Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I am the Democrats higher education spokesperson. I have been in that position for almost 12 years, I might add, so it is a bit like groundhog day for me today. It is always a bit like that when the Senate is sitting on a Friday. It is always a bit like that, too, when we are dealing with another raft of higher education reforms from the coalition government that seek to further entrench deregulation, privatisation, fee increases and the lifting of caps on full fee paying places. But, for fear of seeming too churlish about the legislation before us, I do acknowledge that there are some good measures in this bill as well—not enough, however, to make up for the radical cuts that have been made to the sector over the past 11 years or so.

I rise to speak on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007 on behalf of my party, which obviously is passionately committed to and unshakably supportive of publicly funded higher education. I acknowledge that there are some worthwhile measures in this bill. Certainly, this legislation does represent more funding for the sector than it has had—not to mention a raft of broader reforms to the sector. I will start with the bits of the bill that we like. With regard to the income support measures, for example, while they are not specifically a part of this bill, I was especially pleased to see the government extend rent assistance to Austudy recipients. I would be incredibly disappointed to leave this place next year having not seen that particular change. I have argued for that change for a long time now; it is a change that I have run campaigns on and moved amendments on. I would be sorely disappointed—not to mention downright angry—not to see it implemented.

So a big tick to the government on that one. Do not think you are off the hook, though, because the government has yet to fully implement, or even acknowledge, a raft of recommendations in relation to student income support—recommendations, I might add, that were contained in the report of the first Senate committee inquiry to look solely at the matter of student income support. There are a raft of unanimous measures in that report which have yet to be responded to, let alone taken up or implemented. With property renters facing annual rent increases of up to 16.7 per cent—and, as we know, people are paying record median weekly rents—this particular change in relation to rent assistance is long overdue. But I remain concerned that the issue of student income support—which we know is a fundamental issue, if not the most important aspect, in ensuring participation in higher education by traditionally disadvantaged groups—is being sidelined.

Universities Australia—then the AVCC—in its report Australian universities student finances 2006 showed that 30.4 per cent of full-time Australian university students received youth allowance and 4.8 per cent received Austudy, compared to 29.7 per cent and 12.7 per cent respectively in 2000. Yet 12.8 per cent of full-time students had their applications for income support rejected, versus nine per cent back in 2000. So we are seeing a diminution of those students who are eligible for, or accessing, proportionately, student income support. That is hugely concerning to me. Nevertheless, the extension of rent assistance is a good, welcome measure, although a comparatively small one, as are the number of other measures contained in this legislation. With fees going through the roof and other charges being brought to bear on students, I can promise you that while I am here, and probably once I have left, I will continue to campaign for additional income support measures.

I want to put on record my concern for the process involved in this legislation. I wanted this bill to go to committee for some very good reasons, some of which have been articulated by Senator Carr on behalf of the Labor Party. That move to committee was rejected. Once again, I just want the people of Australia to know that we are operating a bit like a sausage factory—ramming through the bills with minimal scrutiny and minimal analysis. Even when there are good bits, there are also bits that are questionable. There are also good bits that need to be examined in further detail.

Take the diversity and structural adjustment fund. This $208.6 million is intended to assist universities to specialise according to labour market needs. It is specifically aimed at regional and smaller metropolitan institutions. The Democrats are not opposed to specialisation; we are certainly not opposed to diversity either. It is easy to believe that there are some issues confronting the university sector—funding problems, namely—which will make the current sector unsustainable into the future, unless there is some additional investment or broader reform on top of what has been included in the budget. Without that funding the sector is forced to reform and to rationalise, so this fund might be helpful to that end. Or it might not. It might be woefully inadequate for its intended purpose, in which case any attempt to further deregulate the sector is likely to advantage the prestigious universities at the expense of those smaller regional and metropolitan ones. That is probably pretty obvious. What is not obvious in this legislation is that we cannot work out the intended consequences or unintended consequences of a particular fund. We are being asked to pass funding measures, and funding that implements radical changes to the sector when senators in this place—and no doubt the members in the other place—as well as those in the university sector and the community generally have been given limited detail on how these measures might work. Once again, we have a framework that is being implemented, a debate that is inevitably rushed through and a committee stage rejected by the government. Once again, people have good reason to feel a little sceptical. We are naturally suspicious of government’s desire to deregulate the university sector. Opening up to market forces always sounds a bit catchy, but the reality is that the markets tend to favour those with resources and the brands already in place.

