Anne Stanley (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In continuation—(4) that we ensure there is funding certainty during the accord process and (5) that state and territory governments are involved in improving university governance. The Albanese government has responded and has committed to implementing each of these recommendations. In response to the first recommendation the government will establish up to 20 additional regional university study hubs and establish up to 14 suburban university study hubs. For the last several years students in Werriwa have had the benefit of campuses of Western Sydney University and the University of Wollongong in Liverpool, making it accessible for students to travel. That means it is less costly for those seeking a university education, especially if you have caring responsibilities, making a university education so much more accessible in my community, so these hubs will make a real difference when they're implemented around the country. The government will also extend the higher education continuity guarantee for a further two years in response to recommendation 4, providing funding certainty while the accord process is ongoing. Universities will also be required to invest the remaining funding from their grant for the year into additional support for students from disadvantaged backgrounds and groups, as well as those from the regions. Recommendation 5 will also be implemented so university governance works better for both students and staff. The bill will implement recommendations 2 and 3, which require legislative amendments.

The first aspect of this bill is to remove the punitive measures introduced by the former government that require students to pass 50 per cent of their units of study in order to remain eligible for a Commonwealth-supported place and FEE-HELP assistance. In addition, there will also be new requirements and formal obligations for providers to support students in successfully completing their units of study. To strengthen this requirement, financial penalties will be applied to universities that fail to comply with their support obligations. Research has shown that disadvantaged students are disproportionately impacted by the 50-per-cent rule. More than 13,000 students have been affected. The Australian government should be helping students succeed, but this rule seeks to discourage and punish them. The abolition of this rule, in addition to the new requirements for providers, will assist those who need it to help them get through their course.

The second aspect of this bill relates to extending demand-driven funding to metropolitan Indigenous students. Currently, all Indigenous students living in regional and remote areas are eligible for demand-driven Commonwealth-supported places where they meet academic entry requirements. Under this amendment, all Indigenous students, regardless of where they live, will be eligible for these places—that is, there will be no cap on the number of Indigenous students who can enrol in Commonwealth-supported places. It is estimated that this measure could double the number of Indigenous students at university in a decade, and what a wonderful outcome that would be—a transformative outcome that would change our nation for the better. It will work towards Closing the Gap outcome 6—that is, increasing the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples between 25 and 34 who have completed a tertiary qualification to 70 per cent by 2031. This measure has the backing and support of the sector and will benefit First Nations people across the country.

This bill will assist the disadvantaged to complete their university courses and open up our universities to Indigenous Australians—two of Gough Whitlam's great causes; two of Labor's great causes. The amendments in this bill are welcome not just for the changes they will bring but also for the message they convey: that is, education is front and centre of this government's agenda—always was, always will be. I commend the bill to the House.

Sam Birrell (Nicholls, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a real privilege for me to talk on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023. I am going to talk about some recent study I have done on education, and links between education in Europe. I will also talk a bit about my story with tertiary education. I hope that can bring a positive contribution to this debate.

I want to start by saying well done to the minister for education. We have got a few amendments and we have got some suggestions, but I think his approach to this policy has been consultative and thoughtful, and I think he is on the right track. I mean that most sincerely, and I would like to see a bit more of that from some other ministers in their approach to issues such as water and the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

Be that as it may, just before the pandemic started I was the recipient of a Churchill Fellowship. The reason I applied for that fellowship is because in my region the big issue we have is a lot of kids aren't motivated in school and a lot of the businesses can't find people to drive those businesses forward into the future. I wanted to go over to Europe, particularly Germany, Sweden, Finland and the United Kingdom, to see how they did it and what their approach was to make sure that the links between education and industry are really strong. I think I've got some great learnings, and I look forward, as I get my thoughts together and write my report, to sharing those with all people in this place.

I will talk a little about universities and why I think I have a contribution to make. I started three university degrees, and I completed two of them. I did what a lot of young people did. I was okay at school: 'Sam, you're a good student. You've got to go to uni.' I was 17 when I started at uni. As my first-year grades will attest, I had neither the maturity nor the understanding to be doing a university degree at that age. I did not pass, and I went into the workforce for a number of years. I worked in agriculture. That first degree was an arts degree, and then I worked in agriculture, because that's the employment in my home patch, which is now the electorate I have the great honour of representing.

When I decided that I was ready to go to university, the University of Melbourne had a campus very close to Shepparton called the Dookie campus. At the time, they offered a number of degrees, one of which was a bachelor of applied science in agriculture. I completed that degree and did quite well because I already had some understanding from having been in the workforce. I was 22 years of age, so I was old enough and had the maturity to approach tertiary education. It was an excellent degree. The degree doesn't exist any more, which is a point I've very often discussed with the university. It was an excellent degree, well rounded, giving all sorts of great learnings that helped me not only in my agricultural career but in my career as a politician.

Then, when I was about 40 years old, I wanted to get a postgraduate degree. Fortunately for me, La Trobe University was offering its MBA, a Master of Business Administration, regionally, in Wodonga, Bendigo, Mildura and Shepparton, as well as in the city. That meant that I could go down to my local La Trobe campus in Shepparton after work—six o'clock till nine o'clock—and study my postgraduate degree. I got that after three years of toil and my kids sleeping outside the lecture theatre sometimes—but it was great.

The point I want to make from my experience is that university needs to be there for when people are ready, not kids coming out of school being told they need to go to university no matter what. Have it there for people who are ready and, as they go through their journey in life and their work journey, if an academic qualification or academic study is what they want, then they'll be much more successful if they move into it when they are ready. My own experience tells that story.

I will give you the key take-outs from the Churchill Fellowship I went on. They are that, here, we seem to have an obsession with telling kids that if they're smart they go to university and if they're not they do something else. In Germany and Finland, particularly, the esteem in which vocational education and training is held is on a par with university education. A lot of the businesses I spoke to said, 'We need some people who've got university education and training for some professions, but for other professions, we much prefer the kids who did the vocational education and training.' In Germany, for example, I spoke to Mercedes-Benz. There were some incredibly bright and brilliant technicians who never went near a university. They got an apprenticeship with a company, in this case Mercedes-Benz. The tech schools are so good, that they are seen as good as university. These technicians had gone into technical education and then gone on to great careers with Mercedes-Benz.

This is a fascinating statistic from Finland that I wasn't aware of. We stand and say it's a great milestone that we've got more university enrolments than ever before. I'm not against university enrolments. For the right kids at the right time, it's brilliant. Finland has not increased the number of university enrolments in the last 20 years. The education department is proud of that because 40 per cent go to uni, 20 per cent go to work and the other 40 per cent go into vocational education and training. They're so proud of their vocational education and training, and it's such a great pathway, that they're very happy with the status quo, as are their businesses. So I think there are some lessons for us here in Australia, to look at the way we talk about university and about vocational education and consult with business and industry as to what they need and what they think will get the best and most creative approach for a student in their business, because that's what's going to drive us forward with the innovation that we need.

I'll share something else with you, because I hear in this place discussion of university debts and funding models. Germany and Finland both have free university education. When I explained to them our system, which was originally called HECS—I think it was introduced by the Hawke government; correct me if I'm wrong—and is now called FEE-HELP, of which I was a beneficiary with all three of my degrees, one unsuccessful and two successful, the Europeans thought that was a pretty good approach. They thought it made sense. I think they're thinking of doing it as well. They said to me, 'We've got to make sure the university sector is sustainable, and therefore someone has to pay for it.' They thought the process of charging people after they finish their university degrees, when the higher income they're earning as a result starts to kick in, was a good model.

Probably the other thing—and this goes to one of the elements of the bill that bears closer scrutiny and discussion as to why I support the amendments, and I'm an example of this myself—is that you value something more if you have to pay for it. I just wonder, if people are looking at free university education—people have talked about Gough Whitlam; they don't talk about Hawke so much, but I think he was on the right track—if you have to pay for something, even if that payment is delayed, you value it a bit more and you're likely to try harder and make it work. I think the free university system, where it exists in the world, means that sometimes people can sign up because they think, 'It's not going to cost me anything.'

Regarding the recommendation in this bill to overturn the previous 50 per cent pass rule, where if you didn't pass with 50 per cent you didn't get the funding from the Commonwealth anymore, I sometimes think young people—and I was one of them—need to be saved from themselves a bit. If you're not passing all your subjects with 50 per cent in a university year, then I think everyone has to have a look at whether you're ready for university. I don't know if it's a responsible approach to say, 'Look, you failed to get 50 per cent, but keep going, don't worry about it, the money will keep rolling in; we'll just lend you more.' I think that bears closer discussion and scrutiny.

