Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

The Government cutting billions of dollars from universities.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This government is cutting almost $8 billion from our universities. A country that wants a strong economic future and a strong future for its young people doesn't cut $8 billion from its universities. Almost $4 billion will be cut from university funding and another close to $4 billion will be cut from university infrastructure when the Education Investment Fund comes under attack by those opposite if they get their way. This government wants students to pay higher fees and to repay their debts sooner for a poorer quality of education. What a rip-off! It's no wonder that around two-thirds of Australians who were surveyed recently by Universities Australia are opposed to those university cuts and it's no wonder that people in South Australia and Victoria are particularly opposed. For the Liberals and the Nationals—for those opposite—every change to universities during their time in government has been about funding cuts. There's no reform agenda from those opposite. It's always about funding cuts. It's never about helping students.

But, if it's budget savings that those opposite want, we're here to help. We are. We're here to help. How about those opposite dump their $65 billion big-business tax cut? How about those opposite dump their tax cut for those on $180,000 a year or more? There's another $19 billion we can find for them. How about they join us in cracking down on negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions? There's $37 billion that they could save. There you go: well over $100 billion that we could save them if they took some of our sensible suggestions instead of slugging students once again.

We have been very proud of our record on universities from the Whitlam days onwards, where we made a particular effort to open university education to students with merit, to students who were prepared to work hard and study hard, who were prepared to be judged on their capacity for hard work and on their intellectual capacity, not on their parents' bank balance. That has always been our record. That has always been our approach to university funding, but it has not been the case for those opposite. Those opposite want to return us to a day where only the rich can afford to send their children to university. It's very interesting that they're saying, 'Oh, look at that, look at that: wasting money here, wasting money there.' They've talked about high salaries for vice chancellors—and, actually, some of those salaries are pretty eye-watering. Nothing those opposite are proposing will actually bring these salaries down, but they do want to give those people a $16,000-a-year tax cut on top of the generous salaries. So the only people in this chamber who want to see those on high incomes in the university sector do better are those opposite.

Those opposite have also complained about the money spent on advertising. Well, it is a little bit rich, isn't it, from those opposite, when they're spending $15 million promoting the Prime Minister's favourite slogan of Australia being an innovation nation? So they actually want to cut university funding that delivers innovation but they're prepared to spend $15 million advertising innovation at the same time—I'm sure I'm not the only one who sees the irony in that—or spend $3 million on the now-axed Green Army, or $10 million congratulating themselves on signing free trade agreements.

It is also a bit rich for those opposite to be complaining about universities, which are enormous generators of economic activity in this country and which are enormous generators of export earnings for this country, actually advertising what they do. In fact, Deloitte Access Economics says that university-educated workforce participation added an extra $140 billion to Australian GDP in 2014. International education is a $22 billion export industry for this country. So I actually think it's probably a good thing that we're advertising to attract more overseas students to come to Australia to participate in our excellent higher education system.

Universities directly and indirectly account for about 160,000 full-time-equivalent jobs. It's only those opposite who think that it's a bad idea to be promoting an important industry like that in Australia. We will continue to stand with students, with academics, with university staff and, in fact, with any Australian who's concerned about our future in opposing the cuts of those opposite, in opposing the fact that those opposite want to jack up student fees by 7.5 per cent.

Those opposite want to bring down repayment thresholds so that students who are currently repaying their HELP repayments when they start to earn $55,000 a year would start to repay instead at $42,000 a year, just $6,000 above the minimum wage. If you reduce the repayment threshold to $42,000 a year, what you are effectively doing is asking some young Australians, most often women—let's be frank about it—to face 100 per cent effective marginal tax rates introduced at this budget. Those opposite say it's unfair for people on more than $180,000 a year to face a tax increase because that's a 'success' tax. If you're on $180,000 a year and you have to pay a bit more tax, that is a 'success' tax that will drive educated Australians out of Australia. But if you're earning $42,000 a year and you've just struggled to put yourself through university, and you're hoping that you can get that higher-paying job to pay for yourself to move out of your parents' home, or maybe start to save a deposit for a house or maybe pay the rent, then that's not a 'success tax', that's just fair enough, isn't it? For those people paying 100 per cent effective marginal tax rates, that's just fair enough.

We know also that this government wants to cut funding from the Education Investment Fund. I have travelled around Australia and I have been to university after university where they have proudly showed me the excellent investments that have come from this Education Investment Fund, proudly showed me the difference that this investment has made in providing state-of-the-art buildings and facilities for students—not just for Australian students but, again, to attract students from overseas to study in our excellent institutions. Those opposite want to kill that as well.

