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

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 7107 together:

(1)   Schedule 2, page 13 (line 1) to page 23 (line 4), omit the Schedule, substitute:

       Schedule 2—Amendments relating to student learning entitlement

            Higher Education Support Act 2003

      1 Section 70-1

        Omit "7 years", substitute "8 years".

  2 Section 73-5

        Repeal the section, substitute:

  73-5 Ordinary SLE

     Ordinary SLE for persons eligible immediately before 1 January 2012

  (1)   A person who was an eligible person immediately before 1 January 2012 has at the beginning of that day an increase of 1 *EFTSL in the person's *ordinary ESL.

  Ordinary SLE accruing after 1 January 2012

  (2)   A person who (by birth or otherwise) becomes an *eligible person for the first time on or after 1 January 2012 has at the beginning of that day an *ordinary SLE equal to 8 *EFTSL.

Meaning of eligible person

  (3)   An eligible person is:

  (a)   an Australian citizen; or

  (b)   a citizen of New Zealand; or

  (c)   a *permanent visa holder.

3 At the end of section 73-30

  Add:

  (3)   A person who ceased to be an eligible person before 1 January 2012 and next becomes an eligible person again on or after that date is taken to have had, immediately before so ceasing to be an eligible person, an *ordinary SLE that was 1 *EFTSL higher than the person actually had.

(2)   Schedule 3, item 1, page 24 (line 6), after "free intellectual inquiry", insert "for students, researchers and teachers".

(3)   Schedule 3, item 3, page 25 (line 10), after "free intellectual inquiry", insert "for students, researchers and teachers".

On behalf of the opposition I have moved several amendments to the bill and they relate to two areas: student learning entitle­ments and free intellectual inquiry. I noted the parliamentary secretary's comments at the second reading stage with respect to the student learning entitlement and indeed free intellectual inquiry. Can I briefly address that. Indeed, these amendments go to those issues. While the government and indeed members on the crossbenches have argued in debate on this bill that there are, firstly, very low instances of professional students in Australian universities—that has been the claim—and that there are, secondly, prob­lems with effectively administering this legislation, the opposition believe strongly that simply abolishing the student learning entitlement is sending the wrong message both to the student and also to the taxpayer. That is why we have sought to amend this bill.

In fact, it is true that there are low levels of professional students in Australian univer­sities. I accept that. The opposition accepts that. As a result of the Howard government reforms and the introduction of the student learning entitlement, to abolish the student learning entitlement in its entirety—which is what this bill seeks to do—might see the return of students doing degree after degree for decades at significant public expense, with no ability for the government to recover their HECS debt. That is the problem. Understanding that there have been some substantial changes in the way some under­graduate degrees are taught, the coalition believes the upper level of student learning entitlement should be set at eight years rather than the current seven years. The parliament­ary secretary correctly adverted to the fact that currently the student learning entitle­ment is seven years. The opposition's amend­ments propose that it be eight years. There is a specific reason for that. This would allow students to undertake, for example, a bachelor of science degree with additional honours years and then complete a medical degree on top of that. In other words, eight years would cover almost every contingency.

I want to make this point; I want to make it once but I want to make it as loudly as I can: far from losing their relevancy over time, the student learning entitlements, the opposition believe, are even more important under the student demand driven system that this bill establishes. Let me explain why. The opposition believe that abolishing the student learning entitlement, which is what this bill does, combined with abolishing the restrict­ions on the number of Commonwealth supp­orted places, which this bill also does, results in a system where an unlimited number of students can study for an unlimited amount time. Let me say that again. What this bill does is allow an unlimited amount of students to study for an unlimited amount of time. The coalition will not wear that. We believe that it is appropriate to draw a line somewhere. We think eight years is about right. Seven years may have been too short. Undergraduate degree structures in this country have changed over the last few years, and the opposition understands that. But we do not believe that the taxpayer should bear the burden of an unlimited number of students studying for an unlimited amount of time. That is why we urge the Senate to adopt the coalition's amendments.

The other issues that are covered in these amendments relate to free intellectual inquiry. I noted the parliamentary secretary's comments with respect to them. Can I say I agree with what the parliamentary secretary said, largely. Free intellectual inquiry is very important and the coalition of course supports it. But I want to raise this issue. It is true that many students—I am being candid here, of course, as I always am in the Senate—many conservative students, feel at times that academics do not treat them appropriately. They believe sometimes there is bias and they believe that their own intell­ectual inquiry is hindered. That is why the coalition seeks to amend this bill to ensure that students also have the right to free intellectual inquiry.

I listened to what the government and those on the crossbenches said. They argued that in fact free intellectual inquiry is covered already by the bill. Well, the oppos­ition believes it should be made very, very clear that that is the case. As you would appreciate, Chair, when I was lecturing I was always a host of objectivity. I had students who had quite silly views, echoing some of Senator Carr's views, for example. But of course I treated them with great objectivity and marked them appropriately. But I cannot be certain that all academics are such para­gons of virtue. That is why I have raised these issues. I think it is important that, while academics must be able to pursue free intell­ectual inquiry—and I do not have any argu­ment with that at all—so should students.

Out of abundant caution, Parliamentary Secretary, I urge you and the government to accept the coalition's amendment that students be included and that free intellectual inquiry be made a right for them. That would satisfy me, the coalition and, I think, many hundreds of thousands of undergraduate students in this country.