Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

The government does not support these amendments. These issues have obvio­usly been considered at great length. Consist­ent with the shift to a demand driven funding system, the government agreed, in response to the Bradley review, that the student learning entitlement provisions of the act would be abolished from 2012. The student learning entitlement currently limits a person's ability to study at university to seven years of full-time study, subject to a series of exceptions which allow for extra time.

Since the introduction of SLE in 2005, students are increasingly enrolling in double degrees and longer medical programs. Desp­ite this, the figures collected by the Depart­ment of Education, Employment and Work­place Relations show that fewer than 0.2 per cent of current higher education students are at risk of exceeding their entitlement. Abol­ishing this rule will cut through this unnec­essary and ineffectual piece of red tape and make it easier and simpler for all Australians to access higher education, including those who wish to return to study later in life to learn new skills.

Australia's universities, which have long been required to divert resources to admin­ister this costly and ineffective entitlement system, argued in a submission to the Prod­uctivity Commission in 2009:

There is … no policy objective being served by the SLE, and there are considerable savings that can be achieved from its removal. As the first students subject to the new arrangements will shortly be exhausting their SLE, it is particularly timely to solve this issue now to avoid problematic decisions having to be taken regarding upcoming enrolments.

The government's decision to remove this piece of red tape has been well received by many, including the Group of Eight universities, who said:

Whenever there is a chance to cut red tape it should be taken. Regulations should only be imposed when there is a demonstrable need for them.

  …   …   …

Australia does not have a systemic problem of excessively long study periods that is found in some other countries.

Even the former Minister for Education, Science and Training, now the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, has acknowledged that the student learning entitlement is flaw­ed policy. In July 2006, in a speech to the John Curtin Institute of Public Policy about university regulation, the member for Curtin described the student learning entitle­ment as red tape, and she said:

Turning to the ubiquitous issue of government red tape – I am happy to listen to sensible suggestions as to how I can remove impediments to diversity and increase flexibility. As a result of the AVCC’s report on red tape, I have agreed to consider the abolition of the Student Learning Entitlement which measures a student’s consumption of commonwealth supported education.

So it is disappointing that the coalition is now fighting to defend a policy that the then minister for education had hand-picked to be scrapped. In fact, by seeking to amend the student learning entitlement to allow an ordinary entitlement of eight years they are simply adding to the red-tape burden. Abol­ishing this Nelson era rule will free up universities and allow them to get on with teaching the next generation of students. It will ensure that students are able to commen­ce and complete their studies on the basis of merit. For these reasons, the government opposes amendment (1) moved by the opposition.

I also have comments with respect to amendments (2) and (3), relating to freedom of intellectual inquiry. The government does not support these amendments either. The bill introduces into the act, as I said before, new protections for freedom of intellectual inquiry within Australian universities. Uni­versities will be required, as a condition of funding, to have a policy which upholds free intellectual inquiry in learning, teaching and research. Proposed new section 19-115 provides:

A higher education provider that is a Table A provider or a Table B provider must have a policy that upholds free intellectual inquiry in relation to learning, teaching and research.

The opposition's revised amendments add nothing to the bill, which already provides these appropriate protections for freedom of intellectual inquiry in the domains of learning, teaching and research. For these reasons, the opposition amendments will not be supported by the government.