There is no more important investment we can make than in our young people—as individuals, from the time of early childhood education, right through a decent school education, in post-secondary education, through TAFE and through universities. Every individual young Australian benefits when we properly invest in our education system. It's not just the young ones. We know that more and more today, Australians won't be doing one job through their working life and they won't be doing half a dozen; they'll have half a dozen, a dozen jobs, in several different careers throughout their working lives and they will need to train and retrain for those opportunities.

If we don't make those investments, we are leaving people behind throughout their working lives and we are robbing ourselves as a nation. Highly successful nations invest in their people, and one of the best investments we can make as a nation in our national prosperity is to have a highly skilled, high-productivity workforce that invents and discovers and innovates—one that uses all of the opportunities of the Asian century, globalisation, automation and artificial intelligence, not to impoverish our people, not to see them washed up on the shores of fate, but to use those great global trends to benefit our people. We can't do it unless we're investing in those same people. We rob ourselves as individuals and as a nation if we don't make these investments. And that applies equally to the wealthiest Australian and to the poorest Australian, because we know that intelligence is not captured at the wealthy end of our population but spread across it.

I'm proud of the fact that when Labor was in government we boosted Indigenous student numbers by 26 per cent, and that there were 36,000 extra students from low-income families. That's the sort of change we need to invest in. (Time expired)

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is an absolute delight for me to be able to speak on the MPI today. I absolutely support the reforms that the Turnbull government is making to higher education.

From a local point of view, the electorate that I represent on the Gold Coast has two universities. In fact, there are three universities on the Gold Coast: Griffith University, Southern Cross University and Bond University. And it's Southern Cross University and Bond University that are in my electorate of McPherson. Southern Cross University is a public university and it has been going from strength to strength. They have embarked on a significant building program, which has been in place for a number of years. They are doing a fabulous job in South-East Queensland, and also in northern New South Wales.

Bond University, a private university, is in the northern part of my electorate, and it has topped institutions from around the country to earn the highest level of student satisfaction. There are a number of criteria that are measured, and the indicators include the quality of the education experience, teaching quality, learner engagement, learning resources, student support and skills development. Bond University is an outstanding university, and it has significantly punched well above its weight for a number of years now. It is a university, clearly, that has high levels of student satisfaction. It is very well regarded in a number of disciplines, particularly law. So I congratulate Bond University. There are many things that I would say that the public sector could learn from Bond University and how it has developed and evolved over the years.

Australia does have a world-class higher education system. It's a modern and a successful system. We have 16 universities in Australia in the top 300 world university rankings for 2017-18, and our Australian universities support about 1.4 million students. Our higher education system provides job and career opportunities for hundreds of thousands of young Australians every year, and the reforms that this government has put forward will ensure that it continues to provide those same opportunities for generations of Australians to come.

Our reform package follows extensive consultation with stakeholders, and I really do congratulate the Minister for Education and Training, Senator the Hon. Simon Birmingham, because he has done a terrific job, making sure that he has consulted widely for well over 12 months, and the reforms that have been put forward are based on that very extensive consultation that he in particular has undertaken. Our reform package focuses on three key issues: improving the sustainability of higher education, providing more choices for students and increasing transparency and accountability. Our reforms are fair. They will continue to drive quality and excellence in higher education and ensure that Australians who want to study have the right support and the right opportunities.

The growth in both student debt and taxpayer costs is significant to us, and it's an issue that we have taken on board. The demand driven system has certainly led to a significant but unsustainable growth in higher education loans that has to be addressed, and our reform package clearly does that.

I'd like to put today's MPI into some context. There is legislation that's currently being debated in the House, and that is the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (A More Sustainable, Responsive and Transparent Higher Education System) Bill. That bill delivers on the Turnbull government's commitment to a stronger, more sustainable and student-focused system that preserves and expands access to education while, importantly, achieving savings that were outlined in the budget. I'd just like to go through some of the key features of the bill that is currently being debated in the House. There already has been some debate, and I understand that that will continue this afternoon.

The bill before the House rebalances the costs of higher education between the government and students by adjusting the relative shares of taxpayer contribution amounts and student contribution amounts for courses, whilst still ensuring that the majority—about 54 per cent, on average—of the cost of a degree is paid for by the taxpayers. It does introduce an efficiency dividend for universities, of 2½ per cent in each of 2018 and 2019, so that universities are sharing in the cost, along with students and taxpayers, of keeping the sector sustainable.

The bill lowers the Higher Education Loan Program, HELP, thresholds for repayment, and it introduces new indexation arrangements to encourage more of the $50 billion in loans to be repaid and to be repaid sooner. It strengthens the Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program, which supports disadvantaged and under-represented student cohorts to access and to succeed at university.