I want to finish by talking a bit about Indigenous people and education. I've got a great and proud and wonderful bunch of Indigenous groups in my electorate, and I've seen some amazing things happen. I just want to pay tribute to, in particular, five Indigenous women who were given a PhD place by the University of Melbourne to study various theses. They completed those, and some of those Indigenous women have told me that when they were in year 9 at school the thought that someone would call them 'Doctor' one day never occurred to them. It's great, and I really believe in encouraging Indigenous people who, as with all of us, are ready to go to university to be supported. I've seen some really good outcomes in my patch. I couldn't be prouder of those women who did that, and I'm also proud of the University of Melbourne for making it happen.

So, I'm all for that. I suppose it's just really important to make sure everyone, whether they're Indigenous or not, goes to university because it's right for them and goes to university when they are ready and gets supported through university. When I went, and I wasn't ready and I didn't get supported, it wasn't such a great outcome. When I went the two other times, and I was supported and I was ready, there were great outcomes. I got a Bachelor of Applied Science and a Master of Business Administration, which I'm very proud of. I'm sure many people who have those qualifications are very proud of them.

I'd love us to be a country where our vocational education training system is as good as the university system and seen to be held in the same esteem as a university degree, and I would love to see kids encouraged towards that. I think we can work much more closely. Education systems—not just universities but also TAFEs and secondary schools—can work a lot closer with business, to understand the skills of the future. We can encourage people to approach university when they are ready and support them so they have a successful experience at university. That includes all students, but I support encouraging Indigenous people into some sort of training. For some people, that might be vocational education and for others it might be universities.

I want to finish by congratulating the minister and the government on us having this discussion. I really wanted to contribute positively to it, and those are my contributions for the moment.

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

Like the previous speaker, I too am very passionate about education. I was a high school English teacher for 11 years and left that sector for law, still loving education. Teaching a lesson in that democracy unit in the schools in my electorate is one of the best parts of this job, getting back in front of kids. I believe in the opportunities that flow from the pursuit of education after high school. Australian universities and vocational education providers, especially TAFE, are some of the best in the world.

Education can transform lives. It is the great hope of this nation and a wonderful export product. Therefore, I particularly welcome the fact that a key milestone in the Australian Universities Accord was reached last month. That milestone was the release of the accord panel's interim report outlining a vision for the future of Australia's higher education system. The process undertaken by the panel will culminate in a final report due for release this year. Nevertheless, this interim report is an important first step for us.

The report says that in the decades ahead more jobs will require the minimum of a university qualification. Right now, around 36 per cent of the current Australian workforce has a university qualification—that's just over one in three. The interim report estimates that that could jump to as high as 55 per cent by the middle of this century, a mere 27 years away. To put that 27 years in context, 27 years ago was when John Howard was elected PM or when the current PM was elected to the parliament for the first time. Both occurred on the same day. Fifty-five per cent in 27 years is only a bit of a rough guesstimate, but it gives the country an idea of the skills challenge we face now in the years and decades to come.

What the accord team argues in this report is that the only way to significantly boost the percentage of the workforce with a university qualification is to significantly increase the number of students who are currently under-represented in our universities—our smartest people that aren't getting into a lecture hall. They're students from the outer suburbs and the regions, students from poor backgrounds, students with a disability and Indigenous students.

Today almost one in two Australians in their late 20s and early 30s has a university degree, but this is not consistent across the nation. In the outer suburbs of our major cities, only 23 per cent of young adults have a university degree. However, in the regions, in the areas traditionally represented by the National Party, the rate is lower at just 13 per cent, and, sadly, only 15 per cent of young adults from poor families have a degree. If you're a young Indigenous Australian, it's even lower, again, at only seven per cent. I'm ashamed to say that, after around 21 of the last 27 years of having coalition governments in control of this nation, we're left with the fact that, if you're a young Indigenous man today, you're more likely to go to jail than to go to university. To quote from that magnificent one-page document, the Uluru Statement from the Heart:

Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet. We are not an innately criminal people.

Clearly, all sensible Australians, all proud Australians, all patriotic Australians and all caring Australians know that this is a fact that we need to fix and a situation that we need to change. What we're currently doing is not working. We need to do it not just because it's the right thing to do but because it's what we must do. If we don't significantly boost the number of students from the outer suburbs and regions and the underrepresented groups at university, this nation won't have the skills it needs and the workforce it needs for the decades ahead.

This interim report is in two parts. The first part sets priorities for immediate action. It makes five recommendations and says the government should act on these now ahead of the more detailed final report. The Albanese government is committed to act on these recommendations as a priority. Two of these will require legislative amendments, which is what this bill will do. One of these amendments will be to extend demand driven funding to metropolitan First Nations students. This amendment will allow all First Nations students, including students living in metropolitan areas, such as Moreton in Brisbane, to be eligible for demand driven Commonwealth supported places in eligible higher education courses.

Currently, all First Nations students living in regional and remote areas are eligible for these demand driven Commonwealth supported places, where they meet the academic entry requirements. The amendments for the demand driven measure will expand eligibility for these places to all First Nations students, regardless of where they live, if enrolling in bachelor and bachelor honours level courses other than a designated higher education course such as medicine. This means there will be no cap on the number of First Nations students who can enrol in CSPs and that table A providers will receive Commonwealth funding for all First Nations students they welcome to their university. It is hoped that this measure could double the number of Indigenous students at universities within a decade. So we want to flip on its head the current situation where a First Nations man is more likely to go to jail than to university.

The other component of this bill will amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to cease the 50 per cent pass rule. This amendment will remove the requirement that students must pass 50 per cent of the units they study to remain eligible for a Commonwealth supported place and FEE-HELP assistance. This change will have the largest impact on students from disadvantaged backgrounds. The former government introduced this rule as part of its job-ready graduates package, and it has seen a disproportionate number of students from poor backgrounds being forced out of university. More than 13,000 students at 27 universities have been hit by this coalition change in the last two years, and most of these 13,000 students are from disadvantaged backgrounds—the battlers.

Minister Clare noted that he'd been told by Western Sydney University that, in 2023, 1,350 students had lost their funding and then withdrawn from their courses. We don't want people dropping out of university. We want them to stay the course and graduate, especially if a helping hand is all that they need. We should be helping students to succeed, not forcing them to quit or engineering a situation where they are more likely to quit.

I stumbled in my first semester of teacher's college. I was a 17-year-old from the bush, trying to make sense of the big smoke, far from my friends and family. My wife experienced a similar hiccup coming down from Cairns to go to university in Toowoomba. Between us, we now have seven degrees. She has four; she's much smarter than me. So these early hiccups are not uncommon. The six months after the last day of high school are some of the most traumatic and dramatic times in any young person's life. They go from the school rules and routine, and perhaps the family home, to independence, driving, working, money, sex, drugs, rock 'n' roll and politics—all of those wonderful things you embrace appropriately as an adult. That first swirl of adulthood is a heady mix that can be too rich for many young people. Liberty is exquisite but it is also scary. So I am glad that this bill also requires universities and other providers to do their bit as well.

Universities will be required to put in place a dedicated plan to keep their students engaged and completing their studies. Something as simple as a helping hand or a kind word can make the difference. There will be a support for students policy, under which they will be required to proactively identify students who are at risk of falling behind and set out what they will do to help them succeed. This could cover matters like processes for identifying students who need help; assessing a student's academic and non-academic suitability for continuing study, particularly where they have triggered an alert; connecting students to support; and identifying students who are not engaging with their support before that census date wherever possible, when struggling in a subject will show up as a fail. It could cover providing sufficient non-academic support for students such as financial assistance, housing information and mental health support. All of these are important because many students struggle because of non-academic issues. Something as simple as providing a safe place for study or a supportive hand can really change a person's life, particularly in that first semester at uni, I would suggest, as can having appropriate crisis and critical harm response arrangements. As we have seen lately, university campuses are full of all sorts of people, including some ne'er-do-wells.

A student support policy could cover providing access to trained academic development advisors who can help a student identify what's holding them back and come up with the right response for that student. It could cover ensuring that academic and non-academic supports are age and culture appropriate, including specific arrangements for Indigenous students. It could cover proactively offering special circumstances arrangements where a provider is aware of a significant life event for a student. Something as simple as the death of a grandparent can dramatically change a student's life. It could cover providing access to targeted individual literacy, numeracy and other academic supports. It could cover providing provider driven and evidence based additional support such as peer support. Hooking people up with the right colleague can make a difference as well. It could cover providing targeted, in-course support from academic staff such as check-ins, and flexibility on assessment arrangements that considers a student's work and family situations. Those are 11 suggestions that could help.

