and women on that side, many of whom received a free university education, seek to force future generations to have $100,000 university degrees. There can be no doubt that fee deregulation will lead to massive fee increases. The minister and members of the government are living in fantasy land if they think this is not the case. Having university degrees that are priced out of the reach of ordinary Australian families is fundamentally unfair, and that is another clear reason why this bill cannot be allowed to pass.

This bill, in the minister's own words, is much the same bill as the first bill. It retains all the unfair aspects of the original bill that has already been rejected by the parliament. It is quite astounding that the minister introduced this near identical bill the day after the original bill was rejected by the Senate. Driven by a warped right-wing ideology and an agenda to implement reforms that have so demonstrably failed in other countries, this government's second attempt at so-called reform of higher education is pathetic and is offensive to Australians' belief in equality of opportunity and a fair go.

I am proud to be the first on my mother's side to go to university. I am proud to represent a region where four of the five top university degrees are in teaching and nursing, which are classic gateway degrees for working-class families to enter the university system. I am proud to represent my region, but this reform will not help this region. This reform will hurt my region. This reform will hurt working and middle-income families. This reform will close the door on future generations getting an education. The impact will not just be on these families and students; the impact will be on our economy, where we will lose this potential and inequality will be exacerbated. The impact will be deeply felt. It is a reform that should be opposed, and I am confident this parliament will oppose it.

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

Deputy Speaker Mitchell, it is a pleasure to be speaking in front of you today, in particular. I noted the comments of the member for Fairfax, and I found the logic of some of the points he made very fascinating, given that he is a significant champion of deregulation in the industry sector and of having a voice from the sector influence government. It is no different in this instance, where universities are saying to us: 'We as an industry want change and reform that will enable us to provide the programs, courses and opportunities for young Australians.' Member for Charlton, it is always interesting when we make reference to comparative studies of other countries, because when we do comparatives with other countries we also have to consider the variables that came into play that we do not talk about in this chamber, because any comparative study can be flawed in the way in which it is undertaken and where the comparisons are. I do not disagree with your argument that maybe Newcastle will be affected, but there is nothing wrong with people having choices to cherry pick courses and be cherry picked for courses at universities that give them the optimum pathway to a career. That is what I see the legislation doing.

I do support the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014, because, having had experience as a pro-chancellor of the university, I have seen the way in which the regulatory framework and the legislation inhibit us from creating niche concepts and constructs within a university. If I could take that experience from then to now, I know that I would have relished the changes that are proposed in this bill.

This is the second time I have spoken in support of the higher education reforms in this chamber. I am pleased that higher education is being so vigorously debated, and I am pleased that both houses of the parliament have been working at getting this package right. I would ask that those who are opposed at the moment give serious consideration to the voice of the industry, who are asking for this reform, who see that there is a need for it. We should not be blockers. It does not matter whether it is the opposition or crossbenchers—open your minds and think about what it is the industry are asking for. I have seen, time and time again within this chamber, members on both sides standing up and arguing that the industry representation has to be considered in respect of the bill that we are debating at the time, and this is no different. If the industry are calling for it, then let us enact the legislation for it to occur.

I am not impressed with the misrepresentations of those opposite. We need to ensure a strong and vibrant education sector which prepares students for their future career pathways. We cannot delude ourselves into thinking that the current higher education system is meeting those needs. In my electorate of Hasluck, on average 30 minutes from Perth city, only one in six young people takes up higher education. For me, that is far too low. Meanwhile, one in 10 young people in my electorate of Hasluck is counted among Australia's unemployed. That is too high.

At the moment, Australia's higher education system is not working as well as it could. This gives us an opportunity to enable it to do that. The whole construct of scholarships—I will not cite the figures because I have heard them in many members' speeches—creates an opportunity in a way that does not exist at the moment. There are many in this chamber who did receive free education. That was at a time when a government made that decision. But a person whom I regard as a good friend and whom I admire and respect, John Dawkins, as the minister for education, realised that it was not sustainable, that there was a need to have people pay their way, and he introduced a system in which all of us, with the degrees that we undertook, contributed to our higher education. It is interesting when you have Maxine McKew also calling for the passage of this bill through both houses. Belinda Robinson has made very strong cases.

Our higher education system could be more accessible to young people. Our higher education system is a crucial step which leads to jobs for more young people, by equipping them with the skills they need for the future. When we are in government, if something is not working, we have to do something about it. If the industry tell us it is not working and they want reform, then let us encourage it. Let us support them. The reforms will do something about higher education and improve on the status quo. I admit that we have a great university system. It has served us well. But we are moving into a contemporary global period in which Australia has to be highly competitive, and we need to encourage as many young people as possible to take those pathways—although not everybody wants a university course, and I acknowledge that, because there are many who want to apprenticeships and trades et cetera.

The reforms will do something about higher education, and improve on the status quo, as I have said. We have overwhelming evidence that change is needed, and I would encourage the opposition to get on board for the common sense and the common good of our country.

The reforms would, for example allow more young people in my electorate of Hasluck to access higher education. The reforms would see more young people in my electorate qualify for Commonwealth support for their higher education. It is estimated that an extra 80,000 students will get this support for bachelor degrees; certificates 2, 3 or 4; diplomas and advanced diplomas. What a great way of encouraging young people into pathways.

This is an important point for my electorate of Hasluck, and the electorates of all members in this chamber. For the first time, the government would be supporting students undertaking a wider range of degree types. This includes the associate degrees and diploma courses that provide them with the knowledge and skills that they can directly apply in jobs. Diploma courses provide important pathways for less prepared students, giving them the opportunity to develop the skills needed for further study.

I am pleased we can lower fees for young people to encourage them to undertake these courses, and give them the best chance of success in their future pathways. The reforms would also mean that young people would not have to pay the unfair loan fees as they currently do. This, in turn, will mean that they will not have to pay higher interest rates if they are caring for young children and are earning below the minimum repayment threshold. That is an important point in the reforms.

For the young people who need it, these reforms would ensure their access to the largest Commonwealth scholarship scheme ever. The reforms would offer free education to the brightest students from lower socio-economic backgrounds. In my own electorate and in my own life experiences I have seen so many people from lower socio-economic backgrounds who never have the opportunity to go beyond their secondary schooling. And if we are in a position, as a Commonwealth, to encourage them and give them opportunities under the new reforms, then we should take that step and enable that to occur.

Young people in Hasluck are not studying for the sake of studying. They are studying so that they can get a job. I am confident that the proposed changes are focussed on their needs. They will be able to access more information about the quality of the courses and institutions they are considering. Young people and their families will be able to log on to a website that will give them access to the information about what students and employers think of the courses they are considering, because there is no sense in doing a course that is not going to lead to a job, and where there is not a market for those occupations. Young people will be able to find out how successful previous graduates have been at finding jobs.

Once they are enrolled in a course of study at TAFE or uni, these reforms will mean that students with a low socio-economic status will not be left to battle it out alone. These reforms will increase their access to tailored support, including assistance to help with costs of living, tutorial support, and assistance at other critical points in their study. I have seen that with respect to a niece of mine, who is studying at UWA. The levels of support and interaction are tremendous but if we could make that universally available to any Australian student then it augers well for our country.

Higher education institutions will exercise the right to set fees in a competitive market. Higher education institutions have shown that they can be relied on to act responsibly in doing so. Our universities believe that without these reforms, our $15 billion education services industry would be at risk.

As I told this chamber in September last year, we cannot equip these young people for tomorrow using practices of yesterday. There has been a debate for many years on how to reform the higher education system. John Dawkins and others who have followed have certainly attempted to make significant reforms for the betterment of our society.

There is an almost universal commitment to the what; we are here to settle the how. Finally, after 33 reviews of the higher education system, there is almost universal commitment by universities and their governing bodies to the government's reforms. We have the opportunity in this session to fix Australia's higher education system, and to future-proof it for our young people. That is the story I want to take back to the electorate of Hasluck.

I want to tell the 40 students from Lumen Christi College in Martin—who were among the 80 per cent at their school to achieve the results they need to get into their first preference of university course—and I want to tell the students in the government schools in my electorate that I want them to benefit from a higher education experience that they have worked for. I want these students to enter a higher education system that is working for them, and is flexible enough to adapt to the world they live in.

In relation to this debate, two experiences have struck me. One was when I was in the United Arab Emirates, where I went to university world. When they took us through university world I was fascinated at the number of universities that had established campuses in the UAE. It was to facilitate flexible study arrangements that would allow students from anywhere in the world to go and study. I could walk from the campus established by Harvard to an Australian university campus established there. And what I got was the best of what was available. It gave me ideas and concepts for the reforms that we need in this country, because it is flexibility and choice that is important.

In the ASEAN delegation when I visited Malaysia, Brunei and the Philippines, we had discussions around the flexibility of universities and the opportunities that would prevail for Asian students coming to Australia. With such flexible approaches by Australian universities, those countries were also keen to have relationships and possibly become a hub to ensure that higher education was available to any Asian student from any country in that region to that they could study and to have choices. They talked about the historic connection to the United Kingdom. In those discussions the Australian members of the delegation suggested that Australia should be a principal port of call, because our universities were moving towards the top 100 and because the government was ambitious to ensure that the reforms that would take place would make our universities equivalent.

The other element that I think we have to factor in to giving our universities the opportunity to be able to undertake reforms is the competition that they may have in the future from online education from universities that are prepared to provide courses to Australian students online while not requiring them to go overseas. Technology has improved substantially. I see it in Australia now, where students do not front classes—they can do them from their lounge rooms. They do their assignments, they submit them and they participate in the chat rooms. And it will not be long before our universities face the threat of Harvard, Oxford and some of the world-leading universities, including from China, offering courses here, to the detriment of our higher education sector.

So I would encourage the opposition and the crossbenchers to give serious consideration to this bill and to consider not the context of today and some of the arguments that I have heard but to think about a future in which we have future-proofed opportunities for our students and for those who wish to undertake university studies. That should be paramount in our thinking when this bill goes back to the Senate, because we have an obligation to be leaders and to make the reforms that the industry is asking for—to support the request for those reforms and to allow our universities to operate in a way that gives them greater flexibility and increases the opportunity for the number of our students wishing to study courses that will lead to jobs not only in our own states and territories in in Australia but to be competitive anywhere within the world.

I certainly support this higher education reform bill.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Vocational Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Since the budget we have seen quite clearly that it is not only Labor that opposes the government's unfair, short-sighted higher education package. In fact, Australians across the country opposed the measures in the previous bill and also those in this Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014. I would indicate that, based on the Prime Minister's assessment, since the election there has been a period of fairly poor government—so bad that they had to consider restarting and having a new opportunity to get good government right at the beginning of this week. I would suggest that one way to achieve that might just be to pull this bill, because it is not well supported and it should be opposed.

We see that Australians in particular are concerned about the public funding cut to undergraduate courses of up to 37 per cent. We see the Australian public in particular oppose the potential for $100,000 degrees that are the result of combining both cuts and fee deregulation. We know that all Australians want to have the right to pursue their education at Australia's best universities without facing a crippling, lifetime debt.

As many speakers have said, in this world of constant change and rapid industry transformation many people will need to return to higher education. So we are not only talking about school leavers seeking their first qualifications; we are talking about many Australians who may already have a university qualification and need to upgrade it or to change it and we are talking about people who may have gone through vocational training and who seek to get higher qualifications. In a modern world a lifetime of education and training faces us. And so this is a matter for all Australians

Our universities and the education they provide are a national asset—they are a national investment. While this provides an individual benefit to the students it also significant in providing a contribution to the public good of the nation, both economically and socially.    Our universities are deeply engaged in significant and important research; particularly, it is very much a global endeavour. I just want to give the House an example from my own backyard: the University of Wollongong's Global Challenges Program.

If you go to their website you can see a description of it and understand how significant and contemporary it is. That particular program is described on that website:

OVERVIEW

Over the coming decades we will face many challenges and transformations in the way we live. The UOW Global Challenges Program recognises the interconnected nature of these transformations. The Program is designed to encourage and develop creative and community-engaged research that will help drive social, economic and cultural change in our region, and will be translatable across the globe.

The Program will initially focus on three Global Challenges - Living Well, Longer, Manufacturing Innovation, and Sustaining Coastal and Marine Zones. These are united by an overall research goal: Transforming Lives and Regions. Each Global Challenge involves collaboration between UOW researchers and business, government, community and other research organisations. Global Challenges will articulate and pursue innovative solutions to major challenges, with a clear focus on the delivery and adoption of research outputs that have maximum impact in key areas of social, economic and community need.

