Emma Husar (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I've said in this place, one of the things that led me here was a comment once made by a Liberal predecessor in Lindsay, the former MP Jackie Kelly, when she famously declared that Western Sydney didn't need a university because we were a planned city. As a 20-year-old, so outraged was I about her comments that I wrote a letter to the newspaper about my disgust. I'm so glad that Kelly's comments were not heeded and instead, right in my backyard, we have Western Sydney University, a university whose alumni I belong to. Sixty per cent of the students at Western Sydney University are the first in their families to be offered an opportunity to go to university. This is a staggering figure.

Families in Western Sydney want their kids to have a great education, but the people of Lindsay feel really let down by the Turnbull government. I would one day like to walk into this chamber and talk about something that this government has done that helps or promotes the people and the families in my area to get a decent job or a decent education. But of course we haven't seen that, and we won't see that. Thousands of local children returned to school this month, as they did in everybody's electorate, and the figures released by the PBO confirm that every public school in Lindsay is worse off under this government. So we've got reduced opportunity even to get the kids into university, and then, when they do get to university, we've got a situation where the university's been defunded to the point where it's probably not even going to be able to be a university eventually, and there is no investment by this government to give the people or anyone any opportunity whatsoever to be able to get a decent job.

We've got school cuts in the order of $21 million, thanks to the funding cuts. We really want a pathway for these kids that gives them a better job and a better future. My community is now also facing fewer employment opportunities from those traditional jobs that were once done by people in my area. The families of Lindsay really do need to be prepared for the future and the changing nature of work.

The government thinks that the City Deals or the Western Sydney Airport is going to save us. Well, we heard 60,000 jobs, and we heard 11,000 jobs, and then we heard, well, maybe we'll get some jobs, but there are no guarantees. What will make a difference to the people of Western Sydney is a good education and somewhere to be able to go to university locally. They talk about 30-minute cities. Putting my kids in Western Sydney on a train to get into the University of Technology Sydney, to get into Macquarie University or to get into the University of Sydney is not a 30-minute city. It is not.

Parents want the best for their kids. I'm a mum, and I want the best for my kids. Not only do I want the best for my kids; I want the best for everyone else's kids too. We know that the world is getting much more complicated and that the way to get a good job is to get a good education. We'll need our kids to be staying at school, going to TAFE or going to universities. What the Turnbull government should do is properly fund our universities.

Last week was O-Week in many universities across Australia, and I had the pleasure of going into the Western Sydney University, talking to students who are excited about their future, their opportunities and the jobs that they will get when they finish their degree. But we're going to be hit the worst by the Turnbull government's $2.2 billion worth of university cuts. I said before that Labor uncapped university places, resulting in massive increases in the number of students going to university in my area, but that growth will now be coming to a standstill because we've effectively reintroduced a cap on the number of uni places, taking us back to the era of John Howard. Enrolments in university under Labor increased by 60 per cent in my area.

We do have one of the lowest rates of tertiary completion in New South Wales, which makes it hard to get investment out there. If you take away the opportunity for people to go to university by cutting the University of Western Sydney by $98 million, it effectively is going to harm the pathways program. A lot of year 12 students might not have got the ATAR that they wanted, but there is a pathway for them to get into the field that they're choosing to stud in. This government wants to slam the door shut in their face—just close the door and say: 'You're not worthy out here. You can't come here, you can't study here and we don't want you.' That is not the way to change a community, that is not the way to enhance a community and that certainly isn't the way to build a more productive society.

The University of Western Sydney will be the hardest hit in New South Wales and the second-hardest hit in the entire country. Instead of getting any support whatsoever for anyone in my community, we are just being locked out time and time again. My community have had to rally for a hospital. They've had to rally against the world's largest incinerator. We've had to worry against a toll that's been reintroduced to a road that was already paid for. We've got a defunct train line that you can't get reliable service for. What's next for the people of my community? This government has neglected us time and time again, and it's time to stop the neglect and start the investment.

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is sad to say that there was another contribution from those opposite which has added nothing useful to the debate. For the member for Lindsay's edification, she might wish to consider the fact that, when Labor was last in government, they succeeded in producing savings out of higher-education funding of some $6.6 billion between 2011 and 2013. We never hear those opposite talk about that. In fact, this government is delivering record funding for higher education. The member for Lindsay touched on school funding. School funding in the past has never been higher than it is under this government. There is record funding for schools as well as for higher education.