There will also be financial penalties applied to universities that fail to comply with these sorts of support obligations. These changes are about tearing down the barriers that keep Australians from completing their higher education courses. We need to have a well prepared, educated and skilled workforce to meet the needs of this nation's future, and we know that education leads to better life outcomes and more money in the pocket.

The other three priority actions recommended in the interim report don't require legislative changes. They include creating further regional university centres and establishing a similar concept for suburban metropolitan locations. In response, the Albanese Labor Government will double the number of university student hubs. There are currently 34 in regional Australia, including one in my hometown of St George, out in south-west Queensland. I was out there for a book signing recently, and I can attest that the locals are very proud of their centre. The mayor of Balonne Shire, Samantha O'Toole, told me she hopes it will help the shire fill some of the many local job vacancies they have—training locals up and connecting them with universities, but then keeping them local rather than losing them to the cities. The government will establish 20 more in the regions and, for the first time, establish 14 in the outer suburbs of our major cities, where the percentage of people with a university qualification is low. I say, particularly as a Queenslander, the most decentralised state, that this is a significant boon.

The next recommendation is to extend the Higher Education Continuity Guarantee into 2024 and 2025, which the Albanese Labor Government will do. As part of that, we will require universities to use any funding remaining from their grant each year on things like enabling courses and extra academic and learning support for students from poor backgrounds, from the regions and from other underrepresented groups.

The last recommendation is to engage with state and territory governments and universities to improve university governance. I know Minister Clare has written to the ministers responsible for higher education in each state and territory to convene a working group to be led by Ben Rimmer, the deputy secretary from Higher Education, Research and International from the department. This group will provide advice to the minister and other state and territory ministers on the immediate actions they should take to improve university governance.

All these important changes are about ensuring more Australians, no matter where they live and as long as they're smart enough, have the opportunity to attend university and, importantly, have the best opportunity to complete their studies. I commend this legislation to the House.

James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023 and very much commend the second reading amendment from the member for Barker, which lists some very pertinent points of consideration and concern regarding the bill that's being brought into the parliament right now. This, of course, includes reforms recommended in an interim report, where we have not seen the completion of a process which is looking at something pretty significant—the entire reform of the higher education system in continental Australia.

But, evidently, the reforms in this legislation are so urgent that the completion of the accord process cannot be waited upon and we cannot see the full body of work that that process will do that might justify the changes that are being suggested here. That can't wait; we have to make these changes now, apparently, which I've got a little bit of suspicion around. When it comes to higher education, you would think they would be applying some of the thorough, comprehensive principles of investigation—of testing their assumptions and, certainly, completing the body of work—before making any recommendations whatsoever.

Nonetheless, we've got a circumstance where the minister has said there's an interim, urgent set of changes that can't possibly wait for the whole process to be completed so that we as a parliament can reflect on the entirety of that body of work that the Universities Accord is undertaking and then consider recommendations, including the ones that are before us in this legislation, in their totality. There's some irony that, on the topic of tertiary education, we don't have that kind of robustness of process in place around the reform of it.

This is very much captured in this second reading amendment, but I also make the point that we in the coalition are very interested in reform to the sector that is driven by the interests and welfare of students, not necessarily the institutions or the people that work at them or derive their livelihood from them—they are incidental to the tertiary sector. The tertiary sector is there to educate our next generation and make sure that our economy has the talent and skill and that our society has the talent and skill that it needs for the future. So we certainly hold a concern that the approach towards reform is not as well informed as it could/should be for current and prospective students, who the tertiary system is actually there to serve.

I also raise a general concern about a suggestion that comes along at times in these debates, which I think is regrettable. All young people are given the message in our society that to be successful they have to aspire to go to university and that, apparently, that's the only pathway of success in your career. That's complete rubbish—absolute rubbish. Frankly, there are some economies that really demonstrate the value of the robust sector of vocational education and training, which can absolutely provide very fulfilling, worthwhile career paths for people that, I might also add, can be much better remunerated than traditional tertiary education. 'Go to university and get a degree because that's the only way to be successful': I think bringing that principle to the concept of tertiary education should be pushed back against. I certainly take the opportunity to say to young people that are thinking about their career path: by all means, university might be the pathway for you, but it just as soon might not be. Don't get bullied or pushed around by anyone into thinking that you have to go to university.

I don't think we should be designing systems in this country that try to force-feed students into the university sector at the end of secondary school, regardless of whether or not it's appropriate for them or whether they've got the capacity. There are two reforms that are being implemented, thanks to this interim urgent, desperate need to make change before we can see the conclusion of this body of work.

One is my concern that people are being pushed into university who might not necessarily be suited to it. This is the repeal of the issue around people who are failing subjects at university. What this does is say that the reforms we brought in in government, where, if people weren't passing at least 50 per cent—I was a little surprised that it was only at 50 per cent, to be honest—of their subjects in the first eight units, that the universities shouldn't be encouraged and supported, through government policy, to keep people in university who are probably looking like having a very difficult likelihood of completing those studies.

Not to be boastful or arrogant, but when I went to university I had no friends or fellow students who were failing 50 per cent of their subjects. Sometimes someone might not have put in the right amount of effort, and done the famous supplementary exam a few weeks after the finals. When I was there it was certainly not the culture of university that there were people with that kind of failure rate—which is not to suggest that they're a failure as a person; just that they are clearly struggling to a significant degree in the discipline they've chosen to pursue at university.

The real risk, as we point out in this amendment, is that when you fail a subject you still get charged for it. If you're consistently failing, you're probably heading down a path of being unlikely to complete your degree. If you do complete it, you've had to retake so many subjects that, if you continue at that rate, you're getting either a huge HECS debt with no qualification or a HECS debt twice the amount it's meant to be. This is because it's taken you so much longer, in the investment, in the cost of additional subjects, due to that failure rate.

Everyone can think of a particular example of someone who had a rough start at university but then came good and is now winning Nobel Peace Prizes or what have you. It's not unreasonable to suggest that the more common likelihood is that people who are struggling, to that extent, at the start of their university degree are more than likely to have those problems continue or even exacerbated.

We know the pressure and the challenges of student debt in this country. We know what's happened recently because of the dramatically high inflation rate and, therefore, the indexation of HECS debt. It's hard enough for those who have a standard HECS debt. But for those who have an even higher HECS debt because of the subjects that they haven't passed, that they've had to accumulate into their costs—particularly when they haven't ended up with any qualification at the end of that process but have a lot of student debt and a difficult low income earning capacity as well—it would be very daunting, quite cruel and unnecessary to have government policy that facilitates that, rather than the policy we introduced that puts a lot of pressure back on universities not to use people as an ATM. That's just a way of earning money through the Commonwealth subsidy when that person might not be appropriate for the university.

The second measure regards the expansion of the demand-driven program to all Indigenous applicants who meet the entry requirements in the system. This is something that's already in place, but with a geographic delineation. This removes that geographic delineation. I'm open-minded to the principle. I really find it interesting that we have people in this debate contributing about how helpful they think this will be in addressing challenges around Indigenous disadvantage. At the same time, when we sit through question time, we're told that unless we have a Voice to Parliament we can't possibly come up with solutions to any of the challenges that Indigenous people are facing. How in the world is it that we're in here doing something that we could not possibly know anything about because we don't yet have a Voice to Parliament telling us whether or not this is a good idea. Yet we're here making this change that speakers in favour of it from the government say is going to be transformative for Indigenous Australians. That is very confusing to me. Do they have their own Voice already? Apparently, the good decisions, good policy and good reform for Indigenous Australians could only possibly come from this Voice that may or may not be created through a vote within a month or two.

If the Voice is to be created, maybe we should be waiting before discussing this legislation any further to see what the Voice thinks of it. Surely, the Voice would have a view on this change regarding Indigenous Australians' access to Commonwealth support to study at university. I thought that would be very, very significant and relevant for a Voice to reflect on and give us some advice on. So here we are, as a parliament, being told that we should make a major change to the way in which we support Indigenous Australians without a Voice advising us. This might be a good and sensible reform to make and it might be a very good example of how we can in fact, as a parliament, do things for Indigenous Australians without necessarily having a constitutionally enshrined Voice to the parliament.

