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

I move amendment (2) circulated in my name:

(2) Schedule 3, page 40 (after line 7), after item 35, insert:

35A At the end of section 154 -15

  Add:

(3) In working out a person's repayable debt for an *income year for the purposes of section 154-20, ignore any part of the person's *accumulated HELP debt referred to in paragraph 154-1(1)(b) in relation to that income year that relates to a unit of study undertaken on a regional campus, unless the person's *repayment income for the income year is $56,205 or more.

(4) A unit of study is undertaken on a regional campus by a person if:

  (a) the person is enrolled at a particular campus to undertake the unit of study; and

  (b) either:

     (i) during the year in which the unit of study is undertaken, a regional loading was payable to the higher education provider in respect of the campus; or

     (ii) the Minister determines, under subsection (5), that this subparagraph applies to the campus for the year in which the unit of study is undertaken.

(5) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine that subparagraph (4)(b)(ii) applies to a campus for a year if the Minister is satisfied that, during that year, the campus has an above average number of students whose permanent home (as defined in section 19A of the Social Security Act 1991) is in a regional area.

This amendment is designed to create a financial incentive for students to study at regional universities by creating a HELP-debt-repayment-free period for students studying at regional campuses. Under the amendment, regional students would have a HELP-debt-repayment-free period on the units completed at a regional campus until they reach the $56,205 threshold under the government's proposed legislation. Repayments would then continue as per the government's proposed legislation. The HELP-debt-repayment-free period would apply to students attending a campus that receives a Commonwealth Grant Scheme regional loading or that the minister has identified as having an above-average number of students whose home address is at a regional location.

The Parliamentary Budget Office has costed this proposal as having a $21.6 million cost. I repeat: $21.6 million—nothing in the scheme of things, considering the investment that it would give to regional Australia. This investment will make a significant difference in increasing higher education participation by regional and low-SES students and by reducing the financial burden.

Colleagues, and particularly colleagues from regional Australia: I call on you to consider this recommendation, because this amendment will encourage regional students to remain in our regions and potentially attract regional students from the cities, providing a financial incentive to students to study in regional areas and addressing one of the biggest threats to sustainability of rural communities. The package before us has not adequately considered the impact on regional students, and my proposed amendments will go some way to ensure more students study in regional Australia. I commend this amendment to the House.

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

We won't be supporting this amendment. While we support the member for Indi in her intention and we very much agree with the intention, we think that differential HECS repayments are not the best way to support regional students, to support regional universities and to increase numbers of regional students at regional universities. We do agree with the intention of the member for Indi. We know how important it is to have vibrant universities supporting regional communities, we know how important it is to have regional students going to university and we know that these universities are very important in supporting regional jobs, but we do think that there are better ways of meeting these same objectives.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising to support this amendment, which makes a bad bill just a little bit better, I want to note the government's utter contempt for democracy that they would gag this very important debate and prevent the Greens and other members from the opposition from speaking, because they are trying to hide the fact that they are ripping billions of dollars out of our university system. Government, you might not like what the Greens have to say in standing up for students in universities, but at least give us a chance to say it. What have you got to hide that you want to gag this debate? What you're trying to hide is the fact that universities in this country are underfunded and are in need of support, and students are struggling under enormous debt. What this government is trying to do, so that it can fund a corporate tax cut to the big end of town, is to put students into even more debt and place the burden on universities.

And where's the money going to come from out of universities' pockets? We know, because just recently one university, the university that I went to, decided to cut the wages of all its staff by terminating their enterprise agreement, and then the minister got up and said he encouraged every other university in the country to do exactly the same. So this government wants to get some of its $3.8 billion of savings from the pockets of students and the rest of it from the pockets of staff members, putting an already stretched system under even further stress.

What we know is that universities in this country have been underfunded for a long time. We saw that with the Bradley review, which said we need a 10 per cent increase in base funding. Then what happens every time the budget comes around is that we see governments dipping into universities and students to try to balance it. A number of us were here and remember when in the last Labor government, to try to fund the Gonski reforms, the Labor Party cut $2.3 billion out of universities. We saw it with the Abbott government in their first budget here, and now we're seeing a sneaky second attempt to get it back. No wonder this government is trying to hide what it is doing by gagging debate and stopping proper scrutiny from being brought to bear on it. We should not be supporting bills that are being gagged through this place. The Greens will continue to stand up for students and universities.

