Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Hansard source

It was about 28 years ago that I first stepped onto a university campus to start my engineering degree. Back then university courses were free. Now of course there are a lot of costs involved in attending university. Family First strongly believes that Australia’s education system—primary, secondary and tertiary—should promote access and fairness. These budget changes will potentially deny access and erode fairness, and that is something Family First cannot support.

Family First believes it is fair that university students who receive some of the community benefit of university education should pay some of the costs—that is only reasonable—but there is always the question of how much is reasonable. What is the best balance which allows university students to contribute to the cost of their course but is not an unreasonable burden? What is the level which affects access to university? Access to university must be based on merit, not on who can afford it.

One of the concerns Family First has with the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007 is that it would increase the cost of HECS for accounting, administration, economics and commerce students by 17 per cent. That is a significant amount, and Family First is not convinced it is reasonable to increase already significant costs. It was only a couple of years ago that universities were allowed to increase the HECS rate by 25 per cent, and most have taken that up. Family First’s No. 1 concern is that the bill could pave the way for universities to be able to offer degrees to only full-fee students. It is a huge concern that universities could offer courses, probably more prestigious ones like law or dentistry, on a full-fee-only basis under these budget changes, despite the government having insisted they had to fill their HECS places, or Commonwealth supported places, first. A Senate committee last month heard that a university could exclude HECS students from courses by simply shifting subsidised places to other disciplines within the same cluster or funding band. The university could then charge full fees for everyone wanting the sought-after courses. I imagine some students would be prepared to pay these high fees; after all, what choice do they have? But what about those who simply cannot afford high fees? What happens to them?

The budget has changed how universities are funded by reducing from 12 to seven the number of discipline clusters. For example, law is now in the same cluster as accounting, administration, economics and commerce. This means a university could shift all its HECS places to accounting and commerce and require law students to fork out full fees. The incentive for a university to do so would be enormous, given that law and similar courses are highly sought after. Previously, there was a cap on the proportion of full-fee Australian students in a course and universities had to fill all HECS places in every discipline rather than a cluster before accepting full-fee students. This is a radical change which could have far-reaching consequences.

As the Higher Education Group manager in the department, Colin Walters, told the Senate committee:

If a university chose to set up a full-fee dentistry school and offer just full-fee dentistry places, it could.

Minister Bishop has confirmed that universities would only need to fill HECS places in a cluster group, not each discipline, before accepting full-fee students, but she said that government approval would be required for any significant movement of HECS places. This does not satisfy Family First and does little to appease our concerns that some universities will not see this as a green light to offer courses on a full fee only basis. The fact is, this legislation allows that to happen, and that is the key issue. The legislation allows universities to offer courses only on a full-fee basis, and that is wrong. This issue is about access. It is about Australian students being able to enter higher education and leave without a massive debt. Full fee paying places remove access for ordinary Australian families who cannot afford to pay up to $100,000 for a degree. For those who take out the $80,000 loan available from the government, this is a huge burden for graduates who will leave university wanting to start up careers, buy their first home and start a family.

To think that some Australian students could be denied access on the basis of cost, because they could not afford full fees or because they are quite rightly reluctant to take out a huge loan, is deplorable. We already know with HECS that students are sensitive to the cost of a degree. Potential students do consider whether degrees are worth the extra debt, and some decide they are not. I can think back to my engineering degree almost 30 years ago, when, coming from a family with 16 children, my parents did not have a lot of spare cash. Quite rightly, we would have been very wary of taking on a huge debt if my engineering degree had been a full-fee degree. There are some loud voices in academia, industry and the media arguing that to ensure Australia has a world-class tertiary education sector, and to compete globally in the 21st century, full market forces must prevail. But, as Family First has long argued, what is market friendly is not always family friendly. In fact, the two cannot be reconciled. There are reportedly 17,000 students already paying the full price of degrees.

Family First is also concerned about other possible changes to higher education beyond this. The minister has already publicly expressed the government’s support for greater deregulation of universities. The Howard government has been moving in that direction; but moves towards full deregulation, which the big research universities are calling for, could lead to even higher course costs. It has been reported that this proposal would allow universities to charge 25 per cent above the cost of delivering a course, which is a massive price hike. Any further moves to full deregulation could also punish smaller and regional universities and threaten their existence. Family First is not willing to take this extra step of higher HECS fees and full fee only degrees. Our university system should promote access and fairness. Access to university must be based on merit, not on who can afford to pay.