We are seeking support for the amendment to this second reading which importantly makes it clear that we think we need to look at this much more deeply through the Senate committee process. As I say, we've been given a piece of legislation that seeks to implement part of other reforms that may or may not emanate from this accord process which is not finished yet. The two things I have talked about are apparently so urgent that we can't wait until the end of the inquiry process. We can't see the body of work that is going to be produced by that process. We can't see all of the reforms in their entirety to understand and assess them all together. We can't see the parts the government might recommend, bring forward into the parliament or reject before being asked to consider this legislation.

I'm not necessarily convinced that anything about it is particularly urgent, unless this accord process is running much later than the government indicated. I thought it was around a 12-month process. They're obviously well and truly into it, given they've got interim, urgent recommendations in this bill that we have to immediately pass through the parliament. I'm not necessarily convinced it wouldn't be worthwhile for us to see this whole process in its entirety and consider everything that's being recommended together.

I urge the House to consider and support the amendment to the second reading that has been moved by the member for Barker. I'm sure this bill will pass through this chamber and go to the Senate. I hope the Senate have the opportunity to look more deeply into some of the issues that are being raised in this bill, because I really don't feel that we in this chamber have been given the opportunity to properly understand the urgency of this. I don't think the data has been presented to explain why it needs to happen. The data either doesn't exist or it does exist, and it's going to be in this report that we're not allowed to see yet because they haven't finished it. Those are all good reasons why I think a Senate committee process is very worthy of looking more deeply into the consequences of what's being asked for here.

We've indicated that, hopefully, with the successful amendment to the second reading in this chamber, we are comfortable with the bill progressing into the Senate. They can do what they do best, which is slowly but surely reflecting in great detail, through their committee processes, on some of those questions we are not in a position to get answers on in the debate here in the House of Representatives. With those comments, I commend the amendment from the member for Barker to the House.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023. This bill amends the Higher Education Support Act of 2003 to implement priority recommendations of the Australian Universities Accord interim report released by the Minister for Education on 19 July 2023.

On the bill before the House today, I want to begin by acknowledging the work of the Minister for Education and his commitment to engaging strongly on this issue. The minister has proven himself to be a very passionate advocate of education and the opportunities that it affords. I want to thank him for the work that he's doing in his portfolio. As a former teacher myself, I also have a very strong interest in education and the power of opportunity it presents. I want to commend the work of the minister, especially for his consultative approach and his commitment to engaging broadly with his colleagues, with the education sector, with business and with the public.

This has been a wide-reaching, wide-ranging consultation. This broad based commitment to the issue is reflected by the make-up of the accord team, comprised of pre-eminent Australians with enormous experience across our universities in business and in public policy. It is, of course, bipartisan in composition, as it also has the membership of the Hon. Fiona Nash and the Hon. Jenny Macklin AC. Both were known to us in this place for the tremendous amount of work they have done and continue to do.

The Albanese government is committed to opening the door of opportunity for more Australians to go to university. I welcome the government's commitment not only to that but to take immediate action on this front. Part of this immediate action means acting on the priority actions of the interim report. There are five recommendations in total. Firstly:

that we create more university study hubs—not only in the regions but also in our outer suburbs;

It's quite a coincidence that just recently that my constituent, Aarif, who lives in Craigieburn, in the outer areas of the electorate of Calwell—Craigieburn, along with many other peri-urban suburbs, is a fast-growing suburb—reminded me of calls for the provision for a university in Melbourne's northern suburbs. This has been a point of discussion for some time now. I have long maintained, as have many of my local constituents and our local council, that there is a strong case for a university hub in Melbourne's north-western suburbs. As with all considerations, demand is a critical factor, as Melbourne's northern suburbs have indeed grown and continue to grow exponentially. It's something that I support strongly. I'm joined in my support by my local community and look forward to the opportunity of being able to progress such a vision of a university hub in Melbourne's northern suburbs.

Secondly, the report calls for the scrapping of the '50 per cent pass rule' and requires:

…better reporting on how students are progressing;

Thirdly:

that we extend the demand-driven funding currently provided to Indigenous students from regional and remote areas to cover all Indigenous students;

Fourthly:

that we provide funding certainty during the accord process by extending the Higher Education Continuity Guarantee into 2024 and 2025, with funding arrangements that prioritise support for equity students; and

And fifthly:

that we work with state and territory governments, through National Cabinet, to improve university governance.

The government has confirmed that it will implement each of the interim recommendations. The first two recommendations require legislative amendment, which this bill provides by amending the higher education support amendment to extend the current demand driven funding for regional and remote First Nations students to all First Nations undergraduate students studying bachelor or bachelor honours level courses from 2024, to remove the pass rate requirements for students to remain eligible for Commonwealth assistance and to introduce new requirements on universities and other providers to support students in successfully completing their studies.

Education is a fundamental pillar of equality in our society. It is, as many have said before me, an enabler of a life lived with purpose and contribution. Quite often, university students in my electorate have spoken to me about the additional pressures they face in having to work to meet the additional demands that come with being students and being involved in higher education. Often this coincides with a time in their life when responsibilities and commitments have taken hold. They have worked very hard to secure their place in a higher education institution, but they are new to some of the financial demands that come with being a young adult, such as having to work to financially support their education. In many cases, this can extract a price at the expense of education results for a period of time.

The balance between the need to work and commitment to education can often be challenged, and the fundamental equality test is challenged with the 50 per cent pass rule. That rule means that, currently, students are required to pass at least 50 per cent of the units of study they undertake to continue eligibility for Commonwealth assistance. The pass rate is assessed after they have completed eight units in a bachelor degree or higher, or four units in a shorter course. Currently, students who fail more than half lose eligibility for Commonwealth assistance.

The pass rate requirements were originally introduced in January 2022 by the former coalition government as part of its Job-ready Graduates program, to dissuade students from continuing in courses they were deemed to be not academically suited for. However, the practical effect of these measures has been overly punitive for students. The impact of the pass rate requirements has disproportionately affected students from First Nations, low-socioeconomic status and other underrepresented or educationally disadvantaged cohorts. More than 13,000 students at 27 universities have already been affected by the 50 per cent rule. Removal of the rule has been called for by universities right across the country—universities like the University of Adelaide, Monash University, the University of Technology Sydney, the University of the Sunshine Coast, the University of New England, Queensland University of Technology and Western Sydney University. The bottom line is that we should be helping students succeed, not forcing them to quit, especially those who have worked very hard to win a place at an institute of higher learning.

This government is putting responsible education governance back into the sector. The bill introduces requirements on universities and other providers to have policies in place to help students successfully complete their studies. Under these policies, universities and other providers will be required to demonstrate how they will identify students who are struggling and how they will connect those students with support services to help them. The addition of new student support requirements will place formal obligations on providers to support students in successfully completing the units of study in which they are enrolled. This will require higher education providers to demonstrate how they will support their students who are experiencing academic difficulties, particularly students who are at risk of not successfully completing their studies. It will serve to ensure that universities are not just merely transactional—accepting fees and leaving students to incur debts—but will bring about a situation where universities and providers have an active responsibility towards their students, with processes that identify students who need help and that assess a student's academic and non-academic suitability for continuing study, particularly where they have triggered an alert.

Importantly, these measures are expected to contain policies which connect students to support and identify students who are not engaging with support before their census date and to provide sufficient non-academic supports for students, such as financial assistance, housing information and mental health supports. This is important because many students struggle with financial commitments and with personal issues often related to health issues, relationship issues and other factors which are non-academic issues but which do impact on the student's academic performance.

The bill also means that appropriate crisis and critical-harm response arrangements are made, and it provides access to trained academic development advisors who can help a student identify and understand what might be holding them back and come up with the appropriate response so as to assist that student. It also ensures that academic and non-academic support is age and culturally appropriate, including specific arrangements for Indigenous students. Proactively, the bill is obliged to offer 'special circumstances' arrangements where a provider is aware of a significant life event that would be affecting a particular student. It provides access to targeted individual literacy, numeracy and other academic supports. It provides provider-driven and evidence-based additional support such as peer support. It provides targeted in-course support from academic staff such as check-ins and flexibility on assessment arrangements.

Ignoring the realities of the complexities affecting young people who are studying in higher education does not help improve our education outcomes, nor does it improve the integrity of our higher education system. What it does serve to do is entrench inequality and the skewed accessibility indicators against those from low socioeconomic backgrounds, and makes places of higher learning more often than not spaces for the children of more financially and socially endowed families. This is why we need policies that reflect the practical realities on the ground and serve to deliver for everyday Australians—policies that go beyond rhetoric and actually afford people real opportunities. Many of those people are the young people in my electorate.