We will retain the demand-driven arrangements for undergraduate qualifications and we will extend them to sub-bachelor places, with significant safeguards to ensure quality and industry links. We'll provide a subsidy for units of work experience that count towards a Commonwealth-supported qualification. We're allocating subsidies for postgraduate places directly to students, rather than to universities, so that students can exercise choice in their provider. The bill does introduce performance benchmarks for universities, linked to funding, that increase transparency on how funding is used to support student achievement, and the metrics will be developed in consultation with the sector.

The key features of the government legislation are that it's a fair, sustainable package of reforms; there's no fee regulation; the helplines will stay; and accountability of higher education institutions will be increased with expanding access for students. Those are the key features of it. All of us in this House would agree that education is vital to Australia's future successes, but so is lower debt. The Turnbull government's reforms are focused on encouraging quality and excellence in Australian higher education. They ensure that students have the support that they need to succeed while also making sure that the system is sustainable for future generations so the students that are yet to come have the sorts of opportunities that this and other generations have had.

We're going to keep growing our record level of funding for higher education. However, it will be better targeted and provide equitable access for underrepresented groups. It will meet the needs of industry and the community and hold higher education institutes accountable for the taxpayer funding that they receive.

The reforms start from a clean slate. There will be no fee deregulation and no 20 per cent funding cut for universities. We've been through a comprehensive process, including a discussion paper that attracted more than 1,000 submissions, and worked with an expert advisory panel. Out of that consultation—and again I congratulate the minister—we have come up with a responsible suite of reforms. That's in stark contrast to the brash approach from the Labor Party when they were last in government and announced over $6 billion worth of cuts to the higher education sector.

We believe that this gets the balance right. We have a very high-quality higher education system in Australia, and it's important that we build on our current strengths. Education is our third-largest export, and higher education is a key part of that. I was recently in India as part of the Australian Business Week in India program, and it was very pleasing to see that there were a number of our universities at that forum. They were very focused on building opportunities for their university in the Indian market and also on encouraging Indian students to come and study here in Australia. To do that, it's very important that we maintain our high-quality higher education system and that we ensure—as we are doing—that the reforms we are putting in place will ensure that that system is sustainable into the future.

Emma McBride (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Rebalancing, efficiency measures, dressing up cuts as reform—the bill to cut university funding, currently before the House, is yet another example of the government dressing up its cuts as so-called reform. There are some $3.8 billion of cuts to university funding, cuts that come on top of cuts of $17 billion in school funding and cuts that come on top of cuts to TAFE of more than $2.8 billion, with further cuts of $637 million slated in this year's budget. These cuts aren't just numbers on a budget paper. These cuts are putting education and training out of the reach of the most vulnerable people in our community.

This government is cutting university funding, increasing student fees and hiking up student debt, forcing students to pay back bigger debts sooner. It is introducing fees for university-enabling courses that are currently free and that under these changes will cost a student $3,200. It is putting financial obstacles in the path of people who can least afford it—people starting out in life, people starting over in life and people who've never had a start in life.

I want to particularly focus on the government's proposed fees for enabling courses. Enabling courses are taken by some of the most disadvantaged people to give them the skills and the confidence they need to go to university. Dr Joy Christensen is a program convener for enabling education at the University of Newcastle Ourimbah Campus. Joy and I went to primary school together. I spoke to Joy this afternoon. There are currently more than 800 students enrolled. They are predominantly from under-represented backgrounds, low SES, regional and remote students, people with disability, people living with mental illness, and students who are predominantly the first in their family to go to uni.

This is what Joy said when I spoke to her today:

We don't want this pathway to be taken away. These students have so many obstacles already, the introduction of fees is a huge obstacle for them. The reason many of them are involved is to improve the financial situation for them and their families. They are taking time away from work, they are taking time away from their families and money away from their families to find out whether they can do this. They won't do it if there is a financial cost.

Joy says:

I am amazed what it has taken many of them to put a foot in the door—

to take a step on a university campus—

they have incredible potential. This program is life changing for them, their families and our community. It transforms lives.

Enabling courses are particularly important in my electorate of Dobell, where around 57 per cent of people of working age did not have the opportunity to complete high school. At the Central Coast Campus of the University of Newcastle, around a quarter of undergraduate students begin their studies through one of these preparation courses. The University of Newcastle, under the government's cuts, will lose $63.2 million of funding over four years. In July, Labor's deputy leader and shadow minister for education, the member for Sydney; Senator Deborah O'Neill; Anne Charlton, Labor's candidate for Robertson; and I visited Ourimbah Campus of the University of Newcastle. I met with Dr Joy Christensen and Associate Professor Seamus Fagan, the Director of the English Language and Foundation Studies Centre, together with Open Foundation students Maureen and James and current Newstep student Claire.