When Labor left government in 2014 funding for higher education was nearly $15 billion, so it's increased by several billion dollars over and above that. In addition, when Labor left there were 1.1 million students. Today there are 1.5 million students in higher education. So this higher-education reform package is again an attempt by this government to ensure we maintain a sustainable higher-education system going forward with no up-front fees. But it's those opposite who have blocked changes in legislation we sought to pass in the budget last year, so we have sought to make some adjustments in MYEFO to proceed with what we need to do to ensure that higher-education funding remains sustainable.

Equally, the motion mentions regional education funding. To share with the House: there is also over half a billion dollars for the Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program to ensure that regional students are supported with access to higher education. There is some $24 million over four years for the rural and regional enterprise scholarships, which will support some 1,200 regional and remote students to undertake STEM studies. There will be some $285 million over the next four years for regional loading for regional campuses and another $15 million to establish and maintain up to eight regional university hubs over the next four years.

So we can see that not only in the cities but also in the regions is the government seeking to support students who wish to go to higher education. It's time to stop the argy-bargy on funding for higher education. We've had 29 reviews into higher education since 2011. We have seen as a result of that the review of reviews in 2015 to try to bring this matter to a resolution. The committee that reviewed it reviewed some 1,200 submissions, and out of that we have seen, in the announcements we made last year, an attempt to manage the cost increases but ensure the system remains sustainable. With what has been proposed, there will be no student fee increases, there will be no changes for New Zealanders or permanent residents, and we will see students from all backgrounds retain the important opportunity to go to university.

Just outside of my electorate, in the neighbouring electorate of Rankin, there is a campus of Griffith University, who do a tremendous job. With their various programs that they run locally they ensure that students from low socioeconomic communities get the opportunities to get to university. Not only students but also young parents—there are the programs they run to help young parents re-enter the education system when they might never have had the opportunity to build their skills to do tertiary studies. The successes that those people—mainly young women—are having as a result are to be highly commended.

This government continues to focus on providing funding for higher education. (Time expired)

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to speak on the member for Griffith's motion regarding university funding. Labor believes in fairness. Labor believes in everybody having a fair go. Labor believes in everybody reaching their full potential. It's in our DNA. That is why Labor opened the door to university for hundreds of thousands more Australians. Sadly Prime Minister Turnbull has slammed that door in the faces of young Australians dreaming of a university education.

The Turnbull government is ripping $436 million from Queensland universities. Griffith University, in my electorate, will have $92 million in funding ripped from it. The Turnbull government's cuts to university funding have effectively reintroduced a cap on the number of university places, taking us backwards to the Howard era—that rear-mirror view of the world. We should be supporting our young people to strive hard to get ahead, not discouraging them from pursuing an education. There will be smart young people in my electorate who will now be prevented from enrolling in university. There will be young people who worked hard throughout their schooling in the hope of going to university, just to have their hopes dashed by a cold, uncaring, antediluvian-minded government. The Turnbull government's priorities are all wrong.

Last Friday I wandered down to Griffith University for their O-Week events on the Nathan campus. I met with many students, some of them there for the first time and excited to be embarking on their next educational adventure. Others were excited to be edging closer to their graduation night. I met Ravi and Naresh, both commencing their first year at Griffith, studying environmental science and pollution control. Ravi and Naresh are very concerned about the $92 million in cuts to their university and were particularly worried about the effect this would have on class sizes and their ability to get one-on-one time with their lecturers and tutors. Ravi and Naresh care about their university education and that of their friends.

I care about all of the young people in Moreton being able to reach their full potential, be that at university or in a trade. This means providing opportunities to continue their education beyond year 12. This means properly funding universities and getting the settings right so everyone can fulfil their educational potential. Labor's reforms have seen significant growth in enrolments in universities, but sadly not across the board. Some groups in our community have not seen this growth in enrolments of students from their communities. Indigenous Australians, people from non-English speaking backgrounds and people from remote and regional areas are still much less likely to go to university. So the settings aren't right yet. This nation needs our best and brightest to have every opportunity.

Labor has recently announced that a Labor government will undertake a once-in-a-generation inquiry into Australia's post-secondary school education system. We want all Australian kids to received the education and skills they need to thrive. We want to make sure all Australians can participate in lifelong learning. We want to make sure Australians are not left behind when other countries in our region are investing heavily in education and skills. This inquiry will look at university education and vocational education as a whole for the first time ever.

It is clear that the current settings are not working for all Australians and they are certainly not working for Australian industry either, but we need to look forward. We need to think about the future for the children just starting school in 2018. We need to imagine as best we can what their working life is going to look like, what kind of post secondary education is best going to prepare them for that. Labor wants this inquiry, the first ever to look at voc-ed and unis as a whole, to be ready to go in the first 100 days of a Shorten Labor government.

