Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill. I have listened to the contributions from those opposite in relation to this bill and their arguments in support of the bill. It struck me that there is really no better illustration of the difference between the coalition and Labor than our positions on this issue. When the coalition senators look at the issue of higher education, it seems to me that they perceive something that is merely a cost to the budget. It is a bottom-line issue for them. They propose arguments such as, 'Nothing in life is free. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody's got to pay.' When they look at education, what they actually see is an opportunity to address the budget issue. It reminds me of a contribution from Senator Nash on the issue of health in answer to a question I asked in question time. Again, Senator Nash raised the view that health is a drag on the budget. Unfortunately, that is also an issue which illustrates the difference between our two parties.

Those opposite see education as a market. They want to have market forces apply to the issue of education. We, on the other hand, see education as being a public good which has an overall benefit to society. We see education as an opportunity for Australians to better themselves and to have a broader range of choices for an appropriate career path. I oppose the Americanisation of our higher education system. I say that that would be a terrible outcome for our country.

As internationally renowned and Queensland based economist John Quiggin has pointed out:

"Except for the top 1 per cent of the population, US provision of undergraduate education is far worse than in Australia …

"Moving towards a stratified model on US lines would be a backward step for the vast majority of Australian students."

According to Universities Australia, the cost of important courses such as engineering and science will have to increase by 58 per cent to make up for the cut. Nursing will need to increase by 24 per cent. Education will need to increase by 20 per cent. Agriculture will need to increase by 43 per cent. My colleagues in the National Party really should be hanging their heads in shame if they seek to support this particular bill. Environmental studies will have to increase by a whopping 110 per cent. These are not figures from the Labor Party; these are figures from Universities Australia.

In total, the Abbott government budget measures cut $5.8 billion from higher education—teaching, learning and university research. This legislation enables the delivery of $3.9 billion of these cuts, including by slashing funding for Commonwealth supported places in undergraduate degrees by an average of 20 per cent and, for some courses, up to 37 per cent. This legislation is reducing the indexation arrangements for university funding to CPI in 2016, down from the appropriate rate the previous Labor government introduced. This means $202 million in cuts over the forward estimates period. It is a major contributor to a $2.5 billion cut per annum in 10 years time, according to the Parliamentary Budget Office. This legislation is cutting almost $174 million from the Research Training Scheme, which supports training of Australia's research students, scientists and academics of tomorrow. And, of course, this legislation is introducing fees for PhDs.

One has to ask the question with these cuts, 'Why are we here?' Why are we here today even discussing these issues? When you look at the position of the coalition in the past on the funding of universities, it has been relatively clear. I go to the media release of the current education minister, Christopher Pyne, of 26 August 2012. At that point, Mr Pyne said:

While we welcome debate over the quality and standards in our universities, we have no plans to increase fees or cap places.

That was two years ago.

If we move forward to the Liberal Party policy document that came out in January 2013 in which the coalition laid out its election platform, that document said:

Then in February of last year we had Mr Abbott give a speech to a Universities Australia conference in which he said:

First and most important, we will be a stable and consultative government. If we put in place a policy or a programme, we will see it through. If we have to change it, we will consult beforehand rather than impose it unilaterally and argue about it afterwards. We understand the value of stability and certainty, even to universities.

Of course, we have not seen any of the consultation or stability in this government that was foreshadowed in that speech to Universities Australia. Then just prior to the election, on 1 September, the Prime Minister, speaking on the Insiders program, said:

And I want to give people this absolute assurance, no cuts to education…

Then after the election, in November of last year, the minister made the following comment:

We want university students to make their contribution, but we're not going to raise fees…

And when asked by the interviewer why he would not raise university fees, Mr Pyne said in response: 'Because we promised we wouldn't before the election.' So there we have it—a reinforcement over a period of time of a relatively consistent position that was expressed, but we now have before us the manifestation of another broken promise by this government of twisted priorities.

Not only does the Labor Party have a very strong and proud position on the issue of higher education, but I also have a very strong personal view about this issue. I was brought up in modest circumstances in terms of my family background, and I was a beneficiary of the Whitlam government's university and education reforms. I am forever indebted to the Labor government of the Whitlam era for those changes. In the late 1970s I was able to commence a university degree and to go on to complete that. In my own family, now as a father of four, I have two daughters at university and they are very concerned about the prospect of change in this area. And I have two school-aged children who are certainly facing the prospect of changes that this government is looking at. I take on board some of the contributions that have been made earlier on in the debate. I know that tertiary education is not the only path that people can take to a fulfilling life, but it is a tried and tested way in which people, particularly people from modest backgrounds under our current arrangements, can get on that ladder of opportunity, can seek to better themselves and can have a broader range of choices available to them for a fulfilling career.

As I said, Labor does have a very proud record of investment in Australia's universities. Labor boosted universities' real revenue per student, including government and student contributions, by 10 per cent—an extra $1,700 for universities to spend on quality teaching for every student. Overall, Labor lifted government investment in universities from $8 billion in 2007 to $14 billion in 2013. We committed to proper indexation for university funds. If we had kept the funding model introduced by the Howard government, universities today would be worse off to the tune of $3 billion. Labor made it easier for young people to study with student start-up scholarships, which helped more than 427,000 Australians with the costs of study. We also introduced a relocation scholarship, helping 76,000 people to leave home to obtain their degree. Importantly, Labor also boosted funding for regional universities by 56 per cent. We also invested $4.35 billion in world-class research and teaching facilities through the Education Investment Fund. That includes $500 million earmarked for regional Australia so country kids could have the same access to quality courses, and universities would be able to attract and retain world-class researchers.

