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

Thank you for your protection, sir!

The objective of the Higher Education Support Amendment (Asian Century) Bill 2013 is to expand the eligibility criteria for the OS-HELP Loan Scheme and to provide further incentives for students to pursue a course of study in Asia from 1 January 2014. In introducing the bill, the government has purported to implement the recommendations of the Asian century white paper, which was released, of course, in October 2012, to encourage closer ties between Australia and our Asia-Pacific neighbours—specifically, by providing incentives for Australian university students to complete part of their degrees overseas, particularly in our Asian region. According to the white paper this will enable more Australians to study overseas—it is a 'high priority', because Australians abroad are important conduits for building capabilities and exchanging ideas. Indeed, by pursuing overseas study our university students will continue to build the skills overseas that they will need to succeed in an increasingly competitive, knowledge-driven global economy.

I am often reminded that when I was an undergraduate student—more than 30 years ago now—my competition for work really was those who lived in the same city as I did, and perhaps in the next city. That is where the competition for work would come from. But for today's young people—those undergraduates in our universities today—increasingly their competition comes from Berlin, Washington, London and Paris, and now of course from Beijing and Madras and cities in other developing countries. So the world has changed enormously in the last 30 years. That capacity to understand Asia—that Asia literacy—is very important not only for the capacity of our students but also for our nation as a whole.

The expansion of OS-HELP eligibility criteria was recently endorsed in the International Education Advisory Council's report that is known as the Chaney report, as part of the promotion of student mobility in the Asia-Pacific. Additionally, in his address to the Asia Society in March of this year, James Packer made the following important observations:

The best way to build our relationship with China and for that matter Asia is through exchanges of people at every level.

…   …   …

… exchanges build trust, understanding and long term friendships; they also help to break down ignorance and stereotypes that exist between our people.

…   …   …

There are few better ways to forge Australia into China and the Asian Century than through student exchanges.

As a country we need to dramatically increase the number of Chinese and Asian students studying in Australian universities, the economic benefits are immense and so are the person to person contacts.

Indeed, while there are significant economic benefits to increased student mobility in the Asia-Pacific region—particularly when one considers that in the last financial year Australia's international education industry was worth almost $15 billion—our students cannot be viewed as just commodities or just statistics.

In that regard, the tertiary sector is now pushing for the continuation of the third wave of international education, whereby countries are being encouraged to build a broader, more meaningful and longer-term conception of international education. This eventually may lead to greater integration of universities in our region, the growth of offshore campuses and ultimately the cross-accreditation of courses throughout Asia. The promotion of greater student mobility through the expansion of OS-HELP under the bill, aside from any increase in the value of our international education industry, is likely to, among other things, promote closer trade, diplomatic and cultural ties in our region; build a diverse and expansive network of people-to-people connections; and lead to the development of stronger, more collaborative international research and science linkages that will foster improved productivity and innovation here in Australia. These are important outcomes to the future of our country.

The bill was referred to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Employment for inquiry. The committee reported in May this year and recommended the passage of this bill. The committee's report noted that the bill received strong support from stakeholders; none of the stakeholders objected to the measures. It also noted the view of some stakeholders, principally private education providers, that access to OS-HELP should be further extended to include students who are not in Commonwealth supported places—in other words, students attending private universities or other higher education establishments and fee-paying postgraduate students. The committee noted the submissions from Bond University and the Council of Private Higher Education and was of the view that consideration be given to extending the eligibility for OS-HELP assistance to non-Commonwealth-supported-place students.

However, the committee did not look at the budgetary implications of such a measure or the technicalities involved in the change of policy. The Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education strongly reiterated the view that the primary purpose of OS-HELP is the support of students in Commonwealth supported places, not all students, and that OS-HELP should not be considered separately from the overall HECS-HELP student loan scheme, its policy intent and, indeed, its operation. At this point, however, the coalition believes that it is better to adopt a wait-and-see approach to OS-HELP—that is, to monitor the impact of the changes made by the bill, including any increased demand for overseas study opportunities, as a result of the exchanges and the associated costing implications, and to examine the further extension of OS-HELP to private students in the future, based on a considered assessment of the relevant policy issues. This approach was endorsed in the Chaney report that I referred to earlier. If the coalition is fortunate enough to form a government, it is already committed to revisiting the issue of student support and assistance through a thorough review of student payments and loans to ensure a fair, equitable and open system that is free of anomalies—for currently there are anomalies. Another look at OS-HELP could well form part of that review.

Encouraging the outward mobility of Australian university students, particularly to Asian countries, has been a key feature of the coalition's higher education policy since the last election. It is an important priority of a shadow minister for foreign affairs—Ms Julie Bishop. I must say, at a personal level, I believe one of the greatest experiences a young person can ever have is to study overseas. I was fortunate; I did, and it changed my life—indeed, it was probably the most enjoyable 18 months of my life. I worked occasionally but had a very good time and learnt a lot, not so much from the course I studied as from the peers I had. For any young Australian who is considering studying in Asia—or indeed anywhere overseas—I commend the experience. They may well see it, looking back 25 years later, as one of the greatest experiences of their life. So I commend that to any young Australian now listening.

In March this year the coalition held a policy development round table in conjunction with the Menzies Research Centre to develop further details of its New Colombo Plan initiative. This initiative is designed to provide government grants to students so they can access study and internship opportunities in the Asia-Pacific. As Ms Julie Bishop has said, it is anticipated that the New Colombo Plan will enable students to develop strong alumni networks with universities and industries in our region which they will be able to use in their ongoing careers; provide students with the skills and the diversity of experience and the cultural understanding they need to succeed in this the Asian century; and help our universities to strengthen their international research partnerships and better develop linkages with industries.