In the meantime, university students like Ravi and Naresh will be feeling the pinch of the Turnbull government's cuts. A $92 million cut from Griffith University will affect the amount of time lecturers can spend with their students. It will affect the size of classes on the Nathan campus and beyond. As a former teacher, I know the importance of smaller class sizes. I know that teachers with larger classes cannot spend the same amount of time with students, particularly those that are doing it tough. I know what a difference this can make to the quality of education and to the students who get to graduate.

I support the member for Griffith wholeheartedly in calling on the government to reverse its short-sighted, unfair cuts to universities. I call on Prime Minister Turnbull and Deputy Prime Minister McCormack to rethink this policy. If we are going to have a strong voice for the Nationals who can represent the bush, this is where they need to speak up. But too often they have been the lickspittles of the Liberal Party not speaking up for the bush. These cuts, which are closing the door of opportunity to thousands of Australians, should be overturned by the National and Liberal parties.

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

Just a quick insight into higher education perspectives: firstly, let me say that Labor, in its wisdom—not—began the discussion of university education as 'higher education'. This began the community misunderstanding that university education was somehow better than other post school education. As a graduate myself, with postgraduate diplomas and a masters degree, I know too well how hard the work is that is involved in university education. But it is not the direction that all of our school students at the end of year 12 should take. Some are far more suited to trade and diploma education with a greater degree of certainty for employment. I ask you: what is wrong with encouraging young people into alternative training and qualifications? I, for one, want to congratulate those young people who have decided that university is not the best choice for them.

As to the ludicrous comments coming from the opposition, we have been involved in 3½ years of consultations regarding the so-called higher education sector and, at every step, the Greens, Labor and any other person who thinks they can jump on the bandwagon has objected to change. Well, hello, the current system is not working as well as it could. Higher education has been reviewed so many times because politicians are not able to be responsible and make good decisions.

There have been 29 reviews of higher education since 2011. Since then, we on this side have taken full fee deregulation off the table, released a policy options paper with the 2016 budget, appointed a panel of experts to consider 1,200 submissions to that paper, held a further year of consultations and put forward a revised package of reforms in the 2017 budget and introduced a bill into the parliament. We were left with few options to preserve the budget position but I guess those opposite don't understand. 'Just spend more money; that'll fix it,' they say. I have heard it in every single debate, but silence on just where that money is to come from.

But, wait a minute, maybe we should recall a fact or two. When Labor was in government, it announced $6.6 billion of cuts to higher education and research in its last three years in government including an efficiency dividend. Prime Minister Gillard at the time said:

What we are asking unis to do is against a backdrop where there has been growth in university funding by this government of more than 50 per cent, more than half. We are asking universities to accept a lower growth rate ...

Labor has performed its own education backflip saying it will oppose the coalition's cynical move to cut $2.3 billion from higher education, the very same cut that they took to the last election.

Taxpayers have been funding significant growth in this sector for some time, a $17 billion per year increase in funding for teaching and learning since 2009, which is 71 per cent, more than twice the rate of growth in the economy. Commonwealth supported places have increased by 30 per cent since the same time period. Universities are kidding themselves if they really think they can't be more efficient given they have spent at least $1.7 billion on marketing and advertising over the last few years. Commonwealth direct funding for teaching, learning and research grows from $10.7 billion to $11.5 billion. If universities maintained their current enrolment patterns, the HELP loan investment would grow from $6.4 billion to $7.4 billion, an 11 per cent growth.

There will be no student fee increases. There will be no efficiency dividend, no changes to funding arrangements for enabling courses, no expansion of sub-bachelor places at public universities and no loadings for veterinary or dentistry courses. But we will continue with a number of reforms, including funding to establish and maintain up to eight regional study hubs to give more choice to regional and remote Australians, and more work on transparency of higher education admissions, teaching and research. There will be a freeze in funding for the Commonwealth Grant Scheme at the 2017 levels for the next couple of years. There is no cap on places. Universities can continue to over-enrol if they so choose, but there will be a cap on government subsidy. We're establishing the new threshold for repayment at a one per cent interest rate, which is pretty good. That's going to make a big difference to a number of young people.

We need graduates to begin to use their degrees to work, rather than taking up another degree before even starting to get out into the workforce. What are the differences we are proposing with these reforms? Now the taxpayers will not be subsidising every single enrolment decision made by every university, good, bad or otherwise. We're still investing in our national future and we're still investing in our young people, but we're treating taxpayer dollars with respect and accountability. I conclude by noting that university surpluses are running at $1.6 billion.