As part of that commitment to education, the Labor Party not only supports education in this place—we have also been conducting a campaign out on university campuses and among the general public. In August of this year I visited a number of Queensland universities to meet with vice-chancellors, staff and students, talking directly to everyone affected by the proposed changes. I wanted to talk directly with real people on the ground in our local communities who, at the end of the day, are ultimately the ones who are going to wear the brunt of these terrible changes. In August I visited the University of Queensland with Sharon Bird, the shadow minister for vocational education, and we participated in a moderated expert panel on higher education set up by the University of Queensland Student Union. There was an overwhelming response from students who had a variety of concerns and questions that they needed answering. I also participated in a forum at the Queensland University of Technology with Amanda Rishworth, the shadow assistant minister for education and shadow assistant minister for higher education, and here we participated in an information seminar on proposed changes to higher education.

Students at QUT also voiced their concerns and asked the panel various questions about the proposed changes. I have also visited Central Queensland University in Rockhampton to get the perspective of a regional campus, and I had the privilege of meeting a large number of students at CQU, with many of them voicing their strong concerns around the course cost increases, which would see them with massively high university debts. It was here at CQU in Rockhampton that we heard from an incredible number of students, telling us they did not want the Abbott government's proposed higher education changes. It is clear that these cruel reforms will hit the regions especially hard. At every point during my campus visits I observed an underlying and collective distress about what is happening to our accessible higher education opportunities in Australia.

Unfortunately it seems that it is not only in this place that our federal government is attacking the higher education system. In my own home state of Queensland, I mention as an aside that the Newman government is attacking the TAFE system. TAFE is an important public provider, delivering quality training to Queenslanders. However, the Newman government is systematically dismantling Queensland TAFEs, with cuts to staff and by reducing course offerings and increasing fees.

I have mentioned that it is regional areas which bear the brunt of these changes to the higher education system. I reiterate my point that I believe the National Party senators should hang their heads in shame if they are intending on supporting this proposed legislation. The impacts of the cuts are quite variable when we look at the changes that will occur. Based on research that has been done by the National Tertiary Education Union, if we look at the five campuses most affected by the cuts to Commonwealth funding, we see that three of those five universities are in regional areas and that two of them are in my home state of Queensland—the University of the Sunshine Coast and the University of Southern Queensland. In our estimation, the University of Southern Queensland has an 8.7 per cent cut in total revenue and the University of the Sunshine Coast has an 8.9 per cent cut. There are other universities that do not fare so badly. For example, the University of Melbourne has a relatively modest cut of 2.9 per cent by comparison, but of course that is still quite a significant amount of money. In the case of the University of the Sunshine Coast, we estimate cuts of $50 million; and, in the case of the University of Southern Queensland, $82.7 million over the period of 2016-19. In total, over that period of time, my home state of Queensland suffers a cut of $840 million in university funding.

Reducing government funding for higher education at this time of our nation's economic development would be a terrible outcome. As the mining boom is tapering off and moving from an investment phase to a production phase, our transition to a higher skills base is crucial for our nation's future productivity. As economist John Quiggin has pointed out:

Structural change in the economy over the past century has required steadily increasing levels of education. The pace of change, and the need for education has accelerated with the rise of the knowledge economy, based on personal computers and the Internet.

He goes on to say:

The complexity and informational richness of the modern workplace is such that the skills of a high-school graduate are increasingly inadequate for the majority of jobs. Increasingly, either specific technical skills, or the general cognitive skills acquired through tertiary education, are necessary qualifications.

Quite simply, what Australia's workforce needs is more, not less, access to higher education in order for us to be able to compete in a global economy of ever increasing complexity and technical advancement.

Just one example of how these reforms will affect one industry sector is provided by the Australian Veterinary Association in their submission to the parliamentary inquiry into this bill. They state in their submission:

The changes to the funding and regulation of higher education will severely impact the veterinary workforce and its ability to provide an essential service to Australia’s economy and communities.

By way of overview in their submission, they made the point:

An effective, sustainable veterinary workforce is essential to Australia. Veterinarians ensure the safety of the food we eat and export, care for the health and welfare of livestock, and are necessary to help identify and respond to a serious disease outbreak.

The Australian Veterinary Association understands that this legislation is bad for Australia and that it is particularly bad for regional communities. Once again, I call upon my National Party counterparts to oppose this bill. The reason that vets are particularly impacted by this legislation is that veterinary qualifications require five to seven years of university training. The courses are expensive and vets have lower earning potential than other similar professions, with a starting salary of $47,000.

In conclusion, the proposals embodied in the higher education bill that is before us would entrench intergenerational poverty, lock people into living the lives that their parents did and smash opportunities for young Australians. This government wants to make university harder to get into, shifting debt onto students and taking away the opportunities for ordinary Australians to pursue higher education. I strongly urge senators to oppose this bill.