And that is only one example of the important work that my own university is doing. And I know that those who have universities in their electorates across the country can see the same thing.

Australians understand that both the research and the teaching that happen in our universities are important. Yet Minister Pyne continues to hold hostage the funding for research and Future Fellowships for mid-career researchers, and he continues to ransom vital funding for research infrastructure.

So what do we have before us in the legislation mark 2? We have another proposal that is still wrong for the nation, still wrong for students and still wrong for families. The government has given up $3.5 billion of its $3.9 billion of savings, but it has not fixed the inequity that was at the heart of the original bill and which caused our major worry. The bill still contains    $1.9 billion in cuts to Australian universities. It still contains $100,000 degrees for undergraduate students. It still contains $171 million in cuts to equity programs. It still contains $200 million in cuts to indexation of grant programs. It also contains $170 million in cuts to research training. It introduces fees for PhD students for the first time ever and it includes $80 million in cuts to the Australian Research Council. The massive cuts to universities remain. The new fee imposts for students remain. Nothing of substance has changed, and Labor's position remains unchanged in opposition to it.

Despite speculation in recent weeks that the government would give up its budget savings in order to achieve its ideological goals, this bill still includes the massive funding cuts that were proposed in the budget. It slashes funding for Commonwealth supported places in undergraduate degrees by an average 20 per cent, and, for some courses, by up to 37 per cent. It cuts indexation for university funding, costing universities $202 million over the forward estimates period.

These are all matters that were not considered or discussed with the community before the election. In fact, the minister, then the shadow minister, said exactly the opposite. Before the election, he indicated to the Australian people that there were no proposed changes to the way universities were funded under consideration by them, if they took government. This underpins why the package is in so much trouble with the community. There was no discussion. Before the election, there was no consideration of why these sorts of changes might have been required, how they might have been achieved and what the general population thought about them. There was no mandate for this government to proceed in the direction that it has. Quite rightly, people have had a look at it and said it is unfair, like so much of the budget. The whole reform package is about making those who can least afford it carry the weight of the government's unfair budget.

In particular, this bill now includes a transition fund of $100 million over three years for regional universities. The fact that the government even needs to propose the fund indicates that all the concerns we raised about the impact on regional universities in the first bill were actually real and accurate. There is no need for transition funds when measures are fair and reasonable. Indeed, if the system, and the fees it introduced, were equitable, there would be no need for scholarships. The day the original bill was defeated in the Senate, the minister told Universities Australia that this transition fund would be $300 million. That is still $200 million short of what the universities are seeking, I should point out. So we end up with a measly $100 million in this bill—one fifth of the size the sector itself thinks is needed to allow for adjustment to deregulation.

Last week I attended a forum organised by the member for Indi, Cathy McGowan, where one of the very regions that will be affected gave compelling evidence about how important regional universities are to the broader economic and social wellbeing of their region. These universities are major direct employers and significant providers of education for critical regional sectors, such as health services.

I know this directly and personally through our experiences in the Illawarra region, particularly as we have been undergoing significant structural transformation in recent decades. The role of Wollongong University in supporting the research and education effort to assist that process has been integral to the success of growing new employment and transforming existing industry sectors to sustain jobs. The university is now one of the largest employers. Whereas once BlueScope was the largest employer, it has now been superseded by the university, as a direct employer, and is therefore is a significant direct economic driver in the region.

I would also like to identify that, in this context, the local TAFE institute is a critical partner in this task and has provided important skills and training expertise and service, particularly for many restructured employees. This case was, in particular, outlined in the report of the House of Representatives Education and Employment Committee, TAFE: an Australian asset. I note the government has not yet responded to the committee's report, and I would like to encourage the new minister to look seriously at the work and the bipartisan recommendations of that report. But, in support of this critical public sector work of universities, it seems that a pathetic one-off $100 million over three years is the best the Liberal-National Party can do for regional Australia.

The other persistent issue that causes us to oppose these bills in their new variation is the evidence that there will be $100,000 degrees out of this package. All of the analysis—from the Group of Eight to the National Tertiary Education Union—agrees that student fees would need to go up by around 30 per cent just to make up for the initial funding cut by this government. For some degrees, that figure is 60 per cent. But of course this legislation would implement complete deregulation of student fees, from 1 January 2016—unis can charge whatever they like. The University of Western Australia has already said it will charge all students $16,000 a year, which, overnight, more than doubles the cost of an arts degree.

I could point out to the House that there is nowhere in the world where deregulation has led to price competition and lower fees for students. In the UK, where they were deregulated in 2012, with a cap of £9,000, for the 2015-16 academic year there will be only two universities out of 123 that will not be charging the cap—that is, the maximum amount that they can charge.

It should be pointed out that in the Australian context the current student contribution rate is already a maximum rate. It is a maximum rate because the Howard government partially deregulated student contributions to allow universities to charge anything from nought to the maximum—to the cap. No surprises, at the time, that Dr Nelson, as the minister, said:

Some institutions may increase the tuition fees in some disciplines. Some institutions have already indicated they would like to reduce their fees or make no change at all.

What actually happened? None of them have decreased their university fees. The cap—the maximum—is treated as the standard cost. Even without having a 20 per cent funding cut to contend with, every single university put its student contributions up to the maximum almost immediately. So the evidence is there to see, not only internationally, but here in our own history.

I particularly want to finish by talking about my concerns about the entrance of private providers and overseas universities under this legislation's proposal to extend access to per-student subsidies at 70 per cent of the rate for public universities. I think we need to be really conscious that there is a very real danger of poor-quality and low-cost providers aggressively entering the sector to take financial advantage of the new market. While of course many private providers have a long and quality record in the sector, and clearly not all private providers or overseas institutions would go down the cheap-and-nasty path, enough doing so will replicate the real and serious issues that have emerged in the vocational education sector. As the reports before the parliament propose, the parliament should note the increasing evidence of dodgy providers entering our vocational education system and taking advantage of vulnerable students by signing them up to inappropriate courses which they never complete, but they still end up with a VET FEE-HELP debt.

Along with shadow minister Kim Carr, I am pleased that our request to the Auditor-General to investigate potential abuses of VET FEE-HELP has been accepted. But, until many of these very real issues in the vocational sector are fully understood and effective responses are put in place, we should not take the risk with the quality of our higher education system, our fourth largest export earner.

Finally, we have to indicate that the bill before us, while amended, has not actually addressed the underlying unfairness, the underlying danger to participation and the economic capacity of our universities in particular to deliver for our regions. On that basis, it should be rejected, and the government should start good government today by pulling it from the list.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014 and the associated amendments. I note that this bill has been in the House before but in a different form. It has been to the other place and, with significant negotiations with the crossbenchers, has come back with some improvements. It is a shame that the major party in the Senate would not engage in the same manner. In fact, we have just heard from the member for Cunningham, who says the bill should be thrown out. She said it is not well supported. It is supported by virtually all of the university sector. It is supported because they know that change needs to happen.

I believe that it is incumbent on governments, it is our responsibility, to inform the public as to why we are suggesting that changes need to be made. I am going to attempt to do that. I preface my remarks by saying that nothing remains the same. The world is constantly changing. Today's perfect solution for any problem has a use-by date, and so it is with higher education. There have been a series of reforms by different governments in the past, but serious reform has not occurred for some time, and it is overdue. We know it is overdue because the sector is progressively declining and facing bigger and bigger problems.

It was in the 1950s, for instance, that Robert Menzies laid the foundations for the modern university sector, establishing Commonwealth scholarships to cover fees and provide a means-tested allowance for capable students from lower socioeconomic groups. His was the first government to truly recognise the value of a strong public university sector and provide a large boost in support under conditions which provided for the autonomy of universities, and a dramatic rise in graduate numbers resulted.

It was the Whitlam government in the seventies which introduced 'free education'. I say 'free' with inverted commas because we all know—we all knew then, as we know now, in fact—that there is no such thing as a free education. Someone must pay. Once again, when the fee-free university was introduced by the Whitlam government, there was a dramatic rise in numbers.

It was the Hawke government and their very competent minister John Dawkins that belled the cat on the issue of 'free education', because, as numbers attending university continued to rise, so did the unsustainable costs to government. That government, a Labor government, introduced HECS fees.

It is a recurring theme in Australia's modern history that a bigger and bigger percentage of people have elected to study at a tertiary institution. The Howard government updated the system in 1996, introducing three different tiers for HECS fees, reflecting the earning capacity of the various professions, and again in 2005, when the HECS-HELP scheme was adopted, which limited lifetime access to subsidised university education to seven years full time.

In 2009 Julia Gillard, as the Minister for Education, removed the cap on places, leading once again to higher numbers of enrolments and bigger implications for the budget. This was quite a watershed moment, I must say: uncapping places basically makes government commitment to education open ended. There are no limits on government spending under that arrangement.

It is obvious to all who take an interest in education—the students, the parents, the universities, their staff and politicians—that governments do not have spare buckets of money to throw at the sector at the moment. It does not matter who is in government or what Labor say now. Should they succeed at the next election, should they gain government at the next election, the Labor Party will be mugged by reality. The update of the intergenerational review is likely to be released in just a couple of weeks. The previous one, the 2010 intergenerational review, tells us that governments do not and will not have the money to meet soaring demand to grow our university sector and research capacity.

Don't listen to the rubbish from the opposite side, Mr Deputy Speaker. They know that it is not possible for government to contribute unlimited funds to the university sector. The member for Fraser, the shadow Assistant Treasurer, Andrew Leigh, knows that there is not an endless stream of money. There are other more pressing priorities for government for the limited finance that we have, like the NDIS, a scheme that has bipartisan support and that we all want introduced. We just cannot have sectors of government having uncapped spending and continue to pour money in endlessly.

So how pressing are these reforms, and why do we need to change now? It was interesting to listen to the member for Hasluck just before. He was speaking about international students and the information revolution. The information age and technology are providing opportunities and challenges for tertiary education that we would never even have imagined twenty years ago. Online education is here—MOOCs; full online courses; instant accessibility to lecturers; in fact, online tutorials are available not just with Australian universities but with virtually any top 500 university in the world. Australian universities will be challenged not only to hang onto Australian students but—very importantly for their financial success and viability—they will be challenged to hang onto their international students. Herein lies one of the great challenges.

As I said earlier at various times, both sides of the political spectrum have asked for savings from the tertiary sector. The previous Labor government was no different: they removed a large line of funding from the tertiary sector. It is right that governments should continue to question all of the projects that they fund. We should ask for efficiency dividends as we go along. And so it is with the university sector: as the way they deliver their platforms, as the technology becomes available, of course they can be more efficient, and we have every reason to ask them to contribute part of that back into the expanding sector.

There was a time when it was paramount for Australia to increase numbers in universities. So we pump-primed them: governments gave them progressively more money to get the university entrance numbers up. It is still important that we raise university participation, but the uncapping of places by the previous government is tempered at the moment by the fact that there are many concerns within the sector now that entrance standards are falling and that the quality of our university students being turned out in Australia may not be as high as it has been before.

The one thing that makes the Australian higher education sector very powerful and a strong economic contributor to the Australian community is that we are seen as a deliverer of quality education. We must guard this ferociously. It is not the time to be talking about the standards of university entrance, but it is one of those issues that is associated, and I am sure I will have an opportunity at another time to expand further on it.

To come directly to what is the most contentious part of what is a complete reorganisation of the funding mechanisms that govern our universities, the package of incentives to the industry, is of course the uncapping of fees—the ability of universities to charge whatever they should wish for a degree.

I talked a little before about the international market. Universities have increasingly turned to the international market, full-fee-paying students, to provide a new income stream for the sector. It has been highly successful. We have a world-class university sector, an enviable reputation and provided a new export industry for Australia worth $16.3 billion per annum. That is the income stream that underwrites the quality of Australian universities and, as a result, the way we can educate Australian students.

What would happen if we lost those international students? I can tell you what would happen: our universities would be in a state of ever-declining capacity and quality. Most of our international students are coming out of Asia. However, competition is getting hotter every day. Huge investment is turning mediocre universities into world-class universities. With the online phenomenon, which I touched on before, the question we must ask ourselves is: why would a student living in Mumbai or in Chengdu enrol in an online degree at ANU or Adelaide University when in fact they could enrol at Princeton, Oxford or Harvard?

If we do not keep up the quality of our universities, we will lose these enrolments and the income stream underwriting Australian Universities. If we do not continue to rate in the top 100, rightly or wrongly, we will lose those students. Universities, whether we like it or not, are judged by their research achievements—by how many papers they get published in the scientific journals. We will not stay at the current ratings unless there is significant new investment. I have already established that it is unlikely investment is going to come from government, whether it be a Liberal or Labor government, given the current economic challenges facing Australian government. Both sides of politics know that.