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

The member for Gilmore had a load of contradictions in that speech. It was actually quite extraordinary. The regional campus in my electorate, the Cradle Coast Campus of the University of Tasmania, is under threat by the government and their continuing cuts to higher education. In fact, in Tasmania, the University of Tasmania will lose $51.3 million. The campus in my electorate is subsidised by the rest of the university because it is a small campus and it doesn't have the ability to fund itself in total. I'm really pleased that the pro-vice-chancellors of the university, past and present, and the chancellor are very much committed to the University of Tasmania Cradle Coast Campus because they understand the important role that universities play in regional Australia. They have an active presence in providing pathways to a tertiary education that otherwise would not be available. In my electorate, having that local presence with the UTAS Cradle Coast Campus is absolutely vital when you consider the disproportionate number of people engaged in higher education. The Torrens University social health atlases of Australia state that, in Braddon, school leaver participation in higher education is lower than the Tasmanian average and the Australian average. More needs to be done to get more people into higher education, and I'm heartened by the commitment of the university to the Cradle Coast Campus.

The Cradle Coast Campus offers full degrees as well as associate degrees. It offers a range of opportunities for course and research based postgraduate study based at the campus and directly related to local industries, including PhDs in agricultural science through the Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture and regional development through the Institute for Regional Development. I have to say, the new associate degree program is a model that all universities, whether you're in the urban setting or in regional Australia, really should get behind. It has created that collaboration between industry and TAFE and the university sector and brought in a course where people who would not normally have attended university can start studying there.

What we have at the University of Tasmania is a university college. It's now entering its second year of operation after a very successful first year in 2017, with a range of new associate degrees and specialisations rolling out this year. The two-year industry focused associate degrees are focused on offerings relevant to northern and north-west Tasmania and are attracting a cohort of students that otherwise would not simply have considered higher education. Seventy-three per cent of 2017 associate degree admissions had no study background and were admitted to the courses on the basis of their motivation and enthusiasm to forge new pathways for themselves.

I went to the first-year graduation of the associate degrees last year and met a wonderful young lady who had obtained a traineeship and a trade in cooking. She was a chef and she didn't want to be any more. She thought she'd go into horticulture. The business that hired her saw her potential. She didn't think that she could ever go to university and get a degree, but, thanks to the vision that her employer saw in her, they put her through one of the agricultural business associate degrees. They've invested in her. Someone who would never have gone to university now has a pathway to a career in horticulture with skills and training behind her. It was so inspiring to hear her story and many others through the university degree.

What we see now with the associate degrees is that it's important to welcome these people onto campuses. It's essential that we have a welcoming campus environment for people to see that they can also attain higher education. That's why the redevelopment of the northern campus in Launceston and the north-west campus in Burnie is so important. What's even more exciting is the industry collaboration between the university and, of course, TAFE with these associate degrees. This program is really bringing together what industry need from graduates. Unfortunately, and quite sadly, it seems that this is all under threat by this government if they continue to cut further. The University of Tasmania is fortunate that it doesn't have any other competition locally. However, we could see that campus close. It has transformed the north-west region. It has transformed the city of Burnie. It's actually creating more job opportunities for the people in the region to earn a higher wage. It's creating more entrepreneurs. Everything that the coalition government bangs on about day after day, that is what this campus is doing. Sadly, it's under threat by this government, and they need to stop.

Madeleine King (Brand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While I welcome any opportunity to speak on universities and university funding—and I certainly welcome the motion put forward by the member for Griffith—it is very disappointing that we are here today speaking on the continued attacks by this government on funding to universities. The commitment by this government to hack away university funding is, in turn, an attack on the aspirations of all Australians who might want to pursue and participate in higher education.

It makes no sense. It makes no sense that an Australian government is committed to slashing $2.2 billion from Australian funding. It makes no sense that an Australian government would this year deny up to 10,000 people a place in university by reducing the Commonwealth grant. It makes no sense that, instead of breaking down barriers to higher education, an Australian government would actively build up barriers and block access to universities. Research has told us—and it's widespread—that by 2020, in only two years, two-out-of-three jobs created in Australia will require a diploma or some kind of higher education qualification. You can see that we need more people to go into further education to gain the qualifications for the jobs of the future, not fewer. I think it's very small thinking by this government to prioritise giving big business a $65 billion tax cut now rather than providing the funding required to universities and vocational education to ensure that Australians are qualified to work, and work in jobs for the long-term.