This Labor government offers Australians—and young Australians in particular—an opportunity of a fresh start. This Labor government has seized opportunities, and in particular has seized upon Australia's educational opportunities and the jobs of the future. It's estimated that by 2050 approximately 55 per cent of all jobs will require a higher-education qualification. Why are these details behind Labor's policy framework particularly important? Because it speaks to the need of the many in my electorate who find obstacle after obstacle thrown in their way—especially the young, who are at a disadvantage when trying to tackle the demands of work and study.

At a time when this country is confronting a massive skills shortage, this amendment is critical to addressing opportunity in Australia and the potential of education as a key driver of Australia's future prosperity. The damaging years of the coalition government was not a good time for the people of my community, especially when the previous government reduced the availability of relevant pathways for new skills for young people, and destroyed opportunities for people looking to reskill or even upskill in emerging industries. The measures found in this bill build on the government's election commitment to deliver up to 20,000 Commonwealth-supported places and fee-free TAFE.

It's not just about the damage done to the university sector under the previous government—if we want a contrast between the leading role this government plays in securing the future of our higher-education sector and that of those opposite, we must remember that billions were ripped out of TAFE and vocational training that offered pathways and opportunities for work. The previous government not only presided over 140,000 fewer apprenticeships than when they first came to government; they actually compounded the problems by ripping away the pathways that could address the crisis that they helped create. To that end, I commend the bill to the House.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do take great pleasure in joining the debate and following my friend the member for Calwell, whose speech I would say I agreed with up until about the last 90 seconds, actually. It wasn't too bad. Of course it's worth reminding the House that the coalition actually delivered record government funding for universities of $115.1 billion in total between 2019 and 2024, so while I appreciate the member for Calwell's more substantive remarks in the debate, I do take exception to and perhaps contradict her view in relation to the former coalition government 's commitment to the university sector.

I do want to acknowledge from the outset the Minister for Education's work in this regard, and I took a great deal of interest in his presentation to the Press Club and the interim Australian Universities Accord document when it was released, because I do believe the minister has identified challenges and entrenched disadvantages which were also recognised by the previous government in relation to the participation rate for rural and regional students in tertiary education and also addressing some the entrenched disadvantage the more vulnerable sectors of our community face, in particular our Indigenous community. I do acknowledge his speech at the Press Club was very much in the frame of 'never forget where you came from' in its message. It was a reminder to us all that the work in this particular area—higher education and training for our young people, giving them every opportunity to achieve their full potential—I fear will never be completed.

The previous government made some good inroads. My friend and colleague Senator Nash, who is a part of the framework now and coming forward with good solutions for regional areas; the member for Forrest, Nola Marino; the member for Grey, Rowan Ramsey; I and many others have worked in this space, particularly around access and affordability issues for regional students, for much of the past decade, and I see a lot of progress in that regard. Notwithstanding that, I do acknowledge the job will perhaps never be fully complete. I don't think you can have this debate in relation to rural and regional communities without actually having a holistic understanding of some of the factors that contribute to our comparatively poor participation rates and our comparatively poor completion rates for regional students at tertiary level.

The member for Calwell touched on some of the challenges students in her own community face in terms of having to earn an income while also excelling in their studies and taking on some of those rights of passage of a young adult: getting their own licence, being allowed to go to a licensed venue and drink alcohol and some of the coming-of-age issues that everyone faces. If you compound that with the big challenge for regional students—moving three, four, five, six, seven, eight or 10 hours away from home and being expected to excel in a strange environment, a city environment which they've never lived in—it can be a difficult time in a young person's life.

One of the challenges we have in this place is making sure where possible we reduce some of those obstacles for rural and regional students and make sure they also have every chance to achieve their full potential, so I do like some of the measures the minister is talking about and I do like some of the broad themes in his address and the direction he's trying to take. Unless you fundamentally believe country kids are dumber than city kids, there must be other reasons why students from rural and regional areas don't achieve at the same level in terms of completion of secondary school and tertiary education, and I believe there are some entrenched obstacles we have to deal with.

Understanding this holistic issue is something that sets us apart in the National Party because we live this every day, and unfortunately for us in rural and regional communities it can start as early as three and four years old with access to child care, access to early education. The government has made quite a song and dance about its commitment to child care in this place but has failed to recognise still that actually accessing child care in rural and regional communities is the challenge, rather than this question of the amount of subsidy you're paid if your child has access to a childcare place. The places simply aren't there for our smaller regional and rural communities. Linked to that, the issue then becomes how we attract and retain a skilled workforce in a regional community if that workforce does not have access to child care. It's another complication. A more holistic understanding of some of the issues we face in our rural and regional communities plays into this conversation about how our young people go on to achieve their full potential.

We need to make our regions a more attractive place to live, to work and to raise a family. That's something I think all members who live outside of the capital cities would agree on. We need to invest in infrastructure and services. We need to invest in those communities in a way which allows them to attract and retain a workforce, which then has a flow-on benefit for things like education. I'll give an example. If you have a regional town with relatively poor education opportunities, it becomes very hard for that town to retain doctors, nurses, teachers, engineers and local government officials. Once their own children get to an age where they need to attend school, those highly employable people with very mobile skills will move to places with more opportunity.

The bill before the House today is important. It addresses some of the issues that we talk about on a regular basis, but we do need to work in a more holistic way, looking at the whole picture of rural and regional communities and the opportunities they present. I would argue that this government, in its early days, is missing opportunities to invest in rural and regional communities. We've seen the abolishment of the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure fund. We've seen the cancelling of the Roads of Strategic Importance program. We've seen a greater focus on a Canberra-knows-best approach, rather than devolving decision-making to local communities, who are best placed to make investment decisions.

In a competitive environment, keeping a skilled workforce is a challenge for rural and regional communities. As much as access to university provides a pathway to future financial security for an individual, we must also remember that achieving trade training or technical skills, without necessarily going to university in the first place, is something equally worthy. It should be equally celebrated in our nation, and I don't think that's the case today. I fear that we have an undue emphasis on university qualifications above all else, when trade and training in technical skills also offer great career opportunities for young people. I would caution the government about that. I don't think the minister and I would have any disagreement at all on this point; I think he sees the value in trade training and making sure those technical skills are recognised and supported, but I would add to the debate a caution against putting all our focus on university participation rates and not necessarily recognising the value of trade training at the same time.

As much as there are economic barriers that we need to deal with in this place, through things like the tertiary access allowance and supporting disadvantaged students to give them the opportunity to go to university, there is also a challenge, for those of us who live in rural and regional communities, to make sure we're doing everything we can to build aspiration amongst young people. The minister himself reflected on this in his National Press Club address. I think he was the first in his family to finish year 10 and 12. I had a similar experience in my family. Not completing year 12 wasn't that big a deal in rural and regional Victoria at the time I was going to school. One of our challenges, as leaders in our own communities, is to encourage that aspiration amongst our young people and ensure they understand the opportunities that are there for them, whether it's to finish year 12 and go to university or to finish year 10 and get a trade. Whether it's an apprenticeship in hairdressing, building, plumbing or electrical work, they're all skills that can hold a person in good stead for the rest of their lives. As we move amongst our school communities, as we talk to young people, we need to encourage them to aspire to go on and achieve additional qualifications.

The bill before the House is important in the sense that it recognises those regional challenges, but I have some concerns about where the government is heading. I think there's a fine line here, with the proposed change to the 50 per cent pass rate. I do believe we have to set expectations for our students—that passing their course matters when they get to university, and that there are consequences if they don't achieve significant progress.

When I say there's a fine line, I also mentioned earlier that there are additional challenges for a regional student relocating, in particular. They may not necessarily excel in the early days of their career. I can understand where the minister is attempting to go in this regard, but I am concerned that removing the 50 per cent pass rate from the expectation of the student may set them on a trajectory where they could incur more HECS debt and accumulate it with no real prospect of obtaining a degree and no prospect of any monetary benefit from achieving a tertiary qualification. With the HECS debt increasing in the order of seven per cent this year, thanks to inflation, accumulating more debt is not in the best interests of the young people involved, so there is a fine line to draw with young people, particularly from regional areas. If they are failing at university, accumulating more debt is not necessarily in their best interests.