If we do not address this issue now, more shame on us. If we just allow the status quo to continue, more shame on us as a parliament. If the taxpayer is not able to meet the challenge, it is inevitable that we will have to ask students to shoulder a bit more of the burden and, under what has been the most keenly contested part of Minister Pyne's reform, of course universities will be able to set their own fees, uncapped.

The cries of outrage from the other side of this House, saying, '$100,000 degrees'—'$200,000 degrees', I have heard. Of course they would say that. It is straight out of the Grimms' fairytales. In fact they have no idea. They have no way of justifying those figures. Like Grimms' fairytales, they are just made up. The $200,000 degree has come from where the sun does not shine—it is just made up.

We know, and you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell, that the higher education package, as it sits now, stipulates that universities cannot charge Australian students more than their international students, less the subsidy. We cannot charge them more than we charge international students. If universities ramp up those fees to the internationals, they will not have them. I have already told this House about why we are under intense competition from the rest of the world for those internationals students. If we doubled the fees, we will not have any of them here. If we do not have any of them here, our universities collapse, and the universities know that. That is why Universities Australia supports the package. That is why every university in Australia is behind the package. They know that without change they are in deep trouble. And that is why this bill has come back from the Senate with a raft of amendments, but not one of them has been agreed to by the Australian Labor Party because they refuse to even enter into the debate. They just say, 'No, we will stop the tide, the water will go back and we will all be safe.' It will not happen and it will not happen to our universities.

So while the focus of this bill, the contentious part, has been the uncapping of fees, there are a number of other great things coming from the government—the extension of funding to 48,000 students studying diplomas; 35,000 more starting bachelor degrees outside of universities; and the launching of the Commonwealth scholarships benefiting thousands who would not otherwise be able to access universities, particularly those Commonwealth scholarships that are sponsored directly by the government into my constituency, into lower socioeconomic groups, into universities that have lower socioeconomic groups and people affected by isolation. And we will be providing more support than ever before for those students to attend university, to contest, to apply for their dreams.

The HELP program will be strengthened. Students will be able to borrow every cent, every bit of their commitment and they will not pay a cent back until they reach a $50,000 income. If you have got kids, if you are the primary provider for kids, your interest rate will be paused and that interest-rate will only be CPI. So, in fact, the loans will be interest-free. All in all, it is a great package. It is improved by the negotiation of the crossbench senators. Just imagine what we could achieve if only both sides of the House decided to think about what is good for Australian education. (Time expired)

Cathy McGowan (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak about the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014. I acknowledge the previous speaker. I would like to explain why I will not be supporting the bill in this House. My message is that accessible, regional tertiary education is the key to the future of regional Australia. Any reforms need to put the needs and the future of rural and regional students, communities, businesses and institutions at the centre. I will be talking today about a forum we held in Wodonga last week and I will call for a plan B, C or D until we get this right.

Reform is needed in the higher education sector. I agree with the government on this issue. There are beneficial amendments in this current bill. However, there are many consequences of the proposed deregulation of universities. As the minister has stressed, the core of the legislation has too many disadvantages for those of us who live, work and want to study in regional areas.

I have been listening to students, to teachers, to tertiary education staff, to business owners, to local government, to parents, to the many Indi constituents who have sought to meet with me and express their concern with the deregulation of universities. They have told me stories and are worried about the unanswered questions, the cost, the many detrimental impacts that a deregulated system would have on the future viability of regional and rural communities. I have heard too many stories of unintended consequences, too many stories unanswered questions and problematic situations for me to support this legislation. My constituents have asked me to work with the government to come up with a better approach, a more inclusive approach, an approach that does not make regional students, communities and businesses suffer even greater disadvantage.

Uniformly I have been told that regional universities are much more than teaching institutions; they form the economic development and innovation hub for communities around them. They are the essential ingredient for the growth of regional professions—agriculture, health, accounting, the legal profession, business management, pharmacy, planning, engineers, bankers. They all rely on locally based, quality provision of graduate and post graduate courses.

I was elected to this House with a clear vision for my electorate: to work for a prosperous, caring community alive with opportunities for all. A significant part of this vision was a call to action on behalf of my community to address the inequalities currently being experienced in regional Australia, especially by young people. Specifically, these inequalities include access to quality, relevant, accessible educational opportunities.

I am opposing this legislation because I believe it will neither make regional Australia a more caring place, a more prosperous place nor will it create greater opportunities in the region. I have not been convinced that the changes made—and here I would acknowledge the minister for his taking on board many suggestions made by my colleagues in the other place—in mark 1 and now mark 2 will make tertiary education more accessible, more relevant or of greater quality for regional communities. I believe that regional communities will be severely disadvantaged by this legislation. I also believe that the process to develop the legislation is faulty. In rural parlance, we talk about making a silk purse from a sow's ear. This process has not been inclusive.

The way we do things, the people, the stakeholders we involve, are equally as important as what we do. Talking about process, about consulting with stake holders, I would like to place on record the outcomes of a forum held in Wodonga on Monday 2 February. Over 130 participants attended from all sectors of my community. This forum was hosted by La Trobe and Charles Stuart Universities. Key note speakers included the two Vice-Chancellors, local business people, representatives of the Regional Universities Network and Albury Wodonga Health.

There were three key themes: considering regional students in the proposed education reforms by Professor Sue Trinidad, Director National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education from John Curtin Institute of Public Policy at Curtin University; opportunities and challenges facing rural universities and the regional workforce by Dr Caroline Perkins, ex Director Regional Universities Network; and the role of higher education, particularly in health, by Adjunct Professor Susan O'Neill, CEO Albury Wodonga Health.

One of the more interesting consultative processes of the day were the three participatory workshop sessions and panel sessions. We talked about pathways to success—raising higher education aspirations and participation levels of regional and rural people. This was facilitated by Mr Vern Hilditch, Principal of Wodonga Senior Secondary College. We had a workshop on higher education and building sustainable regional and rural communities. This workshop was facilitated by Professor Richard Speed, Pro Vice-Chancellor Regional for La Trobe. The third workshop was on the role of higher education in the regional and rural workforce was facilitated by Julia Coyle, Dean of Students and Head of Campus at CSU.

There were some key findings from the forum. The first finding was about student equity. University participation is lower in regional areas, and it is not increasing as fast as in metropolitan areas. This situation has not changed and is not changing. As a result, in 2014 the proportion of 20- to 64-year-olds with a bachelor qualification or higher in regional areas was 17.7 per cent in regional areas; 16.2 per cent in remote areas. This is compared to 32.6 per cent in metropolitan areas—which is totally unsatisfactory. The reasons behind this—provided by DEEWR—include: access, cost, schooling, socioeconomic status and aspirations.

At the forum, we discussed taking a student-centred approach to education. How does this information manifest for young people in regional areas. There are two ways; there is a lack of knowledge about university—only 25 per cent of students currently at university had parents who attended university. So most young people's parents did not attend university so they do not understand what is involved and they cannot offer firsthand advice on higher education. Secondly, there is a lack of confidence in young people's ability to attend university.

The forum considered student outcomes, and the group asked the question: 'When designing higher education for rural and regional communities, what are the key considerations?' There were two main findings. Firstly, create engagement with schools, students and parents; build pathways; early outreach to schools and communities linked to later-year outreach; pathway programs; scholarships; bridging programs at school; establish pathways to enable students to move from school to TAFE or university, not only from the country to the city, but also within the regions.

The second major strategy was to build partnerships with schools, community and industry. The key to doing this is to talk about university education in general and its relevance to career and life goals; to start early with regular contact from year 7 onwards; to go deeper, increasing knowledge about universities, and building confidence for university study.

At the forum, we also discussed the role of higher education in the workforce. This is a particular passion of mine. Albury-Wodonga Health is the second-largest employer in Albury-Wodonga. It is a regional health service and it takes at least four hours to drive to the nearest metropolitan centre—in our case, Melbourne. The service relies on community and care interdependencies.

There is a slow and low turnover of staff; people stay. The attraction, recruitment and retention of health professionals is directly related to our ability to provide tertiary education. Some of the specialist skills employed by Albury-Wodonga Health include: professional nurses, paramedics, physiotherapy, speech therapy, social work, occupational therapy, psychology, accounting, business management, human resource management and marketing. And we need these locally; because, as we learnt, in Albury-Wodonga 70 per cent of jobs for that health service require professional tertiary qualifications, but it is estimated that only 20 per cent of the people have the necessary tertiary qualifications. And that is now; that is not talking about the future. But we absolutely know that when people study locally they stay locally.

So, while the forum confirmed that people are looking for reforms in the sector, we all agree that it could be better, more relevant, more efficient, more accessible, more student friendly—and we all need better access to broadband and mobile phones—the very strong response from participants was that what was being proposed, would not meet the needs.

I believe we are faced with a question of process and outcome. I have always liked this quote about the future: 'The future is not some place we are going to; the future is a place we are creating. The paths to it are not found but made, and the making of the pathways changes both the maker and the destination.' In reforming and improving the higher education sector, we are making a new path. The paths are not pre-existing. We are making them. And it is in the making of these pathways that we make our future. I want a future for regional Australia. I want a future of win-win; better in regional Australia and better in the cities.

But this current legislation has focused particularly on the needs of the university sector. It is true that it has many of the VCs agreeing with it, but it has not focused on other important stakeholders—businesses and employers, those who employ the graduates. And it has not focused on the key role of government investment in infrastructure—what universities are—education infrastructure. Universities act as an engine, drivers of regional development, regional innovation and regional growth.

I believe that in the formation of this second draft of legislation, the process has been flawed. The people who have a vested interest in the outcome, the people I represent, have not being involved: the rural and regional students, who are already paying excessive amounts for accommodation, travel and living expenses; the regional businesses desperate for locally trained skilled professionals; and the regional development and planning authorities who are calling for the Commonwealth to play a lead role in the long-term planning of sustainable regional communities with a solid foundation in excellent infrastructure.

As an Independent member of this House I see it as my role—my duty, my job—to speak up on these issues. I need to stand up to fight to be heard with the best of my skills, to ensure that we as a parliament have the best legislation possible. I need to take action and to walk the talk of participation. I need to be evidence based. And I need my actions to be informed by my electorate. This is my intention in speaking to this legislation: to share the knowledge and outcomes of our regional forum, to make a sincere offer to the minister to meet and work with him on how these issues can be addressed, and to be solutions focused.

Let me remind this House that the expense of university study and living away from home is already too great for many rural and regional students. Our participation is significantly lower and it is becoming increasingly difficult for young people to see a pathway for themselves without the burden of debt from higher education. The time is here and now to focus on an alternative framework—a framework that is equitable and accessible for all Australians no matter where they live.

In closing I would briefly like to mention some of the specific outcomes from the forum and call on the minister to consider a plan C. Regional tertiary education warrants a higher order policy focus. There is a need for holistic consideration of relationships between communities, employees and individuals within regional tertiary education policy design. There is a need to better support interaction across TAFE and higher education and to cut through perceptions of cost shifting between the state and the Commonwealth government.

Higher education is too important for Australia to let through poor legislation. It is too important for all Australians. We need to consult and involve all sectors. We need to look for a win-win. We need a strong university sector. We need strong undergraduates and, most importantly, we need good legislation.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014 contains a range of measures designed to improve the quality of education delivered at Australian universities, TAFEs and colleges to make them competitive with the best institutions in the world. The reforms also aim to promote research and innovation in a way that achieves greater commercialisation of Australian intellectual property, which is critical for the economic development of our nation.

Another key objective is maintaining accessibility and affordability for students through the Higher Education Loan Program and Commonwealth scholarships. The aim is to make our higher education sector less institutionalised and more collaborative with industry. We need practical graduates who are in tune with commercial reality through their education and ready for employment.

The university sector is generally supportive of the government's reforms. The Commonwealth will provide approximately $15.6 billion to universities this year and it will continue to increase each year. Universities Australia issued a media release on 28 January 2015 stating:

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

In my electorate of Moore the package of reforms presents a unique opportunity for Edith Cowan University. As the cornerstone of the Joondalup learning precinct, our local university is the main hub for 24,000 students and is the leading institution in the field of research, innovation and enterprise initiatives, working closely with the private sector in delivering a number of practical, real-world solutions.

I have been kept informed of the university's programs by Professor Margaret Jones, Director of Research and Innovation, and Mr Neil Butler, community engagement and partnerships adviser. Edith Cowan University has developed a reputation for its emphasis on supporting new and established researchers and is currently developing a number of innovations that are helping shape our community. One innovation is a heart rate monitor that operates under the same principles as noise-cancelling headphones.