There are some other potential pitfalls for universities that are hidden in the detail of this bill. The sticky subject of workplace relations, for example, rears its ugly head under item 5, schedule 2, where the minister has a discretion to apply a 7.5 per cent penalty on a university’s CGS grants where she believes that the national governance protocols and/or the higher education workplace relations requirements have not been met. Remember those wonderful requirements that were passed in this place? Remember when the government did a deal with those four independent senators and how they lost their independence that day? Remember that further intrusion into university autonomy: the application of sticks not carrots to the university sector? Downright bribery it was. There is now a 7.5 per cent bonus if a university meets these requirements under a bill that will change a 7.5 per cent penalty with no apparent provision for appeal of the minister’s decision. Consider that the minister in her address to the annual conference of the Australian Higher Education Industrial Association this year on 15 March claimed that universities could be doing more to apply the spirit of the workplace relations requirement and that her apparent measure for the spirit of those requirements was the extent to which they adopt Australian workplace agreements. She said:

No-one is forcing staff on to AWAs ... But universities’ work practices must come into the 21st century.

While the minister, understandably, emphasised the carrots in that scenario, there are a few sticks in there as well. For students there is actually less in this budget; there is not a whole lot for students. The Democrats believe in a strong higher education sector that allows equitable access for students and that does not mean burdening them with already massive debts. Australian fees at both our public and now our private institutions are among the highest in the world. OECD figures show that the average tuition fees for students in our public universities lag behind only the United States and Korea, while students in our private universities are only behind the US in the amount that they pay. It is worth noting that public institutions in the US in many cases do not provide the same kind of the structure that we do in this country. The extent of the fees and charges that have been put onto the heads of university students and graduates in Australia is extraordinary.

Under items 1 and 2 of schedule 2 in this bill there are changes to the funding cluster—and Senator Carr talked about this—reducing the total number of clusters from 12 to seven, which increases for most disciplines within those clusters. We do support additional Commonwealth funding for those disciplines, particularly maths and statistics, which will increase by $2,729 per place. Hopefully, this will help arrest a dramatic shortage in maths and stats skills in academia and the broader workforce.

But there is a sting in the tail, with accounting, administration, economics and commerce places now receiving $1,029 less per place than previously. Of course, the government is now trying to cover this up by saying that the total funding per place for these courses could actually be more than it currently is, neglecting to mention that, where that is the case, it is because students are the ones who are picking up the tab.

Under section 2 of schedule 7, the maximum student contribution amounts will be varied to allow universities to levy significantly higher fees against students in the accounting cluster—$8,499, up from $6,709 previously. The government claims that universities are not required to do so, which is a very naive way of doing it and, speaking about naivety, this brings me to schedule 5, which the Democrats do not support. I have circulated an amendment to that effect with regard to the removal of the cap on full fee paying places for Australian students. A full-fee combined medicine-arts degree at the University of New South Wales costs $237,000. Good, if you’ve got it! Nice for some! That is not the average amount available to students in Australia today. People may say, ‘They don’t have to pay it.’ Poorer kids of lower socioeconomic backgrounds, who are traditionally disadvantaged, are told: ‘Don’t worry, kids, you don’t have to pay it; you can compete for a Commonwealth funded place’—albeit with differing levels of Commonwealth funding these days—‘You’ll still have a massive HECS debt that is the size of your parents’ mortgage. You’ll not get income support. But don’t worry about that because you will get to pay it off when you get married, have kids, buy a house and live the rest of your life.’ The government’s view is: ‘We don’t believe in debt in this country, so we get rid of the public sector debt. We just put it on individuals who are starting out their careers.’

I must not forget about mature age students. What do they start out with in this scenario? They have already got big debts, so they can just accumulate more debts. Do not worry about those people who are perhaps not as well off as some people, they can compete for Commonwealth funded places, because it is the rich kids or people who have access to money who can pay for these places. If that is not downright fundamentally inequitable, I do not know what is. I believe in higher education. Education at any level is an investment, not a cost. I believe in publicly funded education. I do not believe that it should be a province for the elite wealthy; it should be based on your merit, not on your bank balance. This bill basically signs the cheque, which says: ‘The cap on full fee paying places will be removed. It is now a free-for-all but, if you are wealthy, that is an added bonus.’

