Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2006 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2006. Our education policy in Australia is dangerously adrift. The current government’s approach to higher education has been characterised by budget cuts, fee increases and a lack of policy direction. Our universities are too important to ignore, yet under the Howard government they seem to be seen as little more than a target for ideological vendettas—from extreme industrial relations conditions, to VSU, to the front line of the Prime Minister’s culture wars.

Labor values our universities as a national asset that it must treasure and protect. And, unlike the government, Labor has both the vision and a plan to do just that. Labor does, however, support the passage of this higher education legislation amendment bill. Before I continue speaking on that legislation, I want to make a comment on the government’s attitude to the referral of this bill to committee.

The government majority report, and recent comments in the House of Representatives by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Science and Training, criticised the referral of the bill to committee. We all know in this chamber—or perhaps those on this side understand—that scrutiny of legislation is an important role of the Senate and one which should not be dismissed because of apparent inconvenience to the government. The referral process did provide senators with valuable further information through questions to the department on how provisions of the bill would impact on higher education in Australia. In particular, more information was provided on the new approvals guidelines and the determination of different levels of fee contribution. This detailed information from the department in response to senators’ questions is vital to our role as a house of review and scrutiny—although, of course, since the government has taken a majority in this place, it is a role the government would prefer to avoid.

George Campbell (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator George Campbell interjecting—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As Senator Campbell reminds me, and as I was about to address, the fact is that the government signed a referral for this bill. That seems extraordinary, given the comments in the other place that were critical of such referral. Any problems with this process are of the Howard government’s own instigation. This might be an uncomfortable truth for the government, given its distaste for any form of scrutiny, but the Senate should not believe those opposite in their historical revisionism of events which only occurred a month or so ago.

I want to turn to some of the more substantive issues in the bill itself. Schedule 1 of the bill funds commitments made by the government arising from the COAG health workforce and mental health packages. Labor welcomes the additional places to deal with health workforce shortages, but the fact is the Howard government has neglected this important area for too long. The government has failed to invest in education, training, distribution and retention measures to ensure that all of Australia has enough doctors, nurses and other health-care professionals to meet current and future health needs.

The bill also increases funding to the capital development pool for universities from 2007 and to the commercialisation training scheme for new postgraduate research places in science and innovation; $1.5 million is also provided to the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies and to the Council for the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences. I want to indicate that Labor supports these new measures.

Included in the funding this bill proposes is the application of indexation to university grants across the forward estimate years. The fact is our universities continue to suffer from inadequate indexation. The rate of indexation being applied to university operating grants this year means they will increase by just two per cent. By comparison, average weekly earnings rose by an average of 4.5 per cent annually between 1998 and 2004. As salary costs are the largest component of university operating expenses, ranging between 45 and 70 per cent, this gap between indexation and wage costs continues to rise. Since 1995, the gap between rising average salary costs and the rate of indexation provided by the Commonwealth has accumulated to more than $500 million.

Let us just reflect on that for a moment. What these figures demonstrate is that, over the term of the Howard government, the gap between the amounts the universities on average are required to pay staff and the rate of indexation provided through the Commonwealth funds is over half a billion dollars. In their submission to the Employment Workplace Relations and Education Legislation Committee’s inquiry into this bill, the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee said:

... the existing index is not realistic. This Bill does not adequately address the real cost of the provision of services.

It seems extraordinary that the government continues to refuse to listen to our vice-chancellors. The fact is that Labor believes the government must listen to the vice-chancellors and must reverse the current indexation policy because, fundamentally, this is about ensuring Australia’s universities are properly funded—something this government does not seem to regard as a priority. Adequate indexation is essential to sustain and strengthen the quality of university education in Australia.

The opposition also supports the indexation, in schedule 9, of the funding cap for research spending in the Australian Research Council Act. The significant measure in schedule 2 of the bill is to increase the FEE-HELP limit to $80,000 for most students and to $100,000 for medical, dental and veterinary science students. This was announced in the budget and is the second proposed FEE-HELP increase this year. I have to interpose here that the acronyms and the names that the government chooses to use are interesting. I recall Senator Abetz taking through this chamber what I think was called the ‘fair dismissal bill’, which actually involved the removal of unfair dismissal rights. Here we have FEE-HELP, something that suggests that people are actually being helped when, of course, what we know is that they only need to borrow money because this government has so massively increased the cost of going to university and introduced extremely expensive higher education fees for certain courses—which I will come to shortly.