Traditional heart rate monitors or electrocardiograms work by measuring the electrical impulses generated by a human heart through a series of electrodes placed on a patient's body. The heart rate monitor under development at the Electron Science Research Institute at ECU works by isolating the magnetic field generated by a heart, which provides more detailed information than from an ECG. As well as providing more information about the heart for doctors, the magnetic heart rate monitor also has the advantage of not needing to be in contact with the patient's skin to work.

Another innovation is in the form of a smartphone application being developed by students which aims to help people with disabilities to contact their families or carers when they find themselves in distressing situations. Using the Please Help application disabled people can automatically dial nominated contacts for assistance and, if there is no answer, an SMS with the user's current GPS location and the nearest address is sent to an emergency contact. The idea for the app came from the WA Police in conjunction with Therapy Focus and was developed by the ECU School of Computer and Security Science students.

Three Edith Cowan University research projects have been named as finalists in the Western Australian Information and Telecommunications Alliance awards for undergraduate information, communications and technology projects: the Please Help app; an application aimed at improving diagnosis of hearing loss in children; and FireWatch, a bushfire monitoring tool developed in partnership with the state government land agency Landgate.

At a national level the work of up to 35,000 researchers and some 1,700 technical and support staff is dependent on this reform package, as are the Australian Research Council future fellowships. If funding were withheld, top researchers would be likely to abandon research careers and possibly seek positions overseas, leading to a loss of intellectual assets.

Improving access to higher education remains an important priority for the government. The bill will expand opportunities to more than 80,000 students a year to study for diplomas and pathway courses by 2018. For the first time in history direct Commonwealth financial assistance will be provided to support students studying higher education diplomas, advanced diplomas and associate and bachelor degrees enrolled in registered higher education institutions.

Graduates, on average, earn 75 per cent more over their lifetime than those who just complete year 12. The new Commonwealth scholarships, which are part of the reform package, represent the most comprehensive scholarship scheme in Australia’s history. Students from low socio-economic status backgrounds will be provided with more opportunities to participate in higher education, providing improved access to education for the most talented students from disadvantaged backgrounds. In addition to Commonwealth scholarships, there will be a dedicated scholarship fund for universities with high proportions of low-SES students that will be funded directly by the Commonwealth on top of university based scholarships.

Furthermore, to maintain the affordability and accessibility of higher education, the Higher Education Loan Program will continue taxpayer support for all students’ tuition fees up-front, ensuring that repayments are due only when a student enters the workforce and earns in excess of $50,000. The proposed reforms introduce an interest rate pause on debts for primary carers of children aged less than five years and who are earning less than the minimum repayment threshold. In addition, the bill abolishes the existing 25 per cent loan fee for FEE-HELP and the 20 per cent loan fee for VET FEE-HELP from 1 January 2016. These fees currently apply to students enrolled in TAFE colleges, vocational training organisations and private colleges, bringing arrangements in line with universities.

Developing quality Australian universities that are competitive internationally remains an important objective of the higher education reforms. Currently, our universities have limited prospects of competing with the best in Europe, North America and the emerging universities of Asia. Only seven Australian universities are ranked in the top 200 internationally. As someone who has been fortunate enough to have attended Wharton business school at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, I experienced the benefits of studying under world-renowned academic staff in the rarefied environment of an Ivy League university.

International education is worth $15 billion in export revenue to the national economy. It represents Australia’s third-largest export behind iron ore and coal. Under the reforms, universities will be given autonomy to set course fees and attract students. In an article which appeared in The Australian Financial Review on 23 September 2014, Universities Australia said:

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

Competition will enhance quality and make higher education providers more responsive to the needs of students in the labour market. The government will also direct the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to monitor university fees. Domestic fees will be required to be lower than the international student fees minus the Commonwealth subsidy.

Under the reform package, the Abbott government will invest $11 billion over four years into university research to attract and retain some of the world’s top researchers in Australia. This includes $150 million which has been allocated over the next two financial years to fund the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy, and a further $139.5 million to deliver 100 new four-year research positions per year under the Future Fellowships scheme. These measures are designed to secure Australia’s place at the forefront of research.

The package of reforms will provide significant opportunities for Edith Cowan University to expand the work of its on-campus research institutes, which are already achieving at a high level. For example, Edith Cowan University’s Security Research Institute is one of the leading cybersecurity and digital forensic groups in the world, recognised for its expertise in human security, physical security and aviation security. The institute consistently delivers high-impact outcomes in computer and digital forensics, network and wireless security, information warfare, physical security and risk management. The institute's other achievements include a digital forensics tool developed in conjunction with the Western Australia Police to assist with cybercrime, preliminary crime scene investigation, disaster victim identification and evidence tracking. This collaborative effort between ECU staff, students and the Western Australia Police is an example of innovation and effective community engagement at work.

Similarly, Edith Cowan University's Health and Wellness Institute houses an innovative multidisciplinary research team in exercise medicine, dedicated to investigating the extent of how exercise can be employed in cancer management to materially improve patient outcomes, thereby providing a steady stream of patients and medical, health and research personnel necessary to support the research program. To cite an example, there is an article on page 17 of today's The West Australian about the university's research into mitigating the progress of Huntington's disease.

The proposed higher education reforms are designed to make universities, such as Edith Cowan University, less institutionalised and more innovative in terms of industry collaboration, delivering tangible results for the community. Another example of innovative applied research based at the local university campus is the Vario Wellness Clinic, which is a commercial entity that delivers best-practice wellness programs, integrated consulting, and assessment services to the community. The clinic offers specialised programs that have been developed for people with existing chronic conditions in the areas of exercise physiology, dietetics, physiotherapy, and psychology, including the Life Now program, which consists of specialised exercise for people with cancer.

In summary, the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014 contains a range of measures designed to improve the quality of education delivered at Australian institutions to compete with the best in the world. The reforms also aim to promote research and innovation. Another key objective is maintaining accessibility and affordability for students through Commonwealth scholarships and the Higher Education Loan Program. These higher education reforms will provide a wide array of career pathways for my constituents, particularly our youth, and provide the highly skilled workforce we need to build a stronger economy.

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I move to the next speaker I would remind those members at the front table in relation to the level of noise coming from the table.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This Monday we heard the Prime Minister say, 'Good government starts today.' Yet here we are debating the government's broken promises from last year. This is the same broken government with the same broken promises: cuts to education, cuts to health, cuts to the pension and cuts to the SBS and the ABC. Nothing has changed: not the leader—not yet, anyway—not the broken promises, not the unfair budget. Today we are debating the Abbott government's broken promises on higher education. And there is a sense of deja vu about this. The Prime Minister promises to listen and be more consultative. Yet he behaves in exactly the same way again and again. I am sure he cannot believe that his party room keeps falling for this same trick. But the people of Australia are not fooled. They see through this government's rhetoric and its spin. They know that the proposed changes to higher education will hurt them and their children and also our society and our future prospects. And they know that Labor members stand with them and stand against these unfair changes to higher education.

So I am very pleased to take this opportunity to again speak on the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014. I note that the Minister for Education gagged debate on this bill when it was last in this place. But, given the Prime Minister's repeated claims to be leading a more consultative government now, presumably this will not be the case on this occasion. Going to the Prime Minister's latest reboot—the one before Christmas having been so spectacularly unsuccessful—I think of his speech to the National Press Club. He began with a very interesting and a very telling phrase. He spoke of how he had spent the summer talking to many Australians—talking to, not with, much less listening or hearing what they have been saying. He continues to prefer ideology to engagement, much less evidence. And this bill really is the government in a nutshell. At its core, there is a broken promise. And of course on this side of the House we remember the Real Solutions policy document that members opposite have been hiding away since the election. At the heart of this bill there are swingeing cuts to higher education, despite promises the day before the election, and also, through radical fee deregulation, the prospect of $100,000 degrees, denying accessibility to education, undermining the participation that has been a signature of Labor's investment in higher education over the past 40 years.

I note that while this fee deregulation issue is clearly the most controversial part of this radical reform package it is not unequivocally the most egregious. I think we should also be thinking about the 20 per cent across-the-board cuts and their impact. But the Bills Digestsays of the fee deregulation proposals contained in this bill:

This element of the reforms was not considered in the Kemp-Norton Review and there was little public discussion of this option prior to the Budget announcements.

Well, that is putting it very mildly, isn't it? But it is also telling: the government did not have the courage of its ideological convictions to put its case to the Australian people. The member for Indi touched on this point very effectively in her contribution when she went through the failings of process—from her point of view, process affecting regional communities and regional students. But these process failings—the failure to engage with the community, the failure to listen to stakeholders, the failure to look to the evidence—go to the heart of why this package of legislation must be defeated. And what is very interesting is the constant recourse to reform, which is a weasel word that animates this government like no other. I remind members opposite that reform is a process, not an end. But it seems to have become a very convenient shortcut, a polite way for the conservatives to outline their extreme version of neo-liberalism—their agenda to boost inequality in Australia.

Having made these remarks, I would say that if the Prime Minister were being truly consultative then he would have listened to people such as the constituents of the member for Indi and would not bee seeking to reintroduce these measures at all. The feedback from the public, like the feedback from the Senate, is overwhelmingly against the proposals in this bill. This feedback was reinforced yesterday by Peter Dawkins, Vice-Chancellor of Victoria University in Melbourne. I think this is particularly worthy of mention, because the member for Grey in his contribution asserted falsely that all universities support this reform package. Now, just leaving to one side the blackmail at the core of the proposition that has been put to universities through this bill—the cuts needing to be made up by fee deregulation being the government's effective proposition to those universities—I remind the member for Grey and members opposite generally that the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Canberra has consistently been a brave voice for reason and for equity in this debate and has spoken against the reform package, and he has been joined powerfully by the Vice-Chancellor of Victoria University. In an article titled 'Abandon full fee deregulation, says Victoria University VC', published in the Age on Monday, he says:

The federal government's initial package represents a radical move toward deregulation, with minimal safeguards against associated risks.

He calls on the government to look to a range of compromise options, and he goes on to say:

A range of economists and higher education experts, myself included, have pointed out significant risks with the current proposals …

So we see another vice-chancellor speaking for his constituency and against these egregious proposals from the government.

I think it is worth spending a bit of time outlining what is contained in the legislation that is before us. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003, the Australian Research Council Act and some related legislation to—leaving to one side some uncontroversial matters—provide for a range of budget announcements. Again, these announcements were unknown to anyone until the handing down of the budget that continues to dominate Australian politics nearly a year after its introduction. Fee deregulation is at the heart of this proposal. It is effectively a proposal to boost the Americanisation of our higher education system and perhaps, for members opposite, to boost the Americanisation of our society as well. I think it is worth briefly touching on the US experience, where we have seen, in recent years, massive increases in fees and a significant decrease in participation as well as some evidence suggesting that the quality of these extraordinarily expensive degrees is going down, not up. Again, in considering the package, fee deregulation cannot sit alone; it is inextricably tied to the 20 per cent cut to the Commonwealth Grant Scheme for undergraduate places, taking $1 in $5 out of the support in the system. It does not end there, because it is accompanied by further cuts: cuts to Australian Research Council grants and cuts to the Research Training Scheme. These are very, very radical changes that will do nothing to boost participation in our education system and will do nothing to improve its quality.

Labor opposed this bill last year, and we still oppose it. The fundamental reason for this is pretty simple: it is about fairness. It is also about our sense of the Australia that we would like to build and we would like to shape. It is about equipping Australians to face the future and ensuring that all of our talents are maximised. This is at risk through this package of so-called reform. Labor believes that a person's intellect and their hard work should determine whether or not they can go to university, not their bank balance or their ability to service a six-figure loan—leaving aside, once more, the question of the deterrent impact on a range of communities of the prospect of these kinds of debts. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, and it is worth repeating:

Labor will vote against these cuts to university funding and student support. Labor will not support a system of higher fees, bigger student debt, reduced access and greater inequality. We will never tell Australians that the quality of their education depends on their capacity to pay.

Access to education is not just about your ability to take out a loan; it is also about your ability to service this loan. It is true—as members opposite have reminded us in this debate and, no doubt, will continue to do so—that Labor introduced the Higher Education Contribution Scheme, but we did so with fairness in mind. The evidence supports this. The evidence speaks very differently to this radical fee deregulation. Labor struck the balance between affording access to higher education to the greatest number of people—through the Dawkins reforms and those reforms which were continued under the Rudd and Gillard governments—while keeping this access affordable. In the last government, Labor removed the cap on student numbers, to complete the Dawkins project—and the Whitlam project, indeed—of affordable access. Again, it worked. The jury is in: a record number of students are enrolled in universities—especially first-in-family students—not weighed down by six-figure debts and not deterred in the first place by six-figure debts.