The expansion of OS-HELP eligibility criteria aligns with the coalition's proposed New Colombo Plan policy agenda, and it does that by providing loan assistance to supplement planned government grants under the New Colombo Plan. The coalition announced the New Colombo Plan initiative well before the government's own somewhat ad hoc AsiaBound Grants Program that commenced operation in April of this year. To date stakeholders have raised a number of concerns about the AsiaBound program, including the exclusion from the program of university consortia and other private mobility firms that could make use of their extensive overseas contacts to arrange the very student study and internship opportunities that the AsiaBound program is intended to promote. Significantly, the coalition, unlike the government, recognises the broader implications, and indeed the opportunities, that an Asia-focused grant scheme will have by opening the door for a mutual quality based accreditation scheme in the future that may ultimately—I concede ultimately, certainly not for a little while yet—serve as an Asia-Pacific replication of the successful European Bologna Process.

This bill is significant legislation. It is a crucial component of Australia's future global integrated higher education framework, as well as Australia's broader social, trade and diplomatic relations with our Asia-Pacific neighbours. In light of the bill's strong synergies with the coalition's existing higher education and foreign affairs policy agenda, which is focused increasingly on encouraging growth and opportunity in the Asia-Pacific and fostering closer ties in our region, the coalition of course does not oppose it. But it is a great pity that there was not more time to discuss this bill. The government is quite right: we have to look at our engagement with Asia, and it is a very important debate—one that will shape the destiny of our country over the next few years in this the Asian century.

In my 14 years here in the Senate I have never seen the guillotine adopted with such rapaciousness as it has been in the last couple of weeks. I am informed that this week alone there have been 55 bills rushed through—1½ times more than under the coalition in its time with a majority in the chamber. It is a ruthless and arrogant use of political power. Already during the 43rd parliament—it has been a destructive and perhaps not edifying parliament—the guillotine motion has been used to push 216 bills through the Senate. I was here in those heady days when the coalition briefly, for three years, had control of the Senate. How many bills did the coalition push through when it had control of the Senate? It pushed through 32 bills—less than one-sixth of the number of bills pushed through by the Labor-Greens alliance. Even when we did guillotine, the debate was always much longer—often the debate would be for a full half a day, and in some cases a day and a half. The government's action has not helped the role of the Senate—in fact, it has undermined it.

The difference between this place and the House of Representatives is stark. It is stark for this reason: this is not an executive rubber stamp. This chamber does not rubber stamp the executive. It never has and it never will, for two main reasons. Let me give you two great examples. Even when the coalition had a majority in the Senate, the committee system of this place, with chairmen from the coalition, on several occasions—because I was one of them—knocked back bills put forward by the House of Representatives, by the government. I am not suggesting we should do this all the time, but the point is that it is not unusual for coalition chairmen of Senate committees to knock back legislation from the House of Representatives put forward by their own executive. I did that in 2007 on privacy legislation, you may remember, Senator Sinodinos. I did it and, quite frankly, I have no regrets. Senator Payne, I remember, was Chair of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee at the time; she chaired that committee brilliantly for years. I have got to say I did not always agree with her chairmanship, but I always, always respected the fact that she was prepared to stand up to the executive—of her own party!

When was the last time we saw anyone from this side ever chairing a committee in this place and going against the executive of their own party, going against the Prime Minister? When have we seen that in the last six years—ever? It is a pathetic performance. They never cross the floor because they cannot. There is this Stalinist, statist mindset where they have not even got the independence of thought, independence of succour, to actually say to the executive: 'We don't support this bill.' We did it so many times when we had a Senate majority. Senator Sinodinos will recall it. He may not have been very happy about it, but we did it, and I am pleased we did it. Otherwise, the executive, which runs the House of Representatives, will seek to run the Senate, and they should not be allowed to do that, even if it is our executive. The point is a very simple one. This chamber is different. It is not simply an extension of the House of Representatives and it is not a rubber stamp for the executive.

There is another point. We are constantly lectured by the other side about how uncaring we are, that we do not care, that somehow we lack ethical sustenance. I am getting very tired of the moral vanity of Labor and the Greens. You imagine the moral vanity oozing from the Left in Australian politics, and yet subjecting this parliament—subjecting this Senate—to, what, 216 bills in the life of the 43rd Parliament, and having the hide to preach to us about ethical and parliamentary behaviour. Could you imagine that? We never did this in the Howard government when we had a majority. We never behaved like this at all. Not only can this lot never ever, ever have a chairman of a committee that will stand up to the executive—what a pathetic crowd!—they cannot have a chairman of a Senate committee that will stand up to the executive down the road here in the House of Representatives. We did it time and time and time again when we were in government and when we had a Senate majority.

But it is worse than that. Not only do their Senate chairmen not have any guts, they have no courage. It is worse than that. This lot cannot cross the floor in any case. They never have been able to. There is this statist mindset where they have all got to vote as one. Then they come into this chamber and preach to us about fairness and about justice. It is absolutely pathetic and it is absolutely hypocritical.

Let me finish on this point. I would not mind a fair debate; I do not mind a fair debate on any issue, including this issue of the Asian century. But what I really object to is being lectured to by people who have no understanding of independence of mind—a party that has never had a committee chair oppose the executive and do the right thing and that has never had the guts to cross the floor.