The Democrats will move an amendment designed to get rid of that schedule. We hope that all politicians, particularly on the coalition side, will consider this a worthy amendment. Do not get sucked in to believing that there is some kind of guarantee that the government, or the minister, can give that poor students will not be shut out of top courses. I invite the minister’s representative today, Senator Scullion, to articulate exactly what guarantee the government can possibly give. I cannot work it out, and I have been involved in higher education legislation not for just as long as I can remember in this place but before as an adviser. I do not know anyone in the sector who has been able to tell me or my office exactly what is involved in this guarantee. How can you put a guarantee in place that will stop universities, with the reforms included in this bill, from establishing only full fee paying courses? Commonwealth funded places are allocated according to cluster. What is there to stop universities from allocating their Commonwealth places to one discipline within that cluster and having only a full-fee course in another discipline within that same cluster? The removal of the cap on full-fee places, combined with the reforms proposed in this bill under schedule 4, allowing universities greater flexibility in enrolling students in Commonwealth supported places, could allow them to do exactly that. And it was confirmed at estimates hearings by the Department of Education, Science and Training. Let’s not take my word for it; take the government’s and the department’s word for it. Look at last month’s Hansard of Senate estimates hearings. According to the department, it will indeed be possible for universities to move places around within a cluster to create only full-fee degrees. The department has said it on record.

When it comes to a choice between what the bureaucratic experts are saying versus a minister giving a promise to backbenchers that these courses will not be funded, I know who I believe. With this freedom, it would be particularly lucrative for universities to manipulate their Commonwealth supported places and full-fee places within each cluster so that particularly high-demand courses are only full fee paying. In some respects, one could not blame universities for doing this, given how long they have been starved of funding. In fact, the government ripped funding out of the sector. The effect on student debt levels could be disastrous. The fact that the cap on full fee paying degrees has been removed is illustrative of that. This cap is not being increased to 50 per cent or 70 per cent; it is being entirely removed.

There is no other way to say ‘free for all’ than to completely remove the cap once and for all. By definition, that of course signals the possibility of only full-fee courses. How could it not? Again, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I ask the minister’s representative to explain to us how you will guarantee that you will not have only full fee paying courses. I assume that the representative is now Senator Minchin, not Minister Scullion. The government has brought in full-fee degrees for domestic students. It has overseen an increase in student fees, among the highest levels in the world, and it has slashed campus services and facilities. The impact of so-called voluntary student unionism is now being felt on campuses through a range of things—reduced resources, infrastructure, services and sporting facilities; the closing down of student newspapers; differing events on campus, a lack of representation, and a lack of welfare and other opportunities and services that were previously provided. The government agenda has been very clear.

No matter how you spin it, full fees signal true inequality. They subvert academic merit as a principle and fairer determinant of entry. It should of course be based on merit. The removal of this cap, combined with other changes in the legislation that allow universities greater flexibility in apportioning places, could fundamentally transform the equity of the university sector once and for all.

As I have indicated, the Democrats have circulated an amendment that deals with schedule 5 of this bill. We will be opposing that schedule. All that the amendment does is ensure that the current cap on full fee paying places remains in place. If any government members were thinking that this might be some kind of a threat to the notion of full-fee places, it does not. It just means that the cap will stay in place. I would dearly love to reform this legislation much more broadly. And just let me get at the Higher Education Support Act—I would love to reform that little baby too. But I know that that is not going to happen.

If the amendment is successful, the cap will stay in place. How can that be threatening for members of this place? Without the cap, you would be opening the way for full fee paying only courses. I say again that anyone who thinks that there is a guarantee or that the minister’s word will ensure that there are not those places should just look at Hansard from estimates. Look at what we have been told. It is absolutely clear that it is possible to move all places to one course and offer another course as a full-fee one within the cluster. It is done and dusted; full fee paying courses in Australian universities and full fee paying courses only.

This bill is incredibly damaging. The removal of that cap signals a profound shift in public support for higher education. I certainly hope that senators on all sides will realise exactly what they are ushering in. I am confident of the non-government perspective, but I hope that the government senators will realise too. The elite and the wealthy will get university courses but the rest will just pay their debts and fees and give up on getting into some of the courses, particularly the new courses that could be—and I am sure will be—full fee paying courses only.