I have previously spoken about Nick, a constituent of mine who is a graduate of the University of Melbourne working as a research scientist. Nick wants to pursue a PhD in immunology, where he could further contribute his skills, expertise and knowledge to the Australian society. As Nick put it:

Cuts to education would mean that instead of educating the best and brightest here in Australia, they may either go overseas and never return or, they are discouraged from higher education, meaning they may never reach their full potential, or are prevented from contributing significantly to Australian society.

These cuts, in effect, would stop me from being the best that I could be, not for myself, but for Australia.

Let us all think a little bit about Nick and all of those like him. Let us think about the life course that is being reshaped and think about the advances that we may be forgoing in immunology by denying him that pathway. This is particularly ironic, because the one bit of good news, allegedly, in the government's broken budget is this Medical Research Future Fund. But, while the government cannot even articulate how that fund would work or what it would do, the one thing that we do know is that the government is cutting off its nose to spite its face. It is talking about high-end medical research while denying students the capacity to go into those graduate degrees that will equip them to be the researchers of the future.

Nick's concerns are echoed by the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations; by the Australian Academy of Science, who touched particularly on the impact of the efficiency dividend on ARC grants as well as the implications of the increase of fees and introduction of fees for PhDs by research; and also—importantly, I think—by the Australian Medical Association, which turns to the devastating and lasting effect that these changes will have on the size, shape and distribution of the future medical workforce, saying:

There is a real danger that significantly higher fees and student debt will force graduates to pursue their careers in the highest-paid specialties in the capital cities.

Perhaps that is a matter that some of the members of the National Party might want to have regard to in their contributions in this debate.

I turn back to Nick, because he contacted me very recently to tell me that one of his colleagues in medical research has decided to move out of Australia to continue his research career because of the toxicity and contempt that the Liberal Party is demonstrating towards medical research and science through these so-called reforms. This is a loss to Australia that is entirely at the feet of this government. It is just one story but one that I have no doubt is being replicated across Australia. And to what end? What exactly is gained by putting in place impediments and burdens for people seeking to pursue higher education?

Since the budget I have visited a number of university campuses across Victoria, and the response from staff and students has been the same: they do not support these measures. On this side of the House we stand with them. We recognise we live in a society where not everyone gets the same start in life, and this is where government can, should and must play a vital role in helping people make the most of their abilities, not loading them up with debt sentences. When we do this, we all benefit. I fear this is something members opposite cannot comprehend. Their Liberal ideology's basic assumption is that everyone just comes from money and, if you do not, that is too bad.

This debate is, as I said earlier, this government and its rotten budget in a nutshell for all those reasons of the failure of process that lie at the heart of this government's chaos and dysfunction but also in substance. I am very proud to stand here with my colleagues and give voice to the concerns of students and staff today and to share with the House the concerns that students today have for their brothers and sisters and students who may not have the chance to follow them, who may not have the opportunities that I have had, that the member for Rankin had and the member for Perth had to maximise our talents through accessible higher education.

What a contrast we have here with Labor's strong record in making tough decisions and doing real reform to open up higher education. We will continue to always stand up for affordable, accessible, quality education for all and we will continue to oppose this regressive, egregious legislation.

Mal Brough (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As has been pointed out, this is the second time this bill has been back to this House because it was obviously rejected by the other place. I preface my remarks by reflecting on the member for Scullin. I hope he takes the time to spend just a couple of moments with me. I do not say that in the negative sense at all. He just talked about loading people up with this massive amount of debt and how unreasonable it is. I remind the member for Scullin that today—or June 2014—all Australians state and federal had a gross debt of $497 billion which we all have to pick up. A state tax comes out of your left pocket but is your left hand, and when it comes out of the federal pocket they tell you you can have the privilege of taking it out of your right, but it is still the same bunch of taxpayers. That is going to grow to $694 billion.

In particular the member for Scullin talked about the proud record of the Labor Party, and they do have some very proud records in the area of education. I stand here saying I would love to see free education, free medical systems and higher pensions. We would all love to see that. But I would also love to see who is going to pay for it, because that is where the rubber hits the road. For the member for Scullin: whilst you have a proud record, are you also proud that, since the 2011-12 Labor budget through to the 2013-14 Labor budget, up to the year 2016-17 the measures that the Labor Party put in place whilst in government totalled a reduction in higher education support of $6.652 billion? Isn't it just a tad hypocritical to say: 'We are the righteous. We are those who are for free education. We don't want to load people up with debt'? None of us want to load people up with debt. The reality is that one of the reasons we are looking at health reform, education reform and reform in the welfare system is that the path we are on as a nation is not sustainable. I appreciate the member for Scullin having taken that couple of moments to spend time with me; thank you so much. I hope you go back to your suite and ponder as I now run through some of the many benefits that you inflicted upon the higher education system here in Australia over the last few years.

I understand why. Whilst on one hand the Labor Party says that debt is really bad to load on the individual, the former Treasurer, the member for Lilley, says debt is good. So is public debt good and private debt bad? If that is the case, I remind them it is the same private citizens of Australia who have to meet their own household debt as well as the public debt. Today, as the Treasurer has been reminding this place, we are spending $100 million that we do not have each and every day of the year. We are borrowing it. Some of that is in the area of health reform.

You would believe, if you were listening to this debate, that students at university are going to go from having absolutely free education with no requirement to make a contrition to somehow having to pay for it all. To the members of the gallery who have been listening to this, probably somewhat bemused: today the taxpayer—you sitting up there and me—pays 60 per cent of every person's education at university. And, glory be, the student, having graduated, having picked up a job that is earning more than $50,000 a year, starts to make a small contribution. If they never actually make that money, they do not actually pay it back. What is being proposed here is that it will go from a 60-40 split to one where the student—and I am not privileged to have a university education—will now pay 50 per cent and the taxpayer will pay 50 per cent. How dreadfully unfair is that!

It is not like the American system, where you pay it back the day you leave university. It is not until you are actually earning a sizeable income, knowing that you are likely to be earning at least $1 million across the course of your life as a result of that education that has been kindly contributed to by general taxpayers who have not had the privilege to go to university. We are saying, 'Let's make it sustainable and let's share equitably and equally in the cost of that education.'

Let's ask ourselves why the Labor Party felt it necessary to take $6.6 billon out of the higher education funding envelope over that period of time. It is because we are on an unsustainable trajectory. What I would like from those opposite if we are going to have a debate—if this is going to be a debating chamber rather than a slanging match and seeing who can throw the most mud—is to ask what the alternatives are.

I was in this place in 1997, which seems like eons ago now. At that time, under the Howard government, we proposed to introduce bonds for people going into high-care aged care. This was not a revolutionary policy because bonds already existed for people who were going into aged-care facilities that were low care. The Labor Party sniffed the breeze and went, 'We are on a winner here; we can kick the bejeebers out of that horrible coalition for asking people to make a contribution when they are frail and going into high levels of aged care.' They won the debate; it was the public who lost. They won the debate and we retreated from that position. So you can imagine my surprise when, having come back to this place in 2013, I turned up to a meeting on health reform—and I was still in the Dark Ages, knowing that only some people pay to go into aged care—to hear this: 'No, no. On 1 July, it is all in; high care, low care, it is all the same now. Everyone pays a bond.' I said: 'No, you've got that wrong. The Labor Party would not allow that in a pink fit.' 'Oh yes,' said Jenny Macklin, the minister in the last Labor government, with the support of the coalition. Why did we support it? Because it was responsible. Why? Because it was necessary. Why? Because it was actually equitable. We supported a Labor policy that was almost identical to that which was proposed in 1997-98 and was rejected by the Labor Party for base political reasons.

The debate we are having here today is going to be rejoined in the years to come. There is no doubt about that. If these measures are defeated in the Senate, the debate will come back—because it has to come back. You cannot borrow $100 million a day from the next generation, beleaguer them with debt and say, 'That's good enough; we have abdicated our responsibility.' So to the next Labor speaker: I invite you to take up the challenge and say why you felt it was necessary to have an efficiency dividend, raising $902 million, in your 2013-14 budget. Why did you think it was necessary to remove the 10 per cent HECS-HELP discount and the five per cent HELP repayment bonus from 1 January 2014, for savings of $276 million? Why did you think it was necessary in the same 2013-14 budget—we are not talking years and years ago now, we are talking about five minutes ago—to remove the conversion of Student Start-Up Scholarships and student loans at a saving of $1.182 billion? Why, in the same budget, did you put a cap on the tax deductibility of self-education expenditures, saving $514 million? I go all the way back to the removal of the HECS-HELP discount voluntary repayment bonus in 2011, for savings of $607 million. Would the members opposite like me to go through every single one of these so they can develop their arguments as to why they were necessary, equitable and reasonable, and why they were not attacks on the higher education system? Or is it just that we want to stick our heads in the sand and pretend the reality of the debt that we are lumped with as a nation is a mountain we will all have to climb?

I am not saying to the Labor Party, 'You were wrong in doing those things.' I am saying that you were wrong today not to have alternatives and proposals that you could argue and articulate. You could use your intelligence and your university educations to come in here with your research and tell us what other alternatives there are to make sure our higher education scheme is sustainable. It is essential to us.

The Sunshine Coast university is a wonderful institution. It has more direct contact with students than virtually every other university in Australia. We have more students going to university today than ever before because the Labor Party uncapped those places, meaning that the funding that was contributed from the Commonwealth was also no longer capped. If that is going to be sustainable we have to make sure it is paid for. These are the real questions of this government, this parliament and this nation as a whole. It is not for one side or the other simply to say no. We need to work together in the interests of the nation to ensure that our medical system is sustainable, our health system is sustainable, our welfare system is sustainable, our roads and our Defence Force are sustainable—all of those elements. It is just that, when we come to who pays and how that is achieved, people do not just differ; some say, 'Not me, not today.' That is not an option. It is today. Surely that is why we asked to be elected to this place—so that the generations before, who actually enjoy the freedom of the nation and the largesse of the nation, have an opportunity in the future not to be paying for what we have enjoyed.

The Treasurer said that every man, woman and child is going to have a personal debt load, if extrapolated across the whole community, of something in the order of $25,000 per person in the near future. That is a debt load, but you do not have an income if you are a baby, a preschooler, a primary school student or any student. So let's get real about this. If you do not like these reforms, fine. Articulate a clear alternative. Do not stick your heads in the sand. Do not run away and then start bringing in $6.6 billion worth of cuts to higher education and say, 'Everything is all right here. It is okay. Nothing to see,' because that is the Labor way. Labor likes to talk a really good story. It likes to pull the heartstrings of people about free education and the opportunities of the individual but it does not want to acknowledge the hard fact that this nation has to pay its way. The Treasurer, the Prime Minister, the front bench and everyone who sits on the opposite side acknowledge that challenge. We understand that higher education reform is a critical component of it. We will fight for it because equity is not only for today, it is for tomorrow. That is our duty as parliamentarians, no matter what side of the chamber we sit on.

These reforms have now been to this place twice. If they do not come back again, it will then be upon us all to find additional new reforms which can take our education system further forward and ensure the young people who aspire to a higher education have real opportunities into the future. That is the task before us.

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

Before I get into the substance of the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill, can I acknowledge the fine young Australians who have joined us in the galleries today from schools elsewhere in the country. Their presence in this place does really focus our minds on issues of the future. We welcome you. Thank you so much for joining us here in the parliament in Canberra.

We are, of course, talking about the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014 and the various associated amendments moved by crossbench senators and the government. As the previous members have said, this is the second crack the government has had at this legislation. We are in this position and talking about these matters today because the Labor Party and the Senate did absolutely the right thing when we rejected this bill last year. We represented the views of students, parents and experts who know this is all about narrowing the life choices available to so many young people, who now baulk at paying $100,000 or more for a university degree. We will reject it again.

This is an issue very close to my heart. My upbringing and the community I grew up in—and represent now—has taught me the power of higher education as a major contributor to social mobility in this country. These are not issues of politics, for me, these are fundamental issues of principle and policy. I will talk about these principles and that policy today as I move through aspects of the bill.

