Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It will come as no surprise that I support the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill—not because I am part of the landed gentry seeking to oppress the working class or to stop the impoverished from receiving an education; such nonsense does not reflect any of the facts in this bill. My support for the bill and for reform of higher education is a longstanding commitment. I am perhaps the most failed university student in this place, and I had the opportunity to attend the then South Australian Institute of Technology, now the University of South Australia, when HECS was first introduced. In keeping with my current status, I took the unpopular view at the time that it was right for individuals to make some contribution towards their educational requirements. There is no such thing as free education. It is paid for by somebody, and the free education that Senator Lambie and others are talking about is paid for by taxpayers. Taxpayers already make a huge contribution to government and yet not everybody goes to university—and not everybody who goes to university studies practical, sensible things that are going to generate wealth for the community. Some go to university because they feel it is a compulsion and they need to do it in order to somehow get ahead. There is nothing in this bill that stops any individual who wants to go to university, if they attain the right entry requirements, from attending university. They do not have to part with any money, and they do not have to pay any money back until they have got one of those job opportunities that Senator Lambie talked about and earn over $50,000 a year.

The point is that we have to make reforms in this country that make people think about the cost to themselves or to other taxpayers of the choices that they make. That has been one of the hallmarks of this government—and it has been rejected loudly by those on the other side, who do not like accountability, and financial accountability in particular. Is it not right for those who say they want to study arts or they want to be a doctor or they want to be a dentist—they all make valuable contributions to our society—to pick up some of the tab for their education funding via a very low-interest loan from the government? On the other side of the coin, those equally important people who decide to become an electrician or a carpenter or a builder and do a trade make their contribution by taking a very low salary and by investing through their employer in vocational training, for which there is also some support from government—but the translation is that they become on-the-job students, if you will. I am not going to say that a university graduate plays a more vital economic role than a tradesman—I would not tell that to my children; I would not say they have got to go to university and study arts or do a particular course simply because it is expected, because I do not think university is necessarily for everyone. But the opportunity should be there for everyone.

This is where the arguments that I just heard from Senator Lambie and others go wrong—there is nothing in what is proposed that stops people from entering the higher education sector. Yes there is a cost, yes there is going to be a competitive marketplace put forward by universities, but shouldn't universities be able to compete not only on price but on quality of education as well? They have to be able to say they are going to provide a more comprehensive package or a less comprehensive package; that they are going to specialise in one field while another university might specialise in another. People can then make appropriate choices. That is the hallmark of a responsible and sustainable higher education system. Already we are putting some $8 billion, rising to $9½ billion, into higher education in this country. It is a good start, and what we are quibbling about is asking people to pay back some of the cost of their education when they have a job and they have exceeded the threshold salary level. That is what young people have got used to today. It has not stopped them going to university, and this bill offers even more flexibility for universities to provide the education that matters. It is great to have philosophers and theorists and researchers, but for people who are interested in getting ahead in the business world or in making a substantial financial contribution to their families and to the nation, more often than not they have to learn a commercially viable skill—and I believe a commercially viable skill is what has been lacking in a number of university courses. That is a personal view. If you want to get ahead financially, you have to learn something that is commercially viable, that is practical and that is going to add value to your employer or is going to add value to the marketplace out there. That is inherently sensible because, if you learn something that is not going to be able to provide you with a living, we have to ask ourselves what is the point of pursuing it at any meaningful level? But we are not going to be disqualifying individuals from making the choices that they want to make.

Debate adjourned.

Pro ceedings suspended from 18:30 to 19:30