The story I will share with you now, Jackie's story, is typical of the stories that we heard that day. I spoke to Jackie's sister, Sam, today. She gave me permission to speak on behalf of Jackie. Jackie started Open Foundation at Central Coast Campus this year and wants to be a teacher. Jackie finished high school without an ATAR, fell pregnant at 19, is a mum to three children and at 29 years old was working in a bakery earning $15 an hour. Jackie is doing it tough: her middle child, Ryan, has autism and started kindergarten this year. If Jackie were charged $3,200 up front she couldn't start Open Foundation. She wouldn't have taken the first step to a better life. This is unfair. The enabling course is a perfect introduction to a degree. It gives people access to the confidence and support that they need to be able to make a decision, when all they have been told is that they are not good enough, that this is out of their reach.

This is unfair. These cuts must be reversed.

Damian Drum (Murray, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whilst the heartfelt message of the previous speaker, the member for Dobell, indeed reflects a very serious situation, the fact remains that these reforms to higher education do not represent cuts to the university sector at all. What we are in fact seeing is that the $17 billion for higher education that we currently have in 2017-18 is going to grow by 23 per cent over the next four years, the period that we have in the out years on our forward estimates in our budget. In a sense, this is typical Labor Party posturing whereby they can somehow or other see a 23 per cent increase in university funding as a cut.

This government has been able to work through this reform process knowing that education accessibility not just in the cities but also in regional Australia is critically important. The government recognises that a gap does exist in university provision for remote students, who may wish to remain in their local areas so they can complete their studies where they have grown up. As part of the higher education reform package, the government will provide $15 million over four years to assist with the establishment and maintenance of up to eight community owned regional study hubs right across Australia.

Regional study hubs will provide infrastructure such as study spaces, videoconferencing, computing facilities and internet access as well as pastoral and academic support for the students studying via distance at partner universities. This support, provided by the regional study hubs to students, will address the government's aim of improving accessibility to higher education for students from rural and remote communities. In addition, regional businesses and employers will benefit from an increased pool of skilled graduates in their regions.

In my electorate of Murray, the coalition government has recognised a need to invest in higher education as well, with the University of Melbourne contracted to receive funding of $38.9 million for the period of 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2018 through the federal government's Rural Health Multidisciplinary Training Program. The University of Melbourne's rural health department will operate across a range of locations in regional Victoria, and its main campus, based in Shepparton, will therefore be a major beneficiary of this funding. As a previous speaker from the coalition mentioned, in the last three years of the Labor government, they proposed to cut more than $6 billion from higher education and research and also introduced the 3.25 per cent efficiency dividend. So, as a regional overview of these reforms, this portfolio supports the Australians living in rural and regional communities through a range of programs.

We also see the HEPPP will be reformed to deliver three funding streams to universities: a loading for each eligible SES student; performance funding based on success rates of low-SES and Indigenous students; and a national priorities pool to give a greater focus on rigorous evaluative research and to encourage collaboration between universities. The Australian government is also going to commit $24 million over four years for the Rural and Regional Enterprise Scholarships program, which will support 1,200 regional and remote students to undertake science, technology, engineering and mathematics. The scholarships are for undergraduate, postgraduate and vocational education students, and they aim to improve access to educational opportunities for regional and remote students.

Students in the regions will also continue to benefit from the investment of more than $280 million over the next four years through regional loading to support the cost of educating students in regional and remote Australia. We understand that over the last few years taxpayers have been funding education, which has grown at 71 per cent under the demand-driven system for higher education since 2009, and that this rate has been twice the growth of the economy. (Time expired)

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

The issue of debate before the House today is really one of those that encapsulate the lack of vision that the coalition government has for our nation—the short-sightedness, the smallness of ambition. When the Prime Minister challenged the member for Warringah for the leadership of the Liberal Party, he promised a new style of leadership that explained the challenges facing our country and how to seize the opportunities that were open to us. The Prime Minister promised advocacy, not slogans. Instead, this week he's given us name-calling and buck-passing on energy policy, and billions of dollars of cuts from our universities.

These cuts are dumb cuts. There's almost $4 billion of cuts from universities over the next five years in a bill before the parliament this week, including nearly $40 million in cuts over four years from Victoria University in my own electorate. Almost $4 billion is being cut from university infrastructure funding from the Education Investment Fund. And this government's billions of dollars of cuts to our universities represent a double whammy for Australia's economic growth prospects, as they undermine the future of one of our strongest performing export industries and sabotage an engine of economic opportunity for young Australians.