The first thing to understand is that the difference between the first bill and the second bill is minor. The bill we are debating today is really a tinkered version of the first bill. It is still chock-full as it is amended, full of cuts to the sector and full of increased fees for our young people. For example, there are still $1.9 billion in cuts to Australian universities. There are still $171 million worth of cuts to equity programs. There are still government fees for PhD students. There are still those $100,000 degrees for undergraduates. Those are not opinions in this debate, those are facts. That is the magnitude of the cuts and the magnitude of the increased fees. The massive cuts to our most important institutions of higher education remain. Nothing of substance has changed, so Labor's position on this bill remains unchanged.

From time to time, those opposite like to quote vice chancellors from around the country who have come out to support one aspect or another of their proposed changes. It is worth pointing out that some of them have been forced to do so by the magnitude of the cuts. If you take a lot of money out of the university system, a lot of the comments—that those opposite quote back at us—from vice chancellors are because their hands have been forced by the size of the proposed cuts. They are therefore looking for other ways to pay for the courses that they offer.

I was fortunate to listen to the characteristically great contribution by the member for Scullin, and a lot of other people on my side have made valuable contributions to this debate. I will focus on the three major reasons that I will not be voting for the government's bill this second time round. The first one is the bill's fundamental problem in limiting options for our young people.

The government's bill is built on a very different idea of Australia's conception, and that very different idea is probably why they are so on the nose in the community right now. They are attempting to create an Australia that is unrecognisable from the Australia that most people in our country cherish. One of the reasons it will be unrecognisable is that so many people from the regions or low SES areas, like the one I proudly represent, or even women—when it comes to repaying these big proposed HECS debts—will be marginalised. It says to the Australian community that we want higher education for a few of you, those fortunate enough to be from wealthy families and wealthy suburbs. The rest you need not apply. That is not the type of Australia we want to see here in the 21st century.

I mentioned before those equity programs that have been cut and how extraordinarily proud I am to represent a community that has a Logan campus off Griffith University, and I have spoken about Griffith in this place many times. I salute their work. I am very proud not just to be a graduate of Griffith but to have that Logan campus in my electorate of Rankin. One of the things I like most about Griffith University is the effort they put in to ensure that people who might otherwise be marginalised have the opportunity to participate in higher education and to graduate with a degree. They have so many programs, and I will not run through all of them. They have tremendous staff associated with those programs, particularly at Logan. They try to identify the barriers to higher education so that they can address them systematically and draw from the broadest possible pool of potential graduates to get that dynamism and creativity in our economy that comes from admitting more people into higher education.

One example is a tremendous program at Griffith called Uni-Reach, and I was really proud to present some of the Uni-Reach awards. These are given to outstanding students, usually adult learners, taking irregular pathways to university. They are really hardworking people. They have come across all kinds of barriers—financial hardship, family problems and other barriers—that have got in their way. There were some really inspiring stories at the Uni-Reach awards. I remember Kathleen McGrath, in particular. She completed grade 11 studies while caring for her family, including her two sons. She is working very hard. She hopes to study pathology at university.

Unfortunately, it is people like Kathleen who face barriers to higher education who will be hit hardest by the proposed changes to the bill. A lot of people have barriers to higher education. We should not be adding another one, which is making people baulk at those $100,000 degrees, and making them choose between having a house or an education, or having a family and an education. Those are the wrong choices for our community.

The second fundamental problem I will deal with in a bit of detail is this issue around access to the HECS-HELP scheme for New Zealand-born people in Australia. I have raised the issue before in this place. Part of the reason I do so is that I have a huge New Zealand and Pacific Islander community in my electorate. But that is not the only reason I raise it. I do not just raise it because nine of the 10 electorates with the biggest New Zealand and PI communities are in South East Queensland. Those are important representational factors, but there is a fundamental issue of justice here at play, and that fundamental issue is about creating a permanent underclass in our community. Under the current regime, not having New Zealand and PI kids able to access the HECS-HELP scheme means that they get to a certain point in high school where they realise that when they cannot access those schemes they would have to pay up-front, and that is not an option available to most people in my community—indeed, in most communities around the country.

The great Craig Emerson, my predecessor in Rankin, announced in April 2013 that we would fix this problem. Desley Scott, the former member for Woodridge, played a big part in that campaign to get that change made. A lot of people were excited in my community. A lot of people around my community raised it with me at graduation ceremonies. Unfortunately, even though it made it into the bill, the government refused to split that part out of the original bill that was rejected. That meant that the original time frame was not met. A whole year of kids with New Zealand and Pacific Islander backgrounds missed out on the HECS-HELP scheme in 2015—the year we are in now—because the government, for reasons that defy explanation as far as I am concerned, decided that they would not pull that part of the bill and pass it with our support. We are in a position where we need to see that part of the bill fixed, because we do need to offer pathways to higher education to people in our communities.

I urge the government again. I salute the work of Senator Carr in the other place and I salute the work of the member for Kingston, both of whom are trying to get this change made so that we can give certainty to a huge number of people in my community and around the country who want their kids to have the same opportunities afforded their classmates in the same schools.

The third broad area that I want to spend a little bit of time on is a fundamental question of the type of economy and the type of country that we want to create. We have huge challenges about the future economy: how do we diversify, how do we make sure we are in the innovation game and how do we make sure that we are teaching and training our young people to be really successful and to move up the value chain to do higher wage and higher skilled work? How do we give them those skills? I was at Calamvale Community College in my electorate not so long ago. Calamvale Community College is a tremendous school in my community with some great teachers—and parents and students, of course. They had a festival called the Dare to Ignite Festival, which was really about the jobs of the future, technology and how they get a slice of the action. So schools are thinking about these sorts of things. One of the problems with this bill and these changes that Minister Pyne and the government want to impose on the community is that they are limiting the choices of people who want to go to university and who want to have dynamic, creative and innovative careers, particularly as it relates to science, technology, engineering and maths. Those skills are really the skills that people will need if they are to occupy and to succeed in the jobs of the future.

In that context I was interested to hear a story today—I heard it on the radio on the way in and checked it out when I got here—about a PricewaterhouseCoopers report which warns us that Australia is at great risk of dropping out of the top 20 countries by 2050 because we risk failing to diversify and get a slice of that innovation action around the world. I want to read into the record what PwC's consulting economics and policy leader, Jeremy Thorpe, said:

We are on a slippery slope to global irrelevance, if you consider the size of the economy as the ticket to play.

It just puts pressure on us to have a long-term plan to be productive and to be innovative and to compete on a world scale even though we are smaller … We really need to have a long-term plan for innovation and that probably means investing in STEM: science, technology, engineering and maths.

Unfortunately, I read that with some interest because earlier on in the week I recalled a story in The Australian on Tuesday. The story said that science and engineering enrolments could fall and Australia's science research effort be hit hard if the federal government's plans to deregulate university tuition fees go ahead—that is what leading academics and science policy experts say. This story was all about how the government's proposal to cut its contribution to tuition costs by an average of 20 per cent from next year would affect science and engineering students disproportionately.

Bruce Milthorpe, the Dean of Science at the University of Technology, Sydney, said:

Science and engineering are among the ones that would get the really big cuts.

That is really dumb policy in a country like ours. With the challenges that lie ahead, you could hardly think of a more damaging economic policy than to limit access to kids from a broad and diverse range of areas, such as low-SES regions, and as many people as we can so that we are getting the best and brightest kids into our university system studying science, technology, engineering and maths and fuelling the economic growth of the future.

There are other issues that, if I had more time, I would touch on. I think that the scholarship scheme is largely a con. They are pretending that they are doing some sort of good for people from low-SES areas when in reality they are charging kids from low-SES areas more to subsidise those scholarships. Also, the structural adjustment fund I would touch on in more detail if I had time; it is fundamentally an admission of guilt about the sorts of cuts that they are making to the system.

For all of these reasons, this is why we stand with students, parents, so many people around the country and the people who work in our university system, particularly in those student equity services, to oppose this bill. We are the party of higher education. Even the member for Fisher, who is one of the more partisan people in this place, acknowledged that Labor has a proud record on education. He could not be more right. Just look at the last Labor government. It boosted universities' real revenue per student by 10 per cent, lifted investment from $8 billion in 2007 to $14 billion in 2013 and supported students with the Student Start-Up Scholarship. There are all kinds of success stories out of our Indigenous, regional and other programs. So we come to this debate with a very strong record. We want to assure people that we will continue to stand up for parents and students. I will continue to stand up for the kids in my community, who deserve an opportunity to go on to higher education.

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

I rise today in support of the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014. Success of our universities is paramount to the future success of our country. We live in a fast, changing and dynamic world. More than ever, our children must be provided with the skills to enable them to compete in this ever-changing global workplace. More than ever, our universities must have the shackles removed that hinder their ability to provide a dynamic education.

Let me explain. My father's father had a primary school education and a couple of trades—quite normal and acceptable for his time. My mum had a year 10 education; my dad, year 12—again, quite normal and acceptable for their times. My brothers and I all attended university. I went to the University of Western Sydney and studied business; my brother Stephen went to the University of Technology, Sydney for engineering; and my brother Glenn went to the University of Sydney to study commerce. Then my brother Glenn and I decided—perhaps it was sibling rivalry, perhaps a bonding experience—that we would embark on an MBA together. We both enrolled at the AGSM, or the University of New South Wales, and completed our MBA programs. Our decision to go into an MBA was completely based on the fact we had found that, into our 30s, we had reached a glass ceiling in our careers and needed to find another edge to continue our move forward. Comparing our experience to that of our grandparents, for my Pop Scott it was another trade to complement his workshop and for my Pop Allan it was more skills in his trades to enable him to climb the non-commissioned ranks in the Australian Army.

Even looking through my own educational experience, the method in which I have received education has diametrically changed over the last 37 years. Primary school was all about chalk, pencils, overhead projectors and a Commodore 64; high school was whiteboards, data projectors and Windows 2.1; my undergraduate degree was textbooks, CDs and a laptop; and finally, my MBA was iPads, electronic files, electronic notes, online forums, e-libraries and virtual work groups from across the country—all submitted though an electronic portal. My point is: the demands on the educational system to meet our communities' expectations are constantly, incredibly and increasingly dynamic.

The employment market is also dynamic and changing. So it is only logical that today's children in Lindsay will need different skills for tomorrow's workforce than those that are needed in today's. In fact, the jobs that many of our children will do have possibly not even been created yet.

The Penrith Business Alliance predicts that in 20 years time the manufacturing sector in our region will employ only five per cent of people in the Penrith area. Yet, as part of our growth centre objectives, the growth of our region is to move to concentrate more on jobs in the areas of health, education, technology and community service. We need reform to ensure our tertiary institutions are up to the job. We need to ensure that our tertiary institutions equip our children to perform these jobs and, in turn, secure the economic success of our region. We need to constantly reform and re-evaluate what we do to ensure that the kids of today are prepared and are keen to work across all of these growth sectors. And this generation of children needs a curriculum base that is going to prepare them for a whole new world and whole new fields to be opened up by our university sector. That is why this government keeps talking about the need for reform, and that is why the Minister for Education and Training is so passionate about taking this to a new level. He is looking at reform from the ground up.

At the other end of the spectrum is where our universities are heading right now. From my observations, they are signing deals today to feed into the innovation, health and community service sectors of tomorrow. The new courses and new fields—that I as a university student could only dream about—include fields like civionics, where civil engineering meets electronics. For my older brother, who went to UTS and has a civil engineering degree, these are quite exciting advances. Fields like these will revolutionise technique, our technology and the efficiencies of our structures. Yet a decade ago these fields did not exist. Our universities have to be entering and investing in new fields and signing new deals if they are to remain relevant and competitive with the rest of the world.

They have a further issue, and that is more and more student demand. Universities are becoming increasingly accessible and more people than ever are getting a tertiary education. In my parent's generation, very few people had a university experience. In my generation, around 50 per cent of people went onto university. Today university is available to anyone who wants to study and further their career. It is not the sandstone walled fortress it once was. And university has become more attractive to people—as they strive to deliver subjects that will help start students on their career journey.

That is all fantastic news—except for one thing: the money has to come from somewhere. Now there are different ways in which a university can achieve this, but let me say this: if we are to truly help them, we must cut the red tape and allow the university sector to compete for students in a world where they are not hamstrung by legislation. Some people say that is code for allowing them to jack up prices. And some prices may increase. But against that, other course costs will fall. The benefit of freeing up the system will see universities being better able to meet demand as well as being able to compete for students and to become more flexible as the nature of studies change.