The other point I have some hesitancy about—and we need to reflect on exactly what this means and its practical application—is uncapping the allocations for Indigenous students, regardless of their background. I still need to be convinced by the minister that there is an actual disadvantage we are addressing here. You could sustain an argument that an Indigenous student living in a metropolitan area, say, Melbourne, actually experiences less disadvantage than a rural and remote student living some distance from a university centre. So I remain to be convinced by the minister that this is a good idea. The previous government focused this particular measure on Indigenous students from regional communities, but I remain to be convinced that uncapping this particular feature is in the interests of all students.

There is an intellectual inconsistency in the debate right now. We had the minister at the dispatch box today saying: 'We must implement a Voice to Parliament. It must be enshrined in the Constitution before we can make any changes to education.' But we are debating a bill tonight which makes quite significant changes to address an issue of disadvantage in our Indigenous communities. So there is a bit of an intellectual inconsistency. I say to the minister: when you identify these challenges and opportunities, don't wait for a referendum about the Voice to make those decisions. I encourage him to go ahead and make those decisions now and not wait on a vote in several months time.

There is another issue that I want to raise briefly. While I welcome the government's commitment to double the 34 study hubs which were delivered by the coalition government—our model, the Regional University Centres model, was a proven and highly effective way to provide greater access for regional and remote students—I am concerned about the government's decision to provide 14 of those hubs in metropolitan suburbs and only 20 in regional areas. Given the disadvantage the minister talked about in his National Press Club address and the access issues that we all experience in rural, regional and remote communities, I would have thought those additional 34 study hubs could all have been easily allocated to regional communities. I question whether saving a metropolitan student a train ride into town is quite the same as saving a regional student from relocating three or four hours, setting up accommodation somewhere in the order of $20,000 per year and then having to work part time to offset some of those costs for their family. I'd question whether the priorities are quite right in that regard. I think having 14 hubs in metropolitan suburbs is questionable at best. We could easily have used those full resources to increase the number of study hubs right across rural and regional Australia and deliver more benefits to those regional students.

As I said at the outset, I commend the minister. I think the minister has correctly identified some of the real challenges we face in terms of access to tertiary studies. I certainly offer him my support and feedback in good faith, and will very willingly work with him to achieve great outcomes on behalf of regional students not just in my seat of Gippsland but right across rural and regional Australia. This is an area of work where I think governments should be able to find a bipartisan approach which is in the interests of making sure every young Australian has every opportunity to achieve their full potential. I thank the House.

Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Higgins, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Education is the most powerful weapon against disadvantage. Higher education, including university and vocational training, has been described as 'the ticket to the show', according to our education minister. The average annual income for a university graduate is $100,000, compared to $70,000 for someone whose last year of education was year 12. The jobs of the future will require higher education qualifications. There is not a parent, school student or uni student in Higgins who is not invested in the quality of our higher education system. The 2021 Census revealed that, for people in my electorate aged 15 years and over, 61 per cent have a university degree or diploma, while 13 per cent have a vocational qualification or are doing an apprenticeship. That's over 70 per cent in total.

These figures are in stark contrast to single-digit rates of university attainment in some parts of Australia—swathes of it, in fact. Such inequity is unacceptable when our Commonwealth rests on unlocking the talent of our people, young and old alike.

The Albanese government is well aware that our higher education sector is an engine for ideas that imbues industry, business, science the arts and culture. The engine, however, needs more than an oil change. It needs an overhaul. The higher education sector is simply not enabling our nation in the way it could. Not enough Australians are getting a foot in the door. In fact, not enough Australians even aspire to the heights of attaining higher education.

Too many students, having walked those halls, are being booted off due to poor grades or to external factors like an inability to make ends meet. The student experience has become an afterthought, a poor cousin to research output which, in itself, has generated perverse outcomes that are not meeting the national interest. Publications over impactful, real world outcomes. Academic and support staff among our brightest enjoy all the security of gig workers. Financial viability of universities is excessively linked to vulnerable flows from international students. Parents fret about their daughters' safety on campus, with sexual harassment and victimisation—and worse—rife. Student services, the scaffolding run by student led unions, have been hollowed out under those opposite, but, had they been healthy, they may have thinned out those breadlines of young people we saw during the darkest days of the pandemic.

Why this sector was allowed to drift speaks to the culture of 'set and forget' we inherited following a wasted decade under those opposite. However, the Albanese government does not shy away from the hard work of reform, especially when there is so much at stake. We established the Australian Universities Accord to drive an enduring alignment between our higher education sector and the intellectual, cultural community and economic development of our nation. As described by Jenny Macklin, a panel member:

Accords bring people together to discuss challenges and agree on a joint path forward. In high education this could mean a continuous and dynamic process of government coming together with universities, higher education providers, students, business, unions and community leaders to agree on the best way that higher education can meet Australia's economic, cultural and social aspirations and allow them to be continually developed over time

The accord is about taking what's good and making it better, ensuring that our universities can help Australia tackle the big issues facing us over time. It is an investment in our greatest asset: human capital. The accord is being led by a panel of pre-eminent Australians from education, business and public policy, with metropolitan and regional representation, and it has bipartisan support on the panel. The panel members are: Professor Mary O'Kane, who I've had the pleasure of meeting; the Hon. Jenny Macklin; Ms Shemara Wikramanayake; Professor Barney Glover; Distinguished Professor Larissa Behrendt; and the Hon. Fiona Nash, a champion for regional Australia.

After months of a travelling road show of consultation in regional and metropolitan communities, the highly anticipated University Accord Interim Report was released on 19 July. I would like to thank the panel and support staff for their time, generosity and guidance.

The amendments proposed today seek to implement priority recommendations from the interim report. These were deemed too important to wait, and they include: that we create more university study hubs, not only in the regions but in our outer suburbs, to reduce the tyranny of distance and cost; and that we abolish the 50 per cent pass rule for students to remain eligible for Commonwealth assistance. This hurdle disproportionately affected students from underrepresented and often poorer backgrounds—the very people we want to open the door to. The pass rate is assessed after students have completed eight units of a bachelor's degree or higher or four units in a shorter course. Students who fail more than half currently lose their Commonwealth assistance.

This punitive measure was introduced in January of last year by the former Liberal government, as part of its jobs-ready-program thought bubble, to dissuade students from undertaking courses that they were not academically suited for. Rather than birthing aspiration, it killed it. More than 13,000 students at 27 universities have been hit by the rule, with their futures cut short—what a loss.

Universities and other providers will now be compelled to provide the scaffolding to aid successful completions. They will have to demonstrate how they are identifying struggling students—I'll give them a hint: ask them—and how they will connect those students with support services. Here's another tip: invest in student services—they actually work. Civil penalties will apply for compliance breaches. Universities from all around the country—including Monash, the University of Adelaide, UTS, the University of the Sunshine Coast, the University of New England, QUT and Western Sydney University—have been calling for this change. We have listened.

We will extend the demand driven funding—meaning it has no cap—currently provided to Indigenous students from the regions to cover all Indigenous students undertaking a bachelor's or bachelor's-honours level degree, other than medicine, from 2024. We need to create pathways that lead Indigenous students into learning and away from jail. This speaks directly towards Closing the Gap outcome 6—to increase the number of Indigenous young adults aged 25 to 34 years who have obtained a tertiary qualification to 70 per cent by 2031. We intend to shore up funding certainty for universities by extending the Higher Education Continuity Guarantee into 2024-25, and we will work with subnational governments to improve university governance.

Part of the governance mandate is a commitment to stamp out sexual harassment and victimisation. This is why we have appointed the CEO of Our Watch today to lead a working panel to intervene, not navel gaze. We can't afford to wait when one in 20 students has been sexually assaulted and one in six sexually harassed. These students have been met with grossly inadequate responses from universities that are confusing and retraumatising. It has taken far too long to act on this issue. Previous Liberal governments could have acted, but they dithered and delayed, so we are making this an immediate, not deferred, priority.

The interim report is an invitation for feedback. What should stay? What should go? Bold ideas and tweaks are welcome. A key outcome of our Jobs and Skills Summit, including the one I held in Higgins in September of last year, was the need to fast-track skills acquisition to help people find their niche. As one attendee said:

We need flexible, accelerated training programs to develop intersectional expertise—the future lies at the intersection of multiple domains.

Hence we are investing $18.5 million to deliver microcredential courses in areas such as IT, engineering, health and education. Rather than having six career changes in your lifetime, a somewhat dubious claim, these short courses will enable people, young and older, to upskill or reskill with targeted work-ready skills.