There are much better ways of balancing the budget than taking the axe to students and taking the axe to universities. If the government wants to look for a place to start balancing the budget, perhaps it shouldn't give $50 billion in tax cuts to the big end of town. When you give $7 billion of tax cuts to the big banks, they're not going to use it to create more jobs; that is going straight to their bottom line, straight into profits. If this government seriously thinks that universities and students should find themselves almost $4 billion worse off to help with a $7 billion tax cut to the big banks then it is no wonder that they are falling behind in the polls.

The sooner that we can kick this rotten government out, the sooner many students will breathe a sigh of relief and the sooner we can get on to holding the next government to account and make sure we properly fund universities and students, so that students can study properly, without having to put themselves into further debt.

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

I thank the member for Indi for her remarks in support of better opportunities for rural and regional Australian students. Whilst we won't be supporting the amendments, I can inform the House that the minister for education has written to Emeritus Professor John Halsey and asked him to meet with the member as part of the current review into regional, rural and remote education, which will be completed by the end of the year.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question negatived.

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

I seek leave to move amendments (1) and (3) as circulated in my name together.

Leave granted.

I move:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 9), insert:

(3) Page 54 (after line 5), after Schedule 4, insert:

Schedule 4A—National regional higher education strategy

Higher Education Support Act 2003

1 After section 238 -7

  Insert:

238 -7A National regional higher education strategy

(1) The Minister must cause to be prepared a strategy to be known as the national regional higher education strategy.

(2) The strategy must cover, but is not limited to, the following matters:

  (a) strategies to support the provision of higher education in regional areas, including a review of regional loading;

  (b) strategies to increase the representation of regional students in higher education;

  (c) strategies to address the sustainability of rural communities and the declining population of young people in regional centres;

  (d) strategies to provide greater support for those transitioning between secondary and higher education, including support to stay in a regional area or to relocate from a regional area to an urban area;

  (e) strategies to ensure there is recognition of the workforce and economic development requirements of the community in developing higher education policy.

  (f) strategies to support the role of regionally based higher education providers in creating diverse and resilient regional economies, taking into consideration other relevant policies and programs.

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the strategy to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after 1 January 2018.

(4) The Minister must cause the strategy prepared under subsection (1), or that strategy as previously revised under this subsection, to be revised every 4 years.

(5) The Minister must cause a copy of a revised strategy under subsection (4) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 4 years after the previous strategy or revised strategy was tabled under this section.

This will require the minister to present the parliament with a national regional higher education strategy within 15 sitting days after 1 January 2018. The minister will be required to table an updated strategy every four years. To my colleagues on the other side who represent regional Australia: can I ask you to pay particular attention to this amendment and choose carefully how you will vote.

I move this motion from a sense of absolute frustration. The government says it supports regional development. The government says it supports decentralisation. The government says it supports economic growth and development. How are we going to do it if our universities can't provide us with the skilled people in the areas that we need over the longer period? So I say to my colleagues: please pay serious consideration to this particular bit of legislation and to this particular amendment because, in voting against it, you vote against the future of our regional universities.

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

Labor supports this amendment to legislate for a national regional higher education strategy. We know that the cuts in this bill would disproportionately impact regional universities that rely on CGS funding more than their city counterparts. Every Australian, no matter where they live, deserves to get a great education. From early childhood education, through schooling, TAFE and to university, we know that kids who are growing up in regional areas are often missing out. We've seen $17 billion of cuts to schools, more than $2.8 billion of cuts to vocational education and training and an extra $600 million cut in this year's budget. We've seen a loss of about 148,000 apprenticeships and traineeships. This bill will cut almost $4 billion from universities; and that's before you get to the cuts from the Education Investments Fund, which is close to another $4 billion, so it is almost $8 billion in cuts in total from universities. That will have a lasting effect on regional universities, whether they're in Newcastle or Launceston. Plans will be delayed or cancelled because the universities won't have the ability to pay for them.

It is absolutely time that those in this government, particularly those from the National Party, who say they stand up for regional education, actually do it. Labor has a very strong record of supporting regional students. We made landmark changes to student income support when we were last in government. We opened the doors to universities through the demand driven system and through HEPPP. Under Labor, we saw a 30 per cent increase in regional students in our universities. All of this is at risk because of the cuts that the government is persisting with. We are absolutely delighted to support the member for Indi and the other crossbenchers in the development of a regional higher education strategy.

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

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.