Education is one of Australia's strongest export industries. In fact, in the 2015-16 financial year it was worth about $21 billion—seven per cent of our total exports and about 30 per cent of our services exports. It's one of the few non-commodity bright spots in Australia's trade performance in Asia. But this is an export industry that's built on quality; it relies on Australia's brand as a prestige provider of higher education services, as a high-value exporter of university education. We should not be complacent about our ability to maintain this brand in our region. Australia is already facing increasing competition on this front. The top five source countries of international students in Australia last year were all Asian nations: China, Singapore, Malaysia, India and Vietnam. Yet these are the same nations that are investing heavily in their domestic higher education institutions and they are making significant strides. In 2007 there were just eight Asian universities in the QS World University Rankings, formally the Times Higher Education World University Rankings. Ten years later, another four Asian universities have joined them and entered the top 50. Now eight of these top 50 Asian universities are from those five largest source countries for international students at Australian universities. Competition is accelerating for this important export industry. Indeed, just this month we saw Tsinghua University in China move past Melbourne University in these rankings. Unless we invest in the quality of this important sector, our competitors in the region and our biggest export customers will quickly close the gap. Indeed we have already heard warnings from the sector that the government's cuts are a wrecking ball which threatens to demolish one of the best university systems in the world. We cannot be complacent about this golden goose of Australian services exports.

These cuts are also a blow to the important engine of economic opportunity for Australian kids. I feel this acutely as a representative of an electorate containing the University of Opportunity and Success, a Victorian university that has specialised in bringing through those first-generation members of families to attend higher education. These are the students who are most easily dissuaded, the most easily deterred by increases in upfront fees. That's why Labor will oppose the increases in fees being proposed by the government. We will also oppose the Liberals cutting the number of Commonwealth supported post graduate places and the changes to the payment thresholds.

But I want to draw particular attention to probably the meanest proposal in this package—that is, to increase the four enabling courses that are currently free but after these reforms, if they're implemented, will cost students $3,200 a year. These enabling courses are often taken by some of the most disadvantaged people, the most vulnerable trying to get their foot on the higher education ladder to give them the skills they need to go to university. As I say, I have spoken to many of these families in my community; it's not easy. It costs more. They need extra help, but the whole nation benefits when we succeed. The whole nation benefits when we expand access to higher education to more Australians. And that's why I'm extremely proud the previous Labor government got 190,000 more Australians into university.

When last in government, we on this side invested in the sector. We lifted overall investment in universities from $8 billion in 2007 to $14 billion in 2013 and this is the approach we will need if we are to secure the sector into the future. (Time expired

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, here we go again. We have the Labor Party coming in again claiming there are cuts. They normally put the word 'cruel' in front of them and talk about these so-called cruel cuts' that the coalition are making. We saw it during the end of the last session, where they talked about our alleged cuts to public schools. And I remember the member for Sydney standing at the dispatch box ranting and raving how they were going to pursue us everyday and tell the public about how we're making these cruel cuts to schools. And they have even threatened us with the bunting; that's right, they threatened the bunting in the election campaign. 'Not the bunting,' we said. But they threatened us with the bunting.

What have we heard since then from the Labor Party on schools? What have we heard? Not a beep. And why have we not heard a beep? Because their claim of cuts was completely debunked by the facts. As we know, truth is not something that we associate with those that sit on that side of the chamber. Now let's just have a look at the numbers here for higher education. Labor claim they're cut. The first thing I did was say, 'Let's look at the numbers and let's see where these cuts are.' Labor left office in 2013. We had $14.9 million in spending on higher education. In 2014, the first view of the coalition government, we increased it to $15.3 billion. No cuts there. In 2015, did the coalition make cuts? No, up it went again. It was $16 billion in 2015. So what about 2016? Was there a cut there?

No, there was $16.5 billion in 2016.    Perhaps there was a cut this year? If you listened or if anyone is listening in the parliament, you would think that we cut funding this year. What do we have, finally, with the numbers for this year? In 2017, we have $17.2 billion. In fact, the truth is that, this year, the coalition government is spending 15 per cent more than the last year of the Labor government. That's right. We are spending 15 per cent more than the Labor government were in their last year of government. They come in here and embarrass themselves by talking about cuts. What an embarrassment! They talk about cuts when the numbers show they are clearly increasing. Truth, like mathematics, is not something that is strong on the Labor side.

What about going forward? Perhaps there are some cuts going forward. Let's look at the numbers going forward? Remember, this year we are at $17.2 billion, 15 per cent more than in Labor's last year in office. For 2018, the coalition has budgeted for yet another increase to $18.6 billion. Up it goes again under the coalition government. In 2019, again, we've budgeted for an increase to $19.2 billion. And in 2020, yet again, there is an increase under the coalition to $20.2 billion.