A future focused economy demands securing pipelines free of leaks, from every corner of this country to our universities, for the enablement of a skilled workforce, and we will need that workforce for the renaissance of Australian industrialisation in green energy, our defence program and onshore manufacturing. The only ticket should be a burning desire to spread your wings, with universities providing the uplift to help our young people soar. I commend this bill to the House.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Education is life changing. It opens doors for people, no matter their background, if they get the chance to engage in it. My higher education, from my bachelor degree to my PhD and everything in between, has given me opportunities I could never have thought possible back when I was a little girl at my 15-student, one-teacher primary school in the tiny little community of Eurack—the very same little school that my dad went to; he travelled there on horseback and was forced to leave when he was 13 after his father died, a story that remains familiar for many kids in economically difficult situations.

Obtaining a higher education degree is becoming more and more important. In the next five years more than 90 per cent of new jobs will require postschool qualifications, and over 50 per cent of these jobs will require a bachelor degree or higher. To meet these figures, we're going to need around 53 per cent of our students in the education system to come from rural, regional and remote areas of this nation. But there are very big challenges to regional Australians accessing higher education. It's a problem that really has been persistent, long before my dad and long after. In regional Australia we are less likely to complete year 12, less likely to gain a certificate IV qualification or above and less likely to apply for and accept a university offer. Indeed, in my electorate of Indi we have persistently low rates of applying for let alone completing university.

According to the ABS, less than 20 per cent of people in regional and remote areas have a bachelor degree or more, compared with over 35 per cent of people in our major cities. And if we're going to improve this number, regional Australians simply must have better access to quality education opportunities and facilities. The Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023 implements some of the priority recommendations of that interim report released just last month. I am so pleased to see the accord, so pleased to see it truly acknowledge the importance of and the barriers to education faced in rural and regional Australia. And I acknowledge the work of the Hon. Fiona Nash, the regional education commissioner who's on the accord panel and who I've had the great honour of speaking with many times about rural and regional education.

I will closely read the recommendations in the final report, and I want to use its findings to work with the government on improving regional higher education outcomes. I can think of no greater thing to work on, actually, because we know that if we get that education piece right then our income levels rise and our health improves. This bill implements two of the five recommendations of the Australian Universities Accord interim report. It uncaps the numbers of Indigenous students who can enrol in a Commonwealth supported place by extending eligibility for demand-driven funding to all Indigenous students rather than only those living in regional and remote areas, and I welcome that.

The bill also removes the requirement that university students successfully complete at least 50 per cent of their courses in the first year of a bachelor degree to continue being eligible for FEE-HELP assistance and to continue as a Commonwealth supported student, and I really support this. We know that those students who are unsuccessful have pretty good reasons for being unsuccessful, and we need to wrap our supports around them. In place of this rule, the bill will require higher education providers to have a support-for-students policy to help them identify those students who are at risk—and many of them are rural and regional students—of falling behind, of failing, and to support them to successfully pass their course.

I did part of my education in Sweden, and if anybody was failing, the teacher was brought in to explain why their students weren't doing well. Imagine if we had the same here—and I say that with the greatest respect for our teachers, knowing the pressure that they're under and the lack of resources they have. But that applied in the university system. In fact, I sat a series of exams once and many people in the class failed, and the lecturer had to come back, quite red faced, and explain to us why she hadn't taught the course well enough. I couldn't believe it at the time, but it's maybe not a bad idea.

Providers face financial penalties for failing to comply with their support-for-students policy. The Department of Education will shortly release guidelines for what a policy should look like. I note that this bill reverses two parts of the former government's Job-ready Graduates bill. I have to say that when I voted on this bill in 2020 it was, at that time, the very hardest decision I've ever had to make on a piece of legislation, and of course, as an Independent, I have to make a decision on every piece of legislation that comes before the House. The thing is that that legislation implemented several of the recommendations of the Napthine review into regional and remote tertiary education. I had been a steady visitor to the education minister's office calling for those recommendations to take shape. One of the things in that were included in that bill was providing scholarships to help young people move out of home if they needed to for university. That support is absolutely critical for rural and regional students when 70 per cent of students from the regions have to relocate to undertake tertiary study.

I voted in support of that bill because I could not in good conscience vote against a bill that involved significant new measures to support regional universities and give them some funding certainty at the time, but—gee!—I had serious questions about the evidence base for the other measures in it that bill. It really was a heartbreaker for me, I've got to say.

The accord panel has since heard concerns that aspects of the job ready package are having a negative impact on students and the higher education system. The panel found that the 50 per cent pass rule, which this bill is abolishing, is 'causing undue harm to students'. They said it disproportionately impacts students from disadvantaged backgrounds. As a conscientious legislator—I hope I am—I support reversing harmful measures when the evidence says so. I support the abolishment of the 50 per cent rule because I want to see support, not punishment, for students from disadvantaged backgrounds who are struggling, and I emphasise that I want to see support for our teachers, our lecturers—our university staff—many of whom are on a difficult employment contracts, to help those students succeed.

I support extending to demand driven funding to all First Nations students, not just those in the regions. Indi has almost 200 tertiary students who identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. The government says this measure could see the number of First Nations students double in the next decade. I really, really look forward to seeing that happen. I want that to happen. So many of us do; I think all of us do.

In addition to the two recommendations this bill implements, the Universities Accord Interim Report made three recommendations for the government to implement as a matter of priority. I'm really pleased to see that the first priority action is to extend visible local access to tertiary education by creating further regional university centres. The accord panel heard that proximity and connection to a place of learning is a critical decision-making factor for students when determining future study options, but on the flipside, location is also a significant barrier for accessing higher education. Regional university centres, also called country university centres, are a clever, innovative solution to this problem. I'm very fortunate that we have one country university centre in Indi that has three satellite sites, at Wangaratta, Mansfield and Corryong, and they are doing amazing work. The three centres at the moment are supporting 118 students who are enrolled across 37 different institutions and in 19 different areas of study. Importantly, 50 per cent of these students are the first in their family to study at university. That straightaway to me is a success factor.

The centres allow someone who is enrolled in any university across the country to access a quiet study space with fast internet—and I can't underscore how important it is, if you live in rural and regional Australia, to have access to fast internet—and printing at any time they need. But they are much more than a physical space. There's study support there too. With half of the students enrolled in these centres being the first in their family to study, the centres, really importantly, offer learning skills advisers to help students navigate what is often very unfamiliar university language. These centres are making sure that higher education isn't just available to students in the big cities. It's quite remarkable.

I had the great honour of being at the Mansfield centre and cutting the ribbon at its opening last year. I was really moved to hear the story of one of the local students who was there. Her name is Alicia Follett. Alicia told me about her study journey through her psychology undergraduate degree. That is so important; we desperately need psychologists in rural, regional and remote Australia. Alicia told me about the difficulty in finding somewhere quiet just to sit her exams while juggling work, being a parent and living in a regional area.

While studying her psychology masters degree, Alicia was one of the first to enrol in the centre, in Mansfield, in February 2020. She said that the centre is convenient, has reliable internet and saves her time commuting to and from home. And the importance of a quite place, with that reliable internet, when sitting an online exam cannot be underestimated. Alicia's experiences echo mine. I was a parent to young children and studied remotely, years ago, and had to go to the local high school to have an invigilator on my exam. It was all pretty tricky, pretty difficult. We got through it in the end.

I want to acknowledge the fantastic work of the CUC Ovens Murray chair, John Joyce, the CUC Ovens Murray centre manager, Mark van Bergen, and all the wonderful staff at the centres I've visited, across our region, who are helping these regional students succeed. It truly is fantastic. The government are saying they will fund 20 additional university centres in the regions. I congratulate them on that.

They should fund one in the town of Benalla in my electorate. In Benalla, fewer than 14 per cent of people have completed a bachelor's degree or above. Benalla doesn't have regular reliable public transport. The kids there can't get to Wangaratta or Mansfield where these centres are. This transport problem between towns holds young people in regional Australia back if they don't have a licence or a car, and there's no train and very infrequent buses. They must seek out online studies in isolation or leave home, if they can.

I want to highlight that down in Benalla the community foundation Tomorrow Today is leading the Education Benalla Program to tackle some of these barriers. They fund bus trips to Melbourne, for years 10 and 12 , to show them what university is like, because that is a key factor here. Many of these kids don't know anyone who's been to university. They have no sense of what it could be like. But after the trips to the city, the students often ask, 'How will I afford living out of home?' Accommodation, while studying in the cities, is a huge barrier for obtaining higher education.

A Tomorrow Today survey of students who attended one of these university bus tours found that 45 per cent of the students said that being in the country is important to them when it comes to choosing a university. They didn't want to leave home. Mature age students with young children want to support study, and students want to stay connected to their sports team and community, and some families simply don't want to see their young people move away. So we really do need to support our young regional students to study closer to home, if they can.