I want to consider for a moment what the government thinks of enabling programs in universities. Enabling courses are accessed by people who have been disadvantaged in their education in some way. They are designed to give people a taste of what study at a university might be like. They are an invaluable opportunity for people who may have had trouble in high school, who have doubts about their abilities and who, overall, have probably had fewer opportunities. It's a great opportunity for the stay-at-home parent who might want to get into the workforce again and an invaluable opportunity for those who have lost their jobs, finding themselves moving into a long-term unemployment situation and wanting to retrain or re-educate. Last year we saw this government put forward a suggestion, and stick with it for some time, that people should pay up to $3,200 in fees for these enabling courses, which do not provide students with a formal qualification. We know they're a fantastic example of breaking down barriers, encouraging participation and giving people the tools they need to go on and get an education and the qualifications they need.

Compared with many other parts of the country, not many people in my electorate of Brand attend university. For those who do, Murdoch University in the electorate of Tangney plays a very important role, and I was very pleased to be down there at their orientation week last week. It's the closest university to Brand and has offered a unique and valuable approach to tertiary education for many of my constituents.

Murdoch University offers enabling programs such as OnTrack, for students who do not achieve the ATAR ranking they had hoped or, in some cases, do not achieve an ATAR ranking at all. Among the OnTrack students enrolled at Murdoch University between 2008 and 2014, 55 per cent identified as being the first in their family to go to a university and 56 per cent lived in low-SES-dominated areas, and many of those are in my electorate. Furthermore, and very importantly—and it shows the value of these enabling courses—69 per cent of all funded enrolments translated into undergraduate degree enrolments for Murdoch University. It's a good thing for the region, it's a good thing for my electorate, and it's a good thing for Western Australia and for the people of Australia that more students out of areas in Brand such as Rockingham, Kwinana, Parmelia, Port Kennedy and Secret Harbour are enabled to go to a first-class university, which Murdoch University is.

So, to my mind—and given my over 10 years experience in the university sector, having worked at the University of Western Australia—I think it's shocking to see this government working to actively exclude people from the university sector and from higher education. I really welcome the thorough look that Labor is intending to have, should we—well, in my view, when we—take government next, the national inquiry into post-secondary education. Universities are extraordinary, complex places. Universities, teamed with vocational education, are an amazingly complex ecosystem of education for our young people, and I think a very deep dive into what is required to adequately fund post-secondary education in this country has not come before time. I look forward to participating in it and I know my colleagues here on the Labor side of the parliament will be active participants in this national inquiry, for the good of all young people and all students across the nation. (Time expired)

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd be one of the very few people in the parliament now who are not tertiary educated, and I don't have the experience of the member for Brand, who has had 10 years working in the sector. But I do have Federation University just near my electorate, which is very important to us. It's especially important because, many years ago, under the Howard government, we introduced the school of medicine to what was then Monash University at Churchill.

As a regional representative I ended up fighting not only for my constituents and fighting to keep the school of medicine there, but fighting the university as well. Monash has disregarded the Churchill campus and handed it over to Federation University. All right; they want to get out of rural areas. But now they're going to put in an administrative approach that will have the effect of closing down the school of medicine—

Honourable Member:

An honourable member interjecting—

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They still call it the school of medicine Monash, Gippsland. And, because of their administrative arrangement, it is just another way of moving the processes of the school of medicine back into the city.

The reason we went to John Howard and said, 'We want a school of medicine out here with 40 places, 80 places or 60 places'—which he gave us, which was fantastic—was that we had found that we really struggled to get doctors into regional areas. As a Liberal representing a regional area, these things are extremely important to us. Why? Because, like the member for Brand said, in country areas a lot of kids don't aspire to have a tertiary education. Their parents didn't aspire for them to have a tertiary education. So we are fighting on three fronts. We are fighting that there is no expectation from the community for our children to go to university. We're fighting the university, that wants to withdraw facilities from country areas, from regional areas, and move them back into the city. What we were driving at in the first place was: if we can train doctors in the country so they get the experience of the country, they may come back to the country; instead, what they do now is: they go to the city, they meet city people, they marry city people, they become city people and they don't return to the country, so we end up snookered three ways. It's been a battle to fight and to continue to fight—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Proceedings suspended from 17 : 45 to 17 : 58

When I was speaking before, I was making the point that we're fighting (1) the university to keep their facilities at Churchill—they're going to make administrative arrangements which mean the school of medicine will be taken back to the city—(2) our own community as much with low expectations for their children to go to university, and (3) the governments of the day at different times for how they manage and control this portfolio. I've been around here long enough, for those of you who have not been in the parliament for a long time, to see governments do complete backflips; they do one thing in government, say something else in opposition and throw it at the government of the day for no good reason except to confuse. I'll give you an example: Labor has performed its own education backflip, saying it will oppose the coalition's 'cynical' move to cut $2.3 billion from higher education—the very same cut Labor proposed before the election.