The fact is the changes to FEE-HELP are significant, increasing the total debt available to students. These measures will generate an additional $78.5 million in student debt over the period 2006-07 to 2009-10. There are now almost 100 full fee degrees in Australia costing more than $100,000, so it is clear these increases which are set out in the legislation and to which I have referred are simply not sufficient to meet the real cost of these degrees.

Under the Howard government you can pay as much for a degree as you do for your home. The average mortgage today is about $222,000 and, according to the Good Universities Guide 2007, a full fee paying place in medicine/arts will set students back a staggering $237,000 at the University of New South Wales and $219,100 at the University of Melbourne. Medicine at Bond University costs $233,100, while medicine/law at Monash University racks up a debt of $214,600. These are extraordinary figures, and this is an extraordinary increase in the level of student debt in this country.

These massive increases in university fees imposed by the Howard government are forcing up the total debts faced by students and graduates by $2 billion a year, and this is doing one thing: taking Australia further down the track of an American style university system. New figures from the Department of Education, Science and Training, provided through the inquiry into this bill, show university graduates and students will owe more than $20 billion by the 2009-10 financial year. It is an extraordinary increase in the level of debt that we are loading onto students—primarily young people—at this point in their lives.

Labor also welcomes the clause in the bill that clarifies that a person who has had FEE-HELP recredited does not have their future entitlement to FEE-HELP reduced by that amount of recredited FEE-HELP. This change was apparently required because of the new differential caps which are contained in the legislation and to which I have referred. It will be important for students that administrative complexities, such as this recrediting system, are minimised as the FEE-HELP system evolves.

In their minority report on the Senate inquiry, the Australian Democrats indicated that they would be moving an amendment to abolish schedule 2 of this bill, which deals with the FEE-HELP changes. Labor will not be supporting such an amendment. Whilst we agree that $200,000 degrees should not be a feature of our public universities, we will tackle that policy problem by a different route. We do recognise that FEE-HELP provides necessary support to students in certain courses, especially those undertaking postgraduate coursework degrees. In our recent white paper, Labor indicated that we would support the continuation of FEE-HELP for private universities and other private higher education providers. To prevent crippling debt for students in our public universities, Labor will eliminate the problem at its root. Labor oppose full fee undergraduate degrees in our public universities, and Labor will phase out these $100,000 and $200,000 degrees when we get into government.

Schedule 3 of the bill allows universities to charge different students in the same unit different amounts of HECS and tuition fees. This alters the existing rule that the same type of student enrolled in the same course of study pays the same fees. Under the proposed changes there will be wide discretion for the provider to set varying fee levels based on any factor they deem appropriate, with only limited scope by the government to determine matters that are not appropriate. There may be cases where differential fee structures are used to assist students from disadvantaged backgrounds through targeted fee relief based on location or mode of delivery. However, Labor would not support fee deregulation resulting in higher general fee levels, and we will be monitoring the implementation of this new provision.

The Labor opposition support the minor technical amendments in schedules 4, 5 and 7 and the creation by schedule 6 of the new concept of winter schools. These winter schools are analogous to summer schools and allow students to study units intensively, where academically appropriate, and complete their degree programs sooner. Labor support universities undertaking new and innovative activities to provide a wide range of educational options for our students. Unlike the government, for Labor this forms part of an overall and cohesive policy agenda. Our higher education white paper contains a new funding model for universities, one element of which is to provide specific funding for what we call ‘innovative activities’. The white paper targets accelerated degree options for students as one sort of innovative activity Labor will pursue.

Schedule 8 of the bill changes the procedures for accreditation and approval of higher education in external territories. The bill proposes to give the minister greater power over this process. Yet the department advises that the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, MCEETYA, which determines the national protocols for approval of higher education providers for the rest of the country, will not be consulted in the development or approval of the minister’s new guidelines for the external territories. Labor believe that the new guidelines proposed by this bill should also be endorsed by MCEETYA.

This bill contains a series of unconnected and piecemeal amendments to higher education legislation in this country. While the opposition understand the need for governments to make such amendments from time to time—and we support them in this—this seems to be all that the government is doing. At a time when our higher education system needs serious attention, all we have from the Howard government is an inadequate and incoherent policy response to the need of our university system to diversify, innovate and meet Australia’s higher education needs.