Albury Wodonga Health, on the border in my electorate, are proposing a collaborative education and research centre, bringing together regional universities into one place so that we can create a sustainable pipeline for young rural students to enter into medicine, nursing, allied health, get the clinical training they need close to home and the university training they need close to home as well. This is a program that this Universities Accord could be speaking to, in this regard. It would help solve our workforce shortages and would address that other big gap in rural and regional education, the research piece. We'd like to see this collaborative centre, on the border, supported by this government, to bring this home in a really important way, to make Albury Wodonga Health the clinical education and research regional centre of Australia.

I have an example of that. Right now, there is a cardiac catheter lab in Albury-Wodonga, but to train a nurse to work in that lab they need to go to Adelaide to get that education. So that cardiac catheter lab that's so desperately needed can only open a few days a week. A local training facility bringing our universities together, addressing these issues that rural, regional and remote students face in accessing high quality education, is a model that I want to see. I certainly will be contributing to the submission process for the rest of this accord.

The interim report acknowledged that regional universities provide essential infrastructure and facilities for the wider community. This is exactly why we need to support more regional universities, to make them centres of excellence. I have spoken to the education minister about that particular project in Albury-Wodonga. I've spoken to the infrastructure minister, the health minister and the assistant health minister, and I really want to see that delivered.

Finally, I want to touch on HECS indexation, and the Australian Universities Accord is considering recommendations to review student contributions. We know that with HECS debt facing 7.1 per cent indexation, those students who've been lucky enough to make it to university are facing a debt burden that is putting them off completing their studies. I congratulate the government on this bill and I commend it to the House.

Fiona Phillips (Gilmore, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased to speak tonight in support of the Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023. I'm happy to say that I'm absolutely committed to advancing the cause of higher education and championing the aspirations of our young and mature-age people. This is why I'm supporting the higher education support amendment bill 2023. This is a bill that will help steer the future of education in our country in a positive direction.

The Albanese Labor government recognises the power of education to uplift individuals and entire communities, and I do too. Where I live, on the South Coast of New South Wales, access to education is vital. It's the difference between being able to have a secure, well-paying job, a profession you care about and being able to provide for your family. It's about a thirst for more knowledge regardless of age or background, and being able to see things differently, which ultimately benefits our communities. As a former TAFE teacher at the Nowra campus and a tutor at the Shoalhaven campus of the University of Wollongong for over a decade, I certainly have seen the immense benefits that learning pathways can provide for local people. It can be truly life changing. It's why I will always champion the opening of more doors of opportunity, ensuring that more people can access all the benefits of higher education.

I'm proud that the Albanese Labor government is helping to enact the changes that will make education more accessible and more equitable. Our commitment on this is plain to see. In our short time in government we have done a lot. We brought in fee-free TAFE in skill shortage industry areas. Not only that, but we've continued to increase our commitment. The Albanese Labor government is investing in 300,000 fee-free TAFE places to address areas of need. That's directly benefiting 2,700 apprentices in my electorate of Gilmore. As a former TAFE teacher and also a work-placement coordinator, I certainly understand how vitally important a quality TAFE and vocational education and training system is to developing a skilled workforce, re-engaging an unemployed and underemployed workforce and providing essential upskilling to mature-age workers.

I've seen the benefits of fee-free TAFE in my community. Earlier in the year I visited Nowra TAFE and spoke with students who were participating in the fee-free TAFE program. The opportunities that these students now had access to were life changing. I spoke to a young woman from Bawley Point who was retraining to be a chef. She told me that there were employment opportunities near her home for apprentice chefs. She wanted to do the work, and people wanted to employ her for it, but she couldn't afford to retrain until she got a free-free TAFE spot. Now she's retraining and she's employed near her home. She told me point blank that if it weren't for fee-free TAFE she wouldn't be there. There were so many more stories just like hers. That shows how serious and effective the Albanese Labor government's approach to education and training is. There were businesses in need of chefs near Bawley Point, and there were people who lived in the area willing to do the work. All they needed was a little help getting retrained, and we've provided them with the avenues to do this, and that's just in TAFE.

We've also created an additional 4,000 university places over the next four years to support graduates from STEM disciplines. We've invested $72 million to build and retrain the early childhood education workforce nationally. We're investing to help around 75,000 early childhood educators to complete professional development training. We're providing support to 6,000 current early childhood educators to complete more study. We're connecting 2,000 early childhood education students to complete placements and strengthen workforce supply. That's just some of what we've already done, but we're far from finished.

This brings me to the higher education support bill 2023. This bill will further the Albanese Labor government's improvements to the higher education sector. It will improve access for those who need and deserve it, and it will get better outcomes. These improvements to the sector come from consultation with the industry itself. We've taken the expert advice. What I mean by that is that we've embraced the recommendations of the Australian Universities Accord interim report. This was a comprehensive document crafted by a team of leaders who are experts in their respective fields. I'm proud to acknowledge the outstanding members of the accord team, including the chair, Professor Mary O'Kane AC; the Hon. Jenny Macklin ACT; and Professor Larissa Behrendt AO. Their combined and bipartisan expertise has guided us in crafting a bill that reflects our shared commitment to excellence and inclusivity in higher education.

The accord's recommendations show our dedication to the core principles of fairness, equity and support for all students. What are the recommendations of the accord? The first recommendation is to create more university study hubs, not only in our regions but also in our outer suburbs, ensuring that no Australian is left behind due to geographic constraints. This is a brilliant recommendation and one I'm happy to support. I know from experience how life-changing these university study hubs can be.

In my electorate, we have a university hub. It's the Country Universities Centre Southern Shoalhaven Ulladulla campus—and it's brilliant. I've been there many times and have seen how these services can change lives. The Country Universities Centre at Ulladulla is a dedicated learning and study space. All people in the Shoalhaven region who are studying higher education at any Australian university or non-university higher education provider can study at the Country Universities Centre. The centre has the space and facilities to support students in completing their studies. It removes the barriers to education all too often faced by people who live in the country. Whether a student needs a broadcast studio, a quiet study, break-out rooms or just an internet connection, the Ulladulla hub helps people who live in my region achieve their educational goals. It has been designed by regional people for regional people, and it's working. But our electorate is a large one. It takes over four hours to drive its length.

So, while the Country Universities Centre in Ulladulla is fantastic, we need more. And I'm going to advocate for more in my region. I'll be able to do this because the Albanese Labor government committed $66 million to establish 34 new hubs in areas without a significant physical university campus and where the percentage of the population with a university qualification is low. That will benefit so many who live in the regions. Communities like mine will receive study hubs to combat some of the challenges faced by those in the regions enrolling in education programs.

Adopting the recommendations of the accord to create more regional study hubs shows the Albanese Labor government's commitment to education. But this bill will also support the other four recommendations of the interim report. Another recommendation of this report, which the Albanese Labor government will implement, is to scrap the 50 per cent pass rule. The 50 per cent pass rule was introduced in January 2022 by the former government. It was part of their job-ready graduates program—and it has been a failure. The former government's measures were unnecessarily punitive and disproportionately impacted marginalised students. The rule removed students' Commonwealth supported study assistance and access to HELP loan assistance if a student couldn't fulfil a 50 per cent pass requirement.

In its short time in operation, the 50 per cent pass rule has been so damaging. Already 13,000 students have been directly impacted by the 50 per cent pass rule—that's thousands of students who have had their education taken away all because the former government didn't understand the intricacies and complexities of higher education. Well, either they didn't understand or they didn't care. Either way, the rule was unnecessarily punitive and poorly thought out.

The 50 per cent pass rule disproportionately impacted regional students, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and students who are otherwise underrepresented or disadvantaged—the very people who stand to gain most from higher education. This was unfair and unnecessarily cruel. This is one of the reasons I am proud to support this bill, which is going to remove the 50 per cent pass rule. The Albanese Labor government recognises that success is not measured by arbitrary thresholds but by the progress and determination of each individual.

I want to see students helped to succeed, not be forced to quit. This bill doesn't just remove the 50 per cent rule, though; it will help students succeed. The higher education accord bill will introduce requirements for universities and other providers to have policies in place to help students complete their studies. They will need to be able to identify students who are struggling and then help those students connect to services to help them. These services include providing housing information, mental health support, crisis support and financial assistance because many students struggle in higher education due to non-academic issues, and supporting them to get the best outcomes they can is the right thing to do. Universities will be required to comply with—

Debate interrupted.