Why do you think I get disappointed with people in parliaments when they say one thing in opposition and they do something quite different in government? I've seen the Labor Party backflip from government to opposition so many times, with brazen disregard for what their policy was in government. They have absolutely no shame. I'm still, after all these years, flabbergasted by the fact that a government can say one thing in government, knowing what they have to do in government, and then say the exact opposite when it comes to what they're doing for the people of Australia. I want the best higher education system we can possibly have. I want Federation University to really succeed in our areas. I want them to be really great and I want our children to have the opportunities. That's all I'm on about. We're Liberals for regions. (Time expired)

Ross Hart (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the motion moved by the member for Griffith. I thank her for bringing this very important matter to the attention of the House. I've spoken often in this place about the importance of education generally and higher education, in particular to my electorate and to Tasmania generally. This government's short-sighted $2.2 billion worth of cuts to universities is equivalent to more than 9,500 Australians missing out on a university place in 2018 and again in 2019. These cuts will hurt regional and outer metropolitan universities, such as the University of Tasmania, and their students the most.

The Tasmanian economy has historically underperformed. Credible economic commentators like Saul Eslake suggest that part of the problem lies in the generally poor levels of educational attainment and under-representation of university graduates within the local economy. It is reasonable to suggest that investment in education—in particular, in higher education—will improve economic performance within the state and will provide enormous opportunities for individuals, particularly having regard to the challenges associated with the future of work facing all of us. It was for this reason that during the 2016 federal election campaign the Australian Labor Party committed to provide, on behalf of a federal Labor government if elected, a federal contribution towards the University of Tasmania's university transformation project, centred on Inveresk and Burnie in the north and the north-west of Tasmania respectively.

There is no doubt that universities provide significant opportunity for economic growth. Investment in our universities and the higher education sector are a much better investment than tax cuts, particularly this government's unfunded $65 billion corporate tax cut. Recent studies suggest that the mere presence of a greater number of university graduates in an economy drives employment, not just within the graduate cohort but also within the wider workforce. Labor understands that the transformative power of education and higher education is an opportunity, particularly for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, for better employment, a higher income, greater prospects for employment, better working conditions and, above all, social mobility. It is simply not acceptable that Australia has the second-lowest level of public investment in universities in the OECD. Our students already pay the sixth-highest fees in the OECD. Our record with respect to public investment and higher fees will only get worse with these Liberal government cuts.

I acknowledge that reform can be difficult and expensive. When Labor was last in government, it increased investments in universities from $8 billion in 2007 to $14 billion in 2013. This meant that an additional 190,000 Australians, including many who were the first in their family to attend university, were able to participate in higher education. As I indicated earlier, Labor's investment in the UTAS university transformation project ultimately gained bipartisan support, not just as an infrastructure project but, more importantly, as a very important part of improving the economic performance of Tasmania. It's therefore very disappointing that this Turnbull Liberal government not only cuts money available to the universities and to the higher education sector but also makes the opportunity to study at university more expensive.

This has a disproportionate effect upon my local community, but it is also relevant to other communities across regional Australia. Those communities could reasonably expect that the Turnbull Liberal government should recognise the worth of investing in a university education and the opportunity of improving the economic performance of our regions. It is critical that it recognises investment in higher education as an economic priority as well as an obvious opportunity for people to gain the skills necessary to engage fully with increasingly complex and increasingly skill based and knowledge based employment. It is surprising that this government, in the name of sustainability, chooses to cut higher education funding, to increase fees and to saddle students with higher debt whilst making it more difficult to deliver teaching, learning and skilled graduates—compromising, if not undermining, Australia's research capability.

I call on the government to recognise the transformative power of education and to reverse its short-sighted, unfair cuts to universities, which are closing the door of opportunity for thousands of Australians. In my electorate there is a perfectly appropriate investment of nearly $350 million on the university transformation project. As I said earlier, this is not just an infrastructure investment. This is an investment in the future of many young Tasmanians within my electorate. It's absolutely vital that we support, not detract, from that investment.

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

It was very interesting to sit here and listen to the speech of the member for Bass on this motion on university funding. He continually referred to cuts. In fact, I think he might have used that word at least half a dozen times. Yet if I look through the numbers, I see that when Labor was last in government, in 2013, it spent $14.9 billion. I would think that if there had been a cut it would mean that there was now less money than $14.9 billion being spent, but—lo and behold!—the fact is that this year the Turnbull coalition government is spending over $17 billion. We have spending for higher education at record levels. In fact, it is $2 billion more than what was spent under the last year of the Labor government. Yet we have had Labor member after Labor member come into this chamber and say, 'There are cuts. These cuts are terrible!' This is why many people know that if a member of the Labor Party told you it was raining outside, you'd want to go outside and check for yourself. They cannot talk and whinge about cuts time and time again, because when you look at the figures you see that there have been no cuts, that in fact there has actually been an increase. We see this almost across the board, in every portfolio.