One part of this debate that I do find interesting is where people refer to universities jacking up prices. The concern that I have is that really they are saying that universities are irresponsible organisations that really do not think about the needs of their students. I think that the vice-chancellors and chancellors across Australia find that quite offensive. To that end, the University of Western Sydney is one institution driving innovation and investment. In November, the university signed a memorandum of understanding with the Beijing University of Chinese Medicine as part of the landmark China-Australia free trade agreement. This relationship will allow for a new research-led Chinese medicine clinic in Sydney, better patient care and the potential for Australia to tap into the $170 billion global traditional Chinese medicine market. The aim is to encourage the use of complementary medicines as an alternative treatment in the doctor's surgery. The University of Western Sydney is the first Chinese-accredited organisation in the Western world to tap into this traditional Asian market, which is thousands of years old. It will create hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs, bring a skills revolution into the region and transform the way we here in Australia and the Western world—and more importantly for me, in Western Sydney—look at alternative medicine.

But it does not end there—the University of Western Sydney is also in a joint venture with the federal government with the development of the Werrington Park Corporate Centre. This building, currently in development, will bring 400 jobs into my electorate—and it is not just 400 jobs, it is 400 smart jobs in health and education. This great work cannot be simply undone by a system that is already in demand and covered in red tape.

With massive investments necessary—and costs rising—all sides of politics agree Australia's current higher education and research system is unsustainable. So how do you rein in these costs? The previous Labor government tried to deal with this by making cuts. They made no attempt to bolster revenue to universities in spite of knowing that more revenue was needed. In fact, under their watch the international education market is estimated to have fallen from $19 million in 2009-10 to $15 billion when they left office. This government wants to strengthen our higher education system and make it more sustainable in the long term. We believe the higher education system must be fair and equitable for all Australians and this bill ensures just that. We want to provide the system with Australian students, university ready. We want investment into world class research facilities in areas that will produce the jobs of the 21st century. We need our universities to be relevant. Within reason, we want to give our universities the power to compete and set their own fee structures. And we want students protected from unrealistic debt burdens.

This bill aims to spread opportunity to more students, especially disadvantaged and rural and regional students; equip Australian universities to face the challenges of the 21st century; and ensure Australia is not left behind by intensifying global competitions and new technologies. Students are big winners under this bill. This very important piece of legislation ensures that HECS will be kept in line with the CPI—this means that there will be no changes to the HECS indexation rate. The government also plans to introduce a five-year HECS indexation pause for primary carers of a newborn baby who are earning less than the HECS minimum repayment threshold, around $50,000. Government funding will also be available to eligible higher education students studying accredited undergraduate degrees at all approved higher education institution providers, including private colleges and TAFEs. This will mean an estimated 80,000 additional students will receive Commonwealth support every year by 2018. Plus there will be more scholarships on offer with a Commonwealth scholarships scheme where $1 of every $5 of additional revenue raised by higher education providers will go towards helping students that need help the most.

According to the 2011 census data, the most common occupations in my electorate of Lindsay include clerical and administrative workers at 18.8 per cent, technicians and trades workers at 15 per cent, professionals at 14.3 per cent, machinery operators and drivers at 10.5 per cent, and managers at 10.1 per cent. Most of these occupations require some form of study. This bill will allow more people from all walks of life to access adequate and fair education and gain the necessary skills they require to pursue a career of their choice—to access those smart jobs that are on their way to Lindsay.

I would like to talk briefly about the New Colombo Plan. Under the New Colombo Plan 95 students from UWS have secured opportunities to study overseas. Recently the Minister for Foreign Affairs came to meet some of these students. She has said:

… the New Colombo Plan has been raised as a great example of the connectivity that is required in our region, building government-to-government links, people to people, university to university, business to business.

The minister went on to say that we are investing in our students and we are investing in our future, and I agree with her. Investing in our higher education system is important for our future, for all Australians. In a world of growing international competition, Universities Australia has warned us about the risk of Australia being left behind. Currently our universities have limited prospects of competing with the best in Europe and North America and the fast-developing universities of Asia. Five years ago there were no Chinese universities in the top 200 universities in the Shanghai Jiao Tong index of universities. Today there are five. In the same period only one Australian university has entered the top 200, joining six Australian universities already there. We face the prospect of our universities falling behind, or we can do something about it now. It is essential that we look at how we can make our universities more competetive.

I see so much opportunity for the people of Western Sydney. I see the partnerships under which the University of Western Sydney has done so much to drive forward and create opportunities and jobs for tomorrow. I commend the bill to the House.

Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak again in opposition to the government's Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014. I spoke in opposition to the bill the first time, and essentially nothing of substance in this bill has changed. Labor's position remains unchanged as well, in opposing it. This bill is a fundamental attack on the right to access a decent education. This bill, like the last one, is in fact another broken promise. Prior to the last election, one of the promises that we heard was 'no cuts to education', yet now that is exactly what we are facing.

I would like to remind the House of the now Prime Minister's promise to Australian families and Australian students. In August 2013, in the last week before the election, the now Prime Minister told the Australian people that there would be 'no cuts to education'. In my area, we had all the National Party candidates running around saying: 'No cuts to education. None of that will be happening here. No cuts at all.' Yet look at what happened. The Prime Minister has broken his promise, the Liberal Party have broken their promise and the National Party have broken their promise yet again.

It is particularly hard for those people who live in regional and rural areas such as my electorate of Richmond. Locals on the North Coast are already under attack by this government's very cruel and unfair budget. We have already seen the government's plans for bringing in the doctor tax, for cutting pensions, for cutting family payments, for cutting very important community grants, for their petrol tax—and now they want to bring in extreme university fees.

I have pointed out many times in this House that, when it comes to representation in regional areas, there are vast, vast differences between members of the Labor Party and members of the National Party. The difference in relation to this issue is a massive one. It really goes to the core of what value you place upon education. Labor believes in the benefits of an accessible and affordable education regardless of where you live or how much your family earns. We think that people should have the right to access a decent education and have all the opportunities in life to follow the career paths that they have the capacity for. At the heart of it, we believe that a person's intellectual capacity and commitment should be the basis for determining their ability to get into university, not how much money they have to buy their way in. That is what Labor has always believed.

Whilst Labor is absolutely committed to making sure that everyone is able to access a decent education, wherever they may live, in contrast in the regions it is the National Party who are selling out rural Australia by supporting this legislation. When those National Party members come into the chamber and vote for $100,000 degrees, they are selling out people in their electorates. It is an absolute disgrace, and this issue will be one of the many that we will fight the Nationals on every day in regional and rural Australia. Make no mistake about it: families in my electorate on the North Coast will hold the National Party responsible for these extreme university fees.

This bill has a range of very harsh measures which will result in increases in university fees, including, firstly, the unrestrained student fees, or fee deregulation. This essentially removes the price controls for students' contributions to the cost of their degrees and allows universities to set much higher fees. Labor totally opposes this measure, as the removal of price controls means that university degrees will in fact dramatically increase—in some cases to $100,000. Currently the fees are capped, and removing the cap will cause the prices to soar. That is the reality we have seen in many examples overseas when similar deregulation has occurred.

We opposed this bill the first time and we continue to oppose it now, because the second version of this bill is still unfair and it is still wrong. It is wrong for the nation, it is wrong for families and it is wrong for students. The bill still contains $1.9 billion in cuts to Australian universities, $100,000 degrees for undergraduate students, $171 million in cuts to equity programs, $200 million in cuts to indexation of grant programs, $170 million in cuts to research training, fees for PhD students for the first time ever and $80 million in cuts to the Australian Research Council. These cuts will rip $1.9 billion from universities. The cuts vary across the disciplines and will come into effect in 2016. According to Universities Australia, the cost of courses like engineering and science will have to increase by 58 per cent to make up for this harsh cut. The cost of courses in nursing will need to increase by 24 per cent, in education by 20 per cent, in agriculture by 43 per cent and in environmental studies by 110 per cent.

We have seen so many people right across the nation opposing the government's unfair attacks on education. Certainly within my electorate many families have voiced their concerns. They oppose cutting public funding to undergraduate courses by up to 37 per cent. They oppose the $100,000 degrees. They oppose the Americanisation of our world-class university system. Australians oppose all these things because they understand the value of education and the value of our universities and they know that these cuts are incredibly unfair. Some of the greatest concern, as I said, relates to the $100,000 degrees. Most of the analysis agrees that student fees would need to go up by around 30 per cent just to make up for the Liberals and Nationals' funding cuts. And, for some degrees, that figure is closer to 60 per cent.

But, of course, this legislation would implement complete deregulation of student fees from January 2016, allowing universities to charge whatever they like. In fact, the University of Western Australia has already said it will charge all students $16,000 a year, more than doubling the cost of an arts degree overnight. Nowhere in the world has deregulation led to price competition and lower fees for students. It has not happened. In the UK, fees were deregulated in 2012 with a cap of 9,000 pounds. For the 2015-16 academic year, there will be only two universities, out of 123, that will not be charging 9,000-pound fees. So we see that nowhere in the world has it worked. We can look to the United States as well, where we know that university fee rises are completely out of control.

This attack represents a plan by this government to essentially make massive cuts to higher education funding and shift the shortfall of debt onto students. It means that the reality for families and young people is that they just cannot go to university. That is what I do not think those on the other side of the chamber understand. It means that families cannot actually get their kids to uni. Families have often told me that university is just not on their radar now for their kids and is just not an option for them at all. It means that fewer people from regional areas like mine, the North Coast of New South Wales, will just not get a chance to access higher education. I believe it is fundamentally unfair and cruel to deny those people from our regional and rural areas the opportunity to attain greater skills and greater employment prospects.

We understand how important education is. We see this government making cuts that harm young people, not just cuts to education but cuts across a whole range of different skills and training packages as well. We see so many attacks on our young people. There have been a range of harsh cuts that are really impacting and hurting our young people, from higher education cuts through to so many others.

We also saw in the budget the Abbott government cutting three really important youth unemployment prevention programs—Youth Connections, Partnership Brokers and the National Career Development Strategy. They were vital education and transition services for young Australians. That has had a huge impact in my electorate of Richmond, where a lot of young people relied upon those programs to get the training and the skills that they needed.

So we are seeing his government making cuts in higher education and also in very important skills and training programs. We saw them cut $2 billion from the skills and training sector, when they cut a whole range of programs, including programs like Tools for Your Trade, Australian Apprenticeships Access, Alternative Pathways to Trades, and Step into Skills. They cut $2 billion from the skills program.

We also saw the very harsh cut of $240 million from the Department of Social Services discretionary grants program. This has had a huge impact in my electorate also. We are currently seeing massive chaos and confusion surrounding this particular grants program. Many of those programs provided great assistance for younger people. There is so much chaos around this at the moment that many people have contacted me with their concerns about these vital programs that this particular grants program provided.

In fact, just recently I was speaking with the people from the Family Centre in Tweed Heads. They have a fantastic program in place called REALskills. This is one of those programs that is being cut. There is currently so much chaos and confusion surrounding the cut of this fantastic program. Again, this has impacts specifically on young people. This program—the REALskills high school program—occurred in our high schools. The Family Centre was able to work with a whole range of different professionals in our high schools, providing really important life skills and training for young people.

This government has axed that program—a program that made a difference in the lives of so many younger people. The program had run for 12 years and had recently received an award for the best community group at the Northern Rivers community sector awards. It is a program that is supported by all the principals in all the local high schools, and this government has cut it.

Locals are fighting back in relation to this and many other cuts. Specifically in relation to the REALskills program they have launched a petition on change.org, and I encourage people to go to that site and sign that petition. It is on my Facebook page as well. It is an important service that provides great skills for our younger people, and I will stand with everyone in fighting this government to make sure that we get funding back for that, and many other fantastic community based programs.

We have seen cuts not just to higher education but to skills and training, to important community based programs—all of which are really hurting younger people. I find it really hard to understand how members opposite—particularly those from regional areas—will be able to explain to their electorates that they are supporting and voting for these harsh measures in this bill today.

Members of the National Party represent some of the most disadvantaged areas within Australia, and they will have to go back and face people and explain to them that they essentially voted to stop their children ever being able to go to university. They will have to do that.

My message to the Nationals today is very specific and very clear: you cannot hide out on this one. When you come into the chamber and you vote in support of this unfair legislation, you are abandoning the people of regional and rural Australia, and you will be held to account, because these measures will make it more difficult for students from regional areas to attend university and will also make it a lot harder for regional universities to compete with larger, city based institutions. And these measures will make it harder for regional universities to remain viable in the face of some of these changes.

You can contrast all of the things that the Liberal-National Party government is doing with Labor's very proud record of investment in Australian universities. Overall, Labor lifted government investment in universities from $8 billion in 2007 to $14 billion in 2013. We certainly had a whole range of programs in place, and increased our funding. We boosted funding for regional universities by 56 per cent.

