Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Hansard source

That is right. There was a deal—that is quite right. The deal was to overcome a legislative impasse between the government in the House of Representatives and the coalition and, indeed, the Independent senators here in the Senate. A deal was done to overcome that impasse. The so-called deal was never, ever intended to last forever, certainly not beyond a federal election. Is this deal supposed to hold until the end of time? It is ludicrous and ridiculous, and as much as I respect Senator Evans, I think that he was totally on the wrong track this afternoon.

Let me get to the substantive debate, Madam Acting Deputy President Troeth. This is a really important debate for our country. Universities and higher education providers are in the business of knowledge and there is no more important business in the world than knowledge. That is what this debate is all about.

Professor Bradley, in her landmark review of Australian higher education, nominated a target of 40 per cent of young Australians to have a bachelor’s degree by 2020. In order to achieve that she knew that there had to be a distinct increase in the number of young Australians from three particular disadvantaged groups: Indigenous kids, kids from low-socioeconomic backgrounds and, finally—and this is the one that pertains to Senator Nash’s concern this afternoon—young Australians living in regional and rural areas of our great country. Why? Because they are particularly disadvantaged. There is an argument of equity and there is also, as Senator Nash reminded us all, an argument in the public interest, in the nation’s interest, that we should assist all these kids from disadvantaged communities to attend university. Why? Because we want as many smart young Australians from whatever background to attend university if they are able to. We are a poorer country when young Australians who are able and qualified cannot attend university. We are in fact a worse-off and poorer nation.

We know that while there are more Indigenous kids now going to university—not enough, that is true, but there are more—and there are more students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds going to university—again, not enough, but there are more—what we have discovered, in fact, is that there are fewer young Australians from rural areas attending university. In fact, we are going backwards, and all I need to do is refer to the Bradley review itself. Professor Bradley reported:

People from regional and remote parts of Australia remain seriously under-represented in higher education and the participation rates for both have worsened in the last five years.

That is on page 31 of the review. In other words, it is getting worse for rural kids, not better. For rural students the bar to university study is more likely to be logistical and financial than cultural. The bar is logistical and financial, not cultural. Even with modern technology it is impossible to take universities to every small town in Australia—I think we all concede that. No, we have to somehow get rural students to university, and that cost is not part of HECS. It is not a cost you can claim under HECS. Rural students frequently must leave home to study and they do not receive HECS to cover living away from home expenses.

If this parliament fails to attend to the matters Senator Nash has so eloquently described, as our country moves towards 40 per cent of young Australians graduating with a bachelor’s degree—and that is our country’s aim, and it is a bipartisan aim, I should add—we will simply end up with more students who live in relatively affluent suburbs in the big cities who can catch public transport to university. In other words, there will be no change in social composition. We will simply get more people like me going to university, and we do not want that, do we? What we want are more people like Senator Joyce and Senator Nash going to university. We want kids from all parts of Australia to go, particularly, as I say, because there has been a decline in young Australians from rural and regional areas going to university. It is a big challenge for our country to attend to that.

What really worries me is this. The government is quite right to talk about equity and access. I do not contest that at all. But, unless something is done about rural and regional students, the social composition of young Australians attending university will not change. We have seen this before. We saw it in the Whitlam era with the abolition of tertiary fees. Everyone thought that that would change the social composition of Australian universities. Did it? No. We abolished fees and what happened? Simply more middle-class kids went to university. That is what happened. There will be the same problem here.

I accept what the government has done by in a sense deregulating student demand. I and the opposition accept that. I accept that major reform in the Bradley review. What worries me is that there will be a deregulation of student demand and student demand will force universities to offer courses that students deem appropriate, but the social composition will not change. That worries me, and I suspect it worries the government and Senator Chris Evans too. Unless we do something positive, nothing will change.