What really gets me is that a lot of people come into our electorate officers and want money spent on all sorts of good causes. Yes, we'd like to spend even more money on education, hospitals, roads, public transport, infrastructure and kids with disabilities. We'd like to put more and new lifesaving drugs on the PBS. But we can only do so if we create wealth in this country, if we use our resources we have to the maximum amount and create wealth in the country. Yet every time we come to a wealth-creating project, the Labor Party and the Greens join together to try and block it. They seem to have a complete disconnect about the fact that you have to have projects in this country that create wealth to be able to give us the money that we need to spend on things.

Going through some of the other facts about these so-called cuts, we should remember that a student can get into university in this country without spending one cent up-front. I would hope that members of the Labor Party would try and talk up education, would try and encourage students in their electorates to consider taking on higher education, but instead we hear all these scare campaigns that they run, saying students can't afford it—sending all these negative messages to the students in their electorate.

That is not what we need. We need to tell the truth to the young people of this nation: they can get into university without one cent up-front. In fact, the Commonwealth of Australia, other taxpayers, are going to back them and contribute at least 50 per cent of the costs of their degree. They will get that as a gift from other taxpayers. And we are doing that with more and more opportunities.

Let us look at some of the other numbers. We know that when Labor left office after those wonderful years of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd regimes, when they were chased out of town, there were 1.1 million students in higher education. This year, under the coalition, we are at 1.5 million students. The coalition government have given 400,000 additional students the opportunity to go to university, because we have been increasing the funding to universities—not the nonsense that we hear from the Labor Party about these 'cuts'.

It goes on. We're increasing the revenue. We're increasing funding. We on this side understand the importance of universities. We want to talk them up, and we want to give opportunities to young Australians to take that opportunity to go to university in this country. I hope that the members of the opposition would support us, rather than go on about fake cuts that don't exist.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think we need to mark that moment we've just heard. That is the first speech I've heard from the member for Hughes which didn't come back to why we should burn more coal, so I congratulate you on your creativity and innovation! And, yes, it's a little tip for next time: you slipped up on your game there.

It should be self-evident, you'd think, that cutting $2.2 billion over two years from our higher education sector is a dumb idea. You'd think that would be pretty obvious, even to this government. Education is the key to opportunity. It's still a fact, despite debates about graduate employment levels, that you will do better in life with higher education. That's a fact. And it's also the key to Australia's future economic prosperity. That's a pretty well-established thing as well, by every reputable international agency that says to us that the best two investments we can make in our future prosperity are education and infrastructure, not enormous tax cuts to big businesses—but that's for another debate.

But I'd like to reflect on the context in which this debate is being held. In the last couple of weeks, we've seen O-Week celebrations around Australia. It makes me feel very old, in fact, that it's 27 years since I attended my first O-Week, but still I'm back there on campus, fighting the good fight with the great Monash Labor Club. Indeed, my daughter's just celebrated her third O-Week on campus. I called her to see how it was going, and she said, 'Dad, I'm on a pub crawl; I'll call you tomorrow,' so it's going well, obviously!

I reflect on the years that I spent with the Monash Labor Club. I was part of that club when I was at uni. I found my politics there, and it's great to see so many passionate, committed young people thinking about the future and trying to make a difference. It's a contrast, actually, with the Monash University Liberal Club, where they had this hilarious banner of Menzies up last time I walked past and were looking a bit dejected about why no-one wanted to come and talk to them—very future focused, the Monash Liberals!

But it's clear from just a few minutes with most young people that they feel as though they're on the raw end of a bad deal, and rightly so. To our shame collectively, we're at risk of being the first generation in modern Australian history to leave a lower standard of living to the next generation. The reality of young people's lives, alongside which these cuts come—let's go through a few of these points—is that young people are working casual jobs today just to get through university, and they've never in their lives received a wage increase higher than CPI. There have been no real wage increases for people in this generation working at all. Under this government, their jobs are becoming casualised. They're subject to underemployment. They live in a society where it's easier, because of this government's policy settings, for an investor to buy their 13th property than for a young person to buy their first house, because of the tax regime which those opposite perpetuate. They're being charged more for higher education and are now being forced by this government's policies to repay their enormous debts earlier.