So, this story that we hear about cuts over and over from Labor members of parliament is simply untrue. I could use another word that's unparliamentary. Perhaps you have to show intent for that other word, but I don't think the Labor Party actually do their homework. I don't think they actually look at the numbers. I think they just get their talking points from head office and mumble through their talking points: 'They're cutting, they're cutting and they're cutting.' They repeat like parrots. If they looked at the numbers and facts, they would see there's a clear increase under this coalition government.

We are doing the right thing by higher education. Changes need to be made because we have to make the system sustainable going forward. Yes, the end result is no student in this nation that wants to back themselves and get a higher education has to put one cent out of their pocket. The government will back them up-front for all their cost. On average, the government will pay 54 per cent of their cost of education. That is a pretty good deal. We are spending more money. There are no cuts. There is record funding going into higher education, and we're giving every student the opportunity to get into university if they want to back themselves without one cent coming out of their pocket. (Time expired)

Justine Keay (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Hughes says there are no cuts and he's accusing us of misleading the parliament. Universities Australia articles say 'Rankings highlight risk of uni funding cuts' and 'Science would be hardest hit by proposed university cuts'. It is Universities Australia and not the Labor Party. The actual sector is saying that you are cutting. You should do some research, Member for Hughes.

A pathway to higher education has never been more important for people living in regional Australia. In my electorate, we have so much to do to increase the number of people engaged in higher education. Torrens University Australia Social Health Atlases states that Braddon's school leaver participation in higher education, at an average of 18.58 per cent, is lower than the Tasmanian and national average. Respected economist and University of Tasmania Vice-Chancellor's Fellow Saul Eslake has previously said:

Higher levels of educational participation and attainment won't solve all of Tasmania's economic and social challenges—but they will make them less difficult to solve, not least by sustainably increasing the resources which can be used to solve them.

In my electorate, I have the Cradle Coast Campus of the University of Tasmania, which offers full and associate degrees. It offers a wide range of opportunities for postgraduate study and PhDs in agricultural science through the Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture. It works closely with local industry, delivering courses in partnership with the Tasmanian Manufacturing Centre of Excellence for advanced manufacturing in Burnie.

During the 2016 election campaign, the Leader of the Opposition committed $150 million to the UTAS northern transformation project, a project that will transform higher education in my electorate. It will offer even more opportunities for regional students and more study options. UTAS estimates the project will draw more than 12,000 new students and create 3,100 new jobs.

It is somewhat telling that the Prime Minister was shamed into matching Labor's commitments in the dying days of the election campaign. When it comes to accessing higher education opportunities in regional Australia, the coalition doesn't get it. What they do get is cuts to education. They have identified savings, which are cuts, and they certainly do not see education as an investment in our people and in our economy.

This Prime Minister wants to impose an $8 billion cut to universities, charge fees for university enabling courses and reduce the payment threshold for HELP. Overall, these cuts mean $51.3 million will be lost from UTAS. Former UTAS Vice-Chancellor Peter Rathjen has previously been on the public record saying that cuts to UTAS could threaten the future of regional campuses, particularly the Cradle Coast Campus.

These cuts have hit the Higher Education Participation and Partnership Program, HEPPP, which was introduced by Labor, hard. The Liberals and Nationals have already cut nearly $200 million from HEPPP. Under Labor, HEPPP increased Indigenous student numbers by 26 per cent and regional students by 30 per cent, and it supported more than 36,000 extra students from low-income families to attend university.

Embedded in these cuts is a cruel plan by the Prime Minister to start charging fees for university enabling courses. It is almost as if this government does not want to give aspiring students, particularly in regional areas like mine, even the opportunity to attend university. Universities Australia Chief Executive Belinda Robinson recently had this to say about the Prime Minister's cuts:

As our economy changes and old industries face new threats, Australia needs to keep—not cut—our investment in universities to create new jobs, new industries and new sources of income for Australia.

Ms Robinson's message is particularly relevant to the regions where local economies are in transition. Universities Australia also stated that, if the government's legislation and cuts are passed, STEM disciplines will take the biggest hit—35 per cent of the brunt of these cuts—and STEM students will pay higher fees.

Cutting funding, axing programs, putting up fees and reducing the payment threshold for HELP all combine to make it harder and put up more barriers for regional students to obtain a higher education. Young people in regional areas will have to wait for a Labor government to give them a better future.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's hard to know where to begin with this matter.

