Linda Kirk (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007. This bill has been criticised quite rightly for its mechanisms specifically. But it also raises broader issues which, when placed in the context of changes to education policy during the term of this government, do need to be highlighted.

I would like to focus the Senate’s attention on the matter of the removal of caps on full fee paying places—which have been referred to by a number of speakers this morning—and also on the fundamental deficiencies in the education policy of this government as demonstrated throughout its 11 long years in office. I want to express my concern at the growing disregard that this government shows when making decisions that affect some of the most important aspects of Australian society.

Higher education is crucial to Australia’s future and we simply cannot afford to compromise its ability to innovate, create, expand and continue to move this country forward. I am disappointed to say—as many of my colleagues already have said this morning—that, when the history of education funding under this government is scrutinised, two startling and disturbing patterns appear. The first is that of cuts to education funding, which were followed by years of neglect of the education sector. As the election approaches, there seems to be an apparent re-emergence of interest in education by the government and it could only—and cynically—be categorised as nothing more than political puffery.

This in itself would be damaging enough, but the second pattern—a philosophical and policy one—should cause even greater alarm to Australian families who are concerned for their children’s future education. During the last 11 years we have seen a distinctive policy shift towards this government distancing itself from universities through its continual encouragement of fiscal independence for our tertiary institutions. As a result, higher education institutions have, by necessity, become economically focused. The combination of lower Commonwealth funding and the implementation of the full fee paying instrument for generating revenue have created strong incentives for what might be described as the evolution of the focus of universities. The government, however—as they constantly tell us—are proud of these initiatives. Although these initiatives might look good on the balance sheets, they have the effect of moving Australia away from the fundamental goal of having a universally accessible, merit based higher education system. It is only under such a system that universities will produce the best results and the best graduates and advance Australia as a nation in the most effective way. To trap and force universities into an economic focus alone is to change their role from one of educating to one of surviving. Yet, even during this election year proclamation of an educational conscience and push for redemption, we still see the damaging aspects of this government’s policy. They remain glaringly obvious.

The history of education under this government is clear. In the first year of its first term the government cut education funding by $100 million. It cut funding to technical and further education in TAFE by 13 per cent in the same year. Between 1995 and 2003 there was an alarming six per cent per student place drop in funding. These cuts paint a very dark picture of the regard that this government has for higher education and its place in a prosperous Australia.

As my colleague Mr Stephen Smith pointed out in the House of Representatives: to rub salt into the wound, this year’s budget, whilst being described by the Treasurer, Mr Costello, as an ‘education budget’, in fact estimates a drop in education spending as a proportion of GDP, from 7.7 per cent to 7.4 per cent. This is a government which, no matter what it claims, has over the last 11 years ignored and failed to understand the nature and importance of education as the driving force behind Australia’s future.

This combination, of financial pressure and the imposition of a purely economic option, is a powerful instrument for shaping decision making and priorities in the higher education sector. It is this combination that the government seems to enjoy imposing upon the Australian people. We have seen it recently with the Work Choices legislation and we see it in the bill before us. Reduced government spending over the last 11 years, combined with the introduction of full fee paying places and now, with this bill, the expansion of the subject clusters and the removal of full fee paying caps, has effectively created coercion through circumstance, presenting to universities an economic choice but, in reality, leaving them with no choice.

Make no mistake: Australian universities have reacted in the expected way—in fact, in the only way they could—to the government’s policy direction. We have seen in universities, as the Senate is well aware, a big increase in private-source income and income from fees and charges. When the HECS contribution rate went up, the universities passed that increase straight on to students. When full-fee places became an option, universities were able to, and have, implemented strategies to allow students to enter university simply on the basis of the weight of their chequebook rather than merit. With the changes proposed in this current bill, and as confirmed by the Department of Education, Science and Training during the last round of Senate estimates, there is now an opportunity for universities to offer entirely full fee paying courses. What an absurd and contradictory situation in what should be a merit based system of education in this country. It is both understandable and predictable that Australian students oppose these measures, just as we in the opposition do.

In the time that I have left, I would like to speak briefly on the issue of full fee paying places. As I said a moment ago, the Australian system of university admission is, and should be, a merit based system. Students work hard to acquire the UAI score they need in order to get into the course that they wish to pursue. In this way, the system does encourage the brightest students into high-demand courses and ensures that graduates of the highest quality enter the Australian workforce. This is a key element of higher education. Yet it is one that is fundamentally undermined by the existence of the full fee paying avenue of entry into university courses.

Labor has opposed, and will continue to oppose, the existence of full fee paying places. Our shadow education minister, Mr Smith, has declared that when elected to government Labor will phase out full fee paying places. This is not to deny the demand for university education but rather to acknowledge the importance of quality education to Australia’s future. Labor policy represents the opposition of the majority of Australians students to full fee paying places. The National Union of Students strongly opposes the government’s full fee paying places scheme. The NUS has expressed its resentment of the possibility that this policy gives to those with money to enter university courses with lower admission scores and the way that it fundamentally undermines the value of a university degree. In fact, we saw, on Wednesday of this week, students here on the front lawn at Parliament House making this exact point. The removal of the 25 per cent cap in the field of medicine elicited a strong response from the Australian Medical Students Association. Its national president, Mr Rob Mitchell, stated:

With this move the Government is sending a clear message to the Australian public: gone are the days of equality of access to education.

The message is clear.

This government is out of touch with students. To many—to me, particularly—that is not surprising. But we have to ask: is the government in touch with the wants of the universities themselves? No, it is not, according to the Group of Eight major research universities in Australia. Here we see a view counter to the view that the full fee paying solution to demand for university places is administratively effective. In its discussion paper published this month, the Group of Eight asserts that there are better and more effective ways to meet demand for university places than the full-fee mechanism, and that if these were implemented the question of full-fee or no full-fee places would become irrelevant. This demonstrates that this particular initiative of the government not only undermines the education system and alienates students but is considered to be potentially irrelevant to universities. It does not appear to be a sound policy at all but instead one driven by the tired old notion of ‘balance the books in any way possible and everything will be fine’. The problem is that it will not be fine. Students know it, universities know it and Labor knows it.

It is no secret that this is an ideological debate. It goes to the very core of how the government and Labor view education and, more broadly, the future of Australia. This government has been in office far too long. It is convinced that if you balance the books everything will be okay. But this ignores the need for a vision of a better Australia—a growing, advancing and expanding nation.

The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Rudd, has demonstrated this with his education revolution—Labor’s commitment to Australia’s education future. As Australians we need to define ourselves not by what we have been but by who we can be, and to move consistently and directly forward towards this. Education is the engine that drives progress, Higher education is the key to this process, and the decisions that governments make, however small they might seem, affect this crucial sector of our economy. The inclusion of full fee paying places in this system, the removal of the caps on those places and the refusal by the government to accept Labor’s amendments to this bill are all damaging decisions, ones which have the potential to irretrievably undermine Australia’s higher education system. I urge senators to take this matter very seriously. While these may be only a small number of changes, they do have the potential to cause enormous damage to the higher education system. I urge senators to oppose this legislation.