In truth, while the government have shelved their plans for deregulation for now, they still want, in their heart of hearts, to deregulate and charge young people $100,000 or more for university degrees. But, with their policy of making young people repay their degrees earlier—the original idea of HECS was that, until you reached average weekly earnings or thereabouts, you didn't have to repay it—the government want graduates to repay their debts when their income is $42,000 a year.

We often hear that retirees need about $50,000 to have a dignified retirement if they own their own house. Fair enough. Good on them. But apparently this government's policies think that young people who may be raising kids, looking to start a family, saving for a house or paying one off if they can even get a loan with casual employment these days should also start repaying their university debts on $42,000 a year. That's a disgrace. It's no wonder that, when you go onto campuses and talk to young people, they're downright angry. The government really should listen to these concerns, and their latest cuts to university funding really are proof that they do not give a rat's about young people.

$2.2 billion is a big number, but let's break it down. Monash University in the south-east of Melbourne, right on the border of my electorate, will receive a cut of $108 million, the largest cut of any university in this country. Countless young people attend Monash and rely on the university to secure their future.

In the final couple of minutes I'll just make a point rebutting some of the earlier speakers. It's especially foolish for this minister to make these cuts and say to universities, 'Oh, we'll just make it up through international education. Go out and make your own money,' and then at the same time say, 'Oh, and we're going to cut your funding because you've spent too much on marketing.' What do you think they're spending the marketing money on? That'd be recruiting $28 billion worth of economic value of students every year. So you're supposed to rely on a market which is subject to policy changes by foreign governments, as we're seeing, to fund your universities, and then you get criticised for spending money marketing to get more students. What a nonsense.

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

Labor will continue to oppose the funding cuts to the higher-education sector in this country, because we support the young people in this country, because we have a vision for a country where young people are given access to the transformative power of education. That's early education, primary education, secondary education, TAFE and vocational education, and higher education.

We know that it's O week around this week across the country, depending on which university. I spent some time last week in O week talking to some of my local people who are first-year students at the University of Melbourne this year. They have wisely determined that they've joined the Labor Club in their first week of school. For that I congratulate them. And it's not a surprise that they do, because they live in an electorate where people understand the value, where people understand that our brightest and best should be going to university. And it is a pleasure to represent and to meet those brightest and best on those campuses. It is an absolute pleasure.

But it is not a pleasure to be in opposition while we watch this government undermine education at every level, and today's private members' business, brought in by the member for Griffith, my good friend, specifically talks about the higher-education sector and the cuts that this government is determined to get through. We need to contextualise this in terms of the $100,000 degrees and the deregulation that this government was hell-bent on bringing in and, with only the work of Labor and support from good cross-benchers like the member for Indi beside me—only the support of good people who understand the power of education, who understand the value of education while those opposite merely understand the cost. And I got a new one from the member for Hughes today: he understands a gift but he doesn't understand investment. We invest in people, and education is not a gift; it is an investment that this country makes in our young people.

We expect in return that they will make their contribution to our country both economically and socially, but we're holding them back with these cuts. Out universities are going to have to either cut places or raise costs. Those are the options this government gives them with a $2.2 billion cut from higher education across the next two years. The universities are left with very little choice. They can introduce their own caps—and we learn from our research that there are 9,000 potential places that are not being offered this year. I met with those young people. I know how many young people in my electorate will therefore be disappointed that they didn't get a university offer this year. I want to go to that. I want to go to the way young people are inspired, how we hold their hands in our schools and ask them to aspire to get to university.

I was in a school in Melbourne's western suburbs when HECS was first introduced. There were lots of debates in this place. There were lots of debates around the country about how it was affordable, about how it could be repaid later. We have adjusted to that system. But let me tell you about the impact it had on my year 12 class in that first year in the number of students who may have gone on to university, who I had worked with since they were in year 8, with them and their families, to get them to pitch themselves to go to university. It took the wind out of many of those families' sails because working-class people don't like debt; strangely enough, they aspire not to have any. So their children who now do go to university might have a $100,000 debt under this government. Let's remember, right now, those students in O week this week and those students who went to university last year have no certainty about the costs that they are undertaking. They have no certainty about what their eventual debt will be. In fact, they have no certainty about when they will have to start paying it back, because this government are bringing into this place this week legislation to say that they want to reduce the earning threshold for young people to start paying back their HECS debt at $42,000 a year.

These young people are being squeezed at both ends by this government that does not understand young people, does not understand the journey that they are on, does not understand that they need to be supported. They need to know that their government has faith in them. They need pathways created for them to reach their potential so they can make an absolute contribution to our community. We are faced with a government that understands the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allocated for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.