Mr Wallace interjecting—

You are right, it is also hard to follow the member for Fisher. It's hard to know where to start on this matter, because in the end what we have just heard is a sad, myopic understanding of what you actually need to deliver better education and—this is the critical point; listen to the words of those opposite—outcomes for Australian students. There was an obsession and a focus only on inputs, but there is no actual interest in making sure there are good outcomes for those people who go to Australia and invest in building their own career path, their knowledge and their expertise to be successful in life.

That's why I don't accept the terms of this proposition of the government cutting billions of dollars from universities, which the opposition is condemning. It's a completely ridiculous proposition. Firstly, it's not actually based on any evidence and it's not even true. In fact, what we know is that, during the final three years of the previous Labor government, it cut about $6 billion from higher education and research, including its cumulative 3.25 per cent efficiency dividend, which applied to research grants and the Higher Education Participation and Partnership Program. The government's proposed efficiency dividend does not apply to these programs, yet Labor now opposes a measure similar to what it announced in government, which goes to the heart of hypocrisy—let's face it.

More than anything else, it doesn't actually focus on outcomes: making sure that students who go to university get an education and get an improvement.

I'm not sure what the experience is of many members in this place in universities; but, having actually sat on the board of a university, what I know is that just handing out more and more dollops of cash to universities actually doesn’t improve outcomes for students. What actually—

An honourable member interjecting—

That's good; there are other members who apparently have been on boards. They might know the experience as well. But since I have been on the board of Monash University, in the great state of Victoria, I have seen firsthand how the myopia, dependence and chasing government money distracts universities from the core task of actually delivering outcomes for students. In fact, when universities are focused on delivering education services that people demand, and actually put them in the best position to go into the workforce to be able to live a successful life, students quite like it! They actually do understand. They understand, support and appreciate that you need to have equity measures and that, regardless of who you are—your background or your circumstances—if you have merit, talent and ingenuity and if you can make a significant contribution to this country that you can secure the opportunity for tertiary education.

Equity measures are appropriate to make sure that people do not face unnecessary burdens or limitations. That is why what Labor introduced—it was called HECS, and today is called FEE-HELP—still stands today. It doesn't matter who you are; if you are an Australian, you can go to a university and get FEE-HELP and support, and you can be in the best position to graduate. But there is a basic acknowledgement that if you are going to go through the process of getting that tertiary education—which is quite an expensive process for everybody, including Australian taxpayers who contribute a very substantial component of the costs of education—the benefits are both public and private. So the repayment has to involve both public contributions and private contributions.

But what we really need is a tertiary education sector that is export-oriented and focused; one that recognises the potential of the sector to grow and not just to provide services to Australian students—although that is an important part of it—but to be able to provide the services demanded around the world. That doesn't come from becoming lazy and sucking more and more money off the taxpayers' teat. It's about being—let's use those words—'innovative and agile', and being able to develop the sector that people want to invest in. This is at the heart of the criticism of Labor. They would prefer a system dependent on the government, not delivering improvement for student outcomes but delivering for the membership of the National Tertiary Education Union, who are the membership base of many of the people sitting opposite. In the end, they are not interested and have not focused in this debate on how we deliver better student outcomes. (Time expired)

Josh Wilson (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's interesting to reflect on the contribution from the member for Goldstein and how you can have two gents in this place with the same last name that bring very different perspectives to an issue like this. I guess if your perspective on universities is from having sat on a university board and if your approach to universities is in terms of the personal agency and resources that enable them to secure a university education and invest in a university education, then you might well take that approach.

But that is not the perspective of a young Indigenous woman who attends an at-risk high school that has an on-site childcare centre so that young pregnant mums can first finish high school and perhaps aspire to university. That is not the perspective of a young fellow I spoke to at an open office at the weekend, who can't see a way forward in his life. He doesn't understand how he is going to get an education that will enable him to participate in the workforce. He can't see how he will ever have the opportunity to buy his own home. So Labor understands that education has always been the great enabling force in Australian society; the great leveller and the key mechanism for delivering opportunity. And that's why we lifted investment substantially in universities when we were in government.

The member for Gellibrand talked about 190,000 additional students. That included 36,000 additional students from low-income families. It included an increase in Indigenous student numbers of 26 per cent and an increase in regional student numbers of 36 per cent. That's the commitment that we made, just like we make commitments across the full range of the education system, from early childhood and schools through TAFE and apprenticeships and university. From this government, those people who can't secure themselves a spot at university and who can't invest in a university place get $4 billion in cuts to funding. They get an additional $4 billion in cuts to uni infrastructure. They get fee increases of 7½ per cent. They get a lower HELP repayment threshold.