There are 750,000 students at Australian universities today, and one in every four of them is there because of Labor initiatives. We put 190,000 more students on campus. We boosted Indigenous student numbers by 26 per cent. We boosted regional student numbers by 30 per cent—a huge increase—and we have more than 36,000 extra students from low-income families in universities, compared to 2007. That really does make a very big difference.

We made it easier for younger people to study with student start-up scholarships, which helped more than 427,000 Australians with the costs of study. We introduced a relocation scholarship, helping 76,000 people leave home to obtain their degrees. So Labor has a very proud record in our investment in Australian universities and making sure that younger people can access university to get the very best start in life.

As many of us on this side of the House have said, a university education is a path to greater opportunity for individuals. Part of achieving that is through making sure that universities are funded properly. Funding universities properly is a major investment in our nation's future.

But the fact is that the bill we see before the House today is bad policy from a bad government. That is all it is. We have said on many occasions that will be opposing this legislation in the strongest possible terms. I am very proud to be here today opposing this legislation. I stand with my community in my opposition. Many people have approached me about how they feel about this legislation and their opposition to it. I will stand with the community in fighting to make sure that younger people—particularly younger people from regional and rural areas—have an opportunity to access university, because they have a right to be able to do that. They should not be disadvantaged because they live in regional and rural Australia. But this government, with this measure, and with so many other measures, are making it so much harder for regional families to get by day to day.

This bill takes away the opportunity for the children of rural and regional families to access universities and access opportunities into the future. That is why I am opposing this bill. That is why the Labor party is opposing it. Essentially, it is bad policy from a bad government.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, too, rise to speak on the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014, and join with colleagues from both sides of the House to put forward an argument.

One of the things this coalition government was elected to do was to right the ship with regard to the economic disaster that was left by the previous government. Part of that is making many things sustainable. 'Sustainability' is the word that should be applicable to this particular legislation. It is a word that those opposite have never seemed to understand, let alone put into practice, so I will take the time in this place to explain the concept carefully for them here today so that they can learn what it means.

'Sustainability' is defined as pertaining to a system that maintains its own viability by using techniques that allow for continual reuse. 'Maintain its own viability': that is what this government is trying to achieve by implementing a series of reform packages in this parliament across a range of portfolios. We are trying to ensure that the services and assistance that this government provides to Australians are not something that we will only be able to achieve this year or even for the next five years. We are trying to implement reform measures that will ensure sustainability can be guaranteed for the long term.

Those opposite like to philosophise about policies that create a better health system or a better education system, but they are philosophies that are based on an alternative world rather than the economic reality in which we live. For six years, the Labor Party based their policy decisions on a world where the government could afford to cash splash with no regard for the consequences. This coalition government, too, could sprout these little philosophies, but the difference is that we do not base our policy decisions on theory; we base them on fact, best practice and what is economically responsible for our future generations. We do not base them on unsustainable ideologies, no matter how great they sound. The reality of the world, if those opposite feel like finally sitting up and listening, is that the government is not, and was never intended to be, a never-ending ATM.

The government and its fiscal balance is intended to be utilised to support those who need them most as a means to provide vital services, such as national security and our national approach to policies such as health care, while also assisting each of the states and territories to deliver policy initiatives that they are responsible for, such as building new roads, infrastructure or hospitals.

The Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014 is one such reform initiative that this government has introduced to ensure Australia's higher education system remains sustainable. It is a bill that has already been debated in this place and even more so outside it in the media and in the community. As members know, a key feature of Australia's higher education system is its ability to be accessed by all. I am a firm believer that there should be no discrimination when it comes to any Australians accessing education of any form or at any level. When reviewing our higher education system specifically, it is clear that this government has continued this historic tradition by ensuring that all students can access higher education when they elect to further their studies beyond secondary school without having to make any up-front contributions. Instead, under the government's reform package, students will continue to have access to HECS and will not have to repay a cent until they are earning over $50,000.

I also highlight that on top of the HECS scheme which is provided by government, Australian university students only currently pay about 40 per cent on average towards the cost of their education, with the taxpayer paying the remaining 60 per cent. In today's economic climate, however, it is not possible for the government to continue sustaining these costs. That is why as part of the government's reform initiative to ensure HECS is sustainable in the long term, the government will ask students to contribute about 50 per cent towards the cost of their loan to create a much more balanced system. The government will also now be providing Commonwealth supported places for all Australian undergraduate students. This means that around 80,000 more Australian students per year will be able to access Commonwealth funding by 2018. This includes students studying diplomas, advanced diplomas and associate degrees, and bachelor and sub-bachelor courses at private providers, along with non-university higher education providers such as TAFE. Provisions in the bill before the House will also remove all FEE-HELP and VET FEE-HELP loan fees which are currently imposed on some students undertaking higher education and vocational education and training so that there is equality across all assistance measures.

As I said, the coalition government is one which is focused on improving access to our higher education system. That is why another key reform measure in this bill is to create new opportunities for students in regional areas and from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. We will achieve this through our new Commonwealth Scholarships scheme, which will require that universities and other higher education providers spend one dollar in every five dollars of additional revenue raised on scholarships for disadvantaged students. This will ensure tailored, individualised support is provided to these students, including needs-based scholarships to support students who require cost-of-living assistance.

As members are aware, these are important reform measures that have been introduced in this place previously. But I also highlight that there are a number of key amendments that are part of the current bill before the House that I would like to draw the members' attention to.

Contrary to what those opposite have tried to claim in the media, this government has conducted widespread consultation with industry professionals and has conducted good faith negotiations with those opposite and the Senate crossbench since the government first introduced these reform measures in this place in August last year. As result of these negotiations, the bill before the House proposes a number of amendments to the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014 that was first introduced.

The first of these amendments is to the indexation of HECS debts as per Senator Day's proposed amendment. Under this change, instead of moving to the 10-year bond rate, the government will be retaining the consumer price index for HECS debts. The government has also listened to and accepted Senator Madigan's amendment with regard to students who are primary carers of children aged under five accessing higher education. This amendment will introduce an interest rate pause for these students if they are earning less than the minimum repayment threshold, while a new structural adjustment fund will also be introduced to assist universities in transitioning to the new higher education model.

In addition to the Commonwealth Scholarship scheme already proposed under the government's reform package for the higher education sector, the government will also now be introducing a dedicated scholarship fund for those universities across Australia which have a high proportion of low-socioeconomic students. I highlight that these scholarships will be funded directly from the Commonwealth and will be in addition to the Commonwealth Scholarships already in place.

Of all the reform measures this government is proposing, however, members would be aware that the most significant change is this government's move to have higher education fees deregulated. This is the reform measure that universities across Australia have long been calling for, and it is the reform measure that is needed to ensure Australia's higher education system remains sustainable. The leading university in my home state of Western Australia, the University of Western Australia, has been vocal in its call for fee deregulation to ensure that the education our students are receiving is of a world-class standard, rather than our students being left behind because universities are forced to cut costs.

As the university's vice-chancellor, Professor Paul Johnson has previously stated:

The status quo is not feasible as it will over time erode the quality of our education and research activities - not a good position to be in when our nearest Asian competitors are investing so heavily in these areas.

This is a sentiment that I and this government understand, and we will continue to stand in this place to see it implemented.

Unfortunately, many of those valuable reform measures have been overshadowed by untruths regarding the cost of university fees if deregulation is implemented, and by the scare campaign from Labor and the Greens that Australians have witnessed in the media and in the community. This is despite the reality of fee deregulation already being revealed by universities across Australia, including the University of Western Australia. This university has now set its fees for 2016, which are less than half what is being claimed in the scare campaign of those opposite. The university has also already announced that they will target their Commonwealth Scholarships toward rural students, who will receive residential scholarships to support their studies while at university, which is directly in line with the scheme's intent.

Despite the fact that universities across Australia have already outlined why deregulation is needed—as has this government and many expert commentators, including the architect of the former Labor government's education reforms, David Gonski—those opposite refuse to accept that these reforms are necessary for the future sustainability of our higher education system. This is not really a surprise to anyone standing on this side of the House, because we know that although the Labor Party likes to claim that they are the education sector's friend and this Coalition government is the enemy, once again we need to step away from the fantasies of those opposite and take a long hard look at the reality. The reality is this: under the former Labor government, $6.6 billion in funding for higher education was cut, including more than $3 billion in their last year in office alone.

Just to add to those opposite's attempts to deceive the Australian public, a number of the cuts they proposed are the same ones they have now turned around and blocked in the Senate. This is exactly why those opposite cannot be trusted. They will backflip on their own policies if it suits their politicking of the day. I think even those opposite would struggle these days to justify why the cannot support their own previously-held policies and why they will not allow the Coalition government to get them through.

Despite those opposite, this Government has, however, once again listened to all concerns raised during consultations regarding safety nets for Australian students under a deregulated system. Further amendments to this government's original reform package have therefore been added to the bill before the House to ensure students are appropriately protected. This includes the government guaranteeing that fees for Australian students will be lower than international students' fees, and the government will also ask the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to monitor fees as the new system is implemented. These are important reforms that will further strengthen Australia's higher education system for the future, and I commend Minister Pyne for his efforts in negotiating these amendments for the benefit of both students and universities.

Another key aspect of the government's reforms is ensuring that as competition is increased under a deregulated system, students are more informed about the quality of education they will receive from a higher education provider. This will ensure universities put their best foot forward in providing high quality education and do not overprice their fees. New information will therefore be provided through the Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching, so that any member of the Australian public can assess the quality of both the courses and the institutions they are considering. This will include information regarding how successful previous graduates have been at finding jobs and what other students and employers think of the course. It is expected that a new website presenting this information, and much more, will be fully implemented by August 2015.

If the measures before the House are not passed in this place and the other, there will however be significant implications for other vital education initiatives that form part of this overall reform package. These include funding initiatives such as research infrastructure, through the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy, and our very important Australian Research Council Future Fellowships.

I do, however, highlight that I understand why the Labor Party continues to oppose the bill and funding for initiatives such as these. It is because they simply do not care about these initiatives, and, as the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding. Under Labor, not a single dollar was dedicated to the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy, beyond 30 June, and there were no funding provisions for any further Future Fellowships.

This Coalition government is the real friend of Australia's education sector. We have listened to universities across Australia, who have overwhelmingly called for fee deregulation, and, like many other initiatives that those opposite failed to fund in their own budget measures, we have again picked up their shortfall and ensured Australians do not miss out on the opportunities these education and research initiatives present.

To make Australia's higher education system sustainable in the long term, reform is needed, and the bill before the House will ensure best-practice measures, based on widespread industry consultation, are implemented. If those opposite want every Australian to continue accessing higher education in the future then I will provide them with the solution: pass the government's reforms in this place and the other. Alternatively, if they want our future generations to suffer and higher education to no longer be sustainable, then I tell those opposite: keep playing your political games and keep blocking this legislation, because every member in this place and the Australian public know that it is not for the benefit of students, as you like to claim; it is for your own.

If the claims being made in the scaremongering campaign of those opposite were remotely true, then universities across Australia would not be rejecting them. Mr Gonski would not be rejecting them, and Labor's own former education minister and Treasurer, the Hon. John Dawkins, who transformed Australia's university system under the Hawke Government, would not be rejecting them. These industry experts are rejecting the claims of those opposite because they know that the coalition government's education policies are the ones that will ensure our students are provided with a world-class education and that our universities do not fall behind other international universities.

As I said earlier, the government is not an ATM machine—no matter how many times those opposite tried to make the Australian taxpayer accept this during the six long years of their being in government. The coalition government is providing the necessary solutions to Australia's fiscal imbalance and we will continue to introduce solutions in this place that are in the best interests of the Australian people.

It is time those opposite got on board, stopped playing their political games and remembered that it is their children's and their grandchildren's futures that they are jeopardising every time they stand in this place and the other place to oppose another budget savings policy. Australia's higher education system needs to be sustainable, and the coalition government will continue to do everything in its power on behalf of the students and universities to make that happen. I commend this bill to the House.

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

I welcome the opportunity to stand on this side of the House, where we will oppose what was just called a budget saving policy because it is a budget saving policy, not an education reform policy. I have listened from my office to speaker after speaker trying to sell this lame duck to the Australian people. The Australian people have already rejected this so-called reform masquerading as a budget saving policy. I recall that, as a new teacher in the western suburbs of Melbourne some 30 years ago—I did the calculations this morning—a culture of university attendance for local students was low.

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

Order! It is now 1.30 pm, and the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the honourable member for Lalor will have leave to continue her remarks when the debate is resumed.