When I started university in 1990, it was the first year that HECS was introduced. The threshold was $22,000, which at that stage was 73 per cent of average earnings. The new threshold, down from $55,000 to $42,000, is less than half of average earnings. It's barely $6,000 above the minimum wage. Two-thirds of new university graduates will be women. Women face the worst of the rising inequality in this country. The gender pay gap is bad enough as it is. Even women with university degrees face a 10 per cent pay gap at the point of graduation, and these changes are going to make those kinds of inequities even worse than they currently are.

In Western Australia, we will see cuts of $75 million to Curtin University, $42 million to Edith Cowan, $26 million to Murdoch University, $50 million to the University of Western Australia and $19 million to Notre Dame, which has a campus in my electorate. The cuts to enabling courses are among the most terrible, short-sighted and mean aspects to these changes. Enabling courses help people who otherwise are very unlikely to go to university to have that chance. I know that's important in West Australian electorates like mine, and others. Murdoch's OnTrack program is delivered in the seat of Brand. Of the participants in OnTrack, 55 per cent are the first in their family to attend university and 56 per cent are from low-SES households, and the success of that program is such that 70 per cent of the people who participate in OnTrack go on to undergraduate enrolment. That's how successful it is. Those people now, instead of getting that assistance, face a $3,200 up-front fee.

This government is making a clear transition from ineptitude to outright harmfulness. Proper support of our education system from top to bottom is critical to our future wellbeing. This government, having walked away from needs based school funding, now seeks to squeeze universities and step down hard on university students. It's a recipe for economic harm. It's a recipe for sharply reduced opportunity and fast-rising inequality. It is a shame.

John Alexander (Bennelong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very happy to discuss this matter today. It is often said that Bennelong is Australia's capital of innovation. This has not happened by accident. It has come about through my electorate's commitment to, and investment in, the local university, which sits at the heart of our innovation district. I refer, of course, to Macquarie University. This university was first founded back in the sixties by a local council with vision to turn the pastures and orchards of Marsfield into a science based industrial area—an innovation zone, before the invention of the buzzword. It was an audacious move and no-one could see it turning into the fastest-growing corner of New South Wales just 50 years later. And here lies the point: knowledge is critical to driving our economic growth, but, in order to be these drivers, our universities must be looking to the far horizon, beyond the petty politics of parliamentary debates and the microscopic duration of election cycles.

Education is vital to Australia's future successes. This government's reform is focused on encouraging quality and excellence in Australian higher education and ensuring students have the support they need to succeed. But it must also make sure that the system is sustainable for future generations so that students yet to come have the sorts of opportunities this and other generations have had. That's why we're going to keep growing our record levels of funding for higher education. However, it will be better targeted and provide equitable access for underrepresented groups, meet the needs of industry and the community and hold higher education institutions accountable for the taxpayer funding they receive.

The reforms start from a clean slate. There will be no fee deregulation and no 20 per cent funding cut for universities. The department has been through a comprehensive process, including a discussion paper that attracted more than 1,000 submissions and worked with an expert advisory panel. Our higher education system is modern and successful. Across the country, we have 1.4 million students, 43 universities and 123 non-university providers. Education is our third-largest export earner and universities are an essential part of this market. And, importantly, graduates enjoy a sustained two to three percentage point advantage in employment rates. The system is in great health. Domestic undergraduate enrolments have grown 118 per cent between 1989 and 2015. However, as a result, taxpayer funding for Commonwealth-supported places in higher education has increased 71 per cent since 2009, effectively growing at twice the rate of the economy.

We must ensure our higher education system promotes excellence and innovation and is sustainable for generations to come. Our focus is on more innovative courses, greater relevance to industry, more transparency for students and more accountability for higher education institutions. We're rebalancing the costs between taxpayers and students to better share the burden and make the system sustainable into the future while ensuring government continues to be the majority funder of student loans. Students will not pay a cent up-front and no longer face deregulated fees. Instead, they will face a modest 7.5 per cent fee increase phased in over four years from 2018 to 2021.

I'd like to end by returning to my cutting-edge university. Our great university sits at the heart of Macquarie Park. The Hearing Hub and the headquarters of Cochlear are both situated on the grounds of the university, and these internationally recognised world leaders interact daily with the students at the university and the businesses at Macquarie Park. The teaching hospital is also unique in its structure and a great asset to our local community, as well as home to some truly revolutionary technologies and skills, not least the life-saving Gamma Knife.

The uni is a linchpin of a group called the Macquarie Park Innovation District. This is a group of companies dedicated to the innovation sector and aiming to increase the output of our cutting-edge suburb. They work together, they collaborate—companies, council and universities—to forward ideas, connect people and design our future. This is how universities should be: not isolated, stuffy or siloed but rather a dynamic part of an innovation and entrepreneurial community.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for this discussion has concluded.