While the Howard government may have no direction for the future, Labor does. In July our deputy leader and shadow education minister, Ms Macklin, issued a higher education white paper entitled Australia’s universities: building our future in the world. This white paper set out a new policy framework for higher education, research and innovation that fits Australia’s modern needs and circumstances. Our nation-building reform will result in real choice and higher quality education and training for individuals. Lifting up all universities is central to a Beazley government’s economic agenda to build a prosperous future for all Australians.

Our universities are different. Labor understands this simple reality. It is time the Howard government recognised this difference through more than simple platitudes. The first thing that needs to be done is to release Australian universities from the straitjacket imposed on them by the Nelson changes. Particularly as a result of the government’s 2003 changes, universities have been given less discretion to spend the diminished proportion of Commonwealth government funding they receive. True diversity can only be achieved through fundamental change, freeing universities from red tape and bureaucratic control. Labor will end government interference in the internal management of universities and reduce compliance and reporting burdens. Labor’s stronger focus on the quality of educational outcomes will loosen the Howard government’s excessive controls on inputs and processes.

Labor will fund public universities through a compact negotiated to value universities’ individual missions and their different roles and circumstances. Labor’s approach will promote improved responsiveness of universities to student demand and community needs. Labor in government will provide additional resourcing to our universities through this new funding model and through adequate indexation of university grants. As mentioned earlier, the current indexation arrangements are costing our universities and must be changed. Labor will make these necessary changes and link these additional funds to quality improvements.

It is extraordinary and damning that for the second year in a row the OECD has reported that Australia is the only developed country to have reduced public investment in tertiary education. We went backwards by seven per cent while the rest of the OECD increased by an average of 48 per cent. This is the Howard government’s legacy for the higher education sector—our competitors go forward by 48 per cent; we go back by seven per cent. Australia is going backwards whilst everyone else is going forwards.

The consequence of 10 long years of Howard government cuts is that the quality of Australian higher education is under pressure, with consequent risks to the reputation of Australian degrees. There are no systems in place in Australia for assuring the standards of degree quality. Students deserve the confidence that they will receive a high-quality education and that their degree will be recognised in Australia and overseas as a credible qualification for work and further study. We should expect the best from our universities because of the public investment they receive. That is why Labor has proposed to establish a tough new standards watchdog, the Australian Higher Education Quality Agency, and give it real teeth to enhance degree standards and protect quality teaching and research.

Unlike the Howard government, which seems to be bereft of fresh ideas and unable to articulate coherent policy, particularly when it comes to higher education, we on this side of the chamber understand that the only way to promote diversity and innovation is to restore faith, confidence and, importantly, public investment in our universities. Labor have a vision for higher education in Australia and we are backing this up with substantive and contemporary policies that will tackle the problems directly created by the Howard government. On behalf of the opposition, I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

        “but the Senate:

Condemns the Government for:

             (a)    jeopardising Australia’s future prosperity by reducing public investment in tertiary education, as the rest of the world increases their investment;

             (b)    failing to invest in education, training, distribution and retention measures to ensure that all of Australia has enough doctors, nurses and other health care professionals to meet current and future health care needs;

             (c)    massively increasing the cost of the Higher Education Contribution Scheme, forcing students to pay up to $30,000 more for their degree;

             (d)    creating an American style higher education system, where students pay more and more, with some full fee degrees costing more than $200,000, and nearly 100 full fee degrees costing more than $100,000;

             (e)    massively increasing the debt burden on students with total Higher Education Loan Program debt now over $13 billion and projected to rise to $18.8 billion in 2009;

              (f)    failing to address serious concerns about standards and quality in the higher education system, putting at risk Australia’s high educational reputation and fourth largest export industry; and

             (g)    an inadequate and incoherent policy response to the needs of the university system to diversify, innovate and meet Australia’s higher education needs”.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Democrats recognise that a number of the components in the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2006 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2006 are improvements on the existing situation, but that in no way covers for the fact that the existing situation regarding our higher education sector is an appalling one and one for which the coalition government must bear responsibility. When you step back from the wide range of different issues that have encompassed political debate over the months and years stretching over a decade of this government being in power, you see that this government’s failure to adequately invest in, and in many cases to actively withdraw public investment from, the higher education sector at the same time as enhancing their own political control over the sector is probably one of their biggest failings. Those calculated, deliberate actions, combined with failings in other aspects of training, are one of the key reasons why Australia is now in the grip of a massive skills shortage. We really do need to ensure that the full blame for that situation is sheeted home to where it belongs, which is with the current government.

The statistics are very clear. Senator Wong has alluded to a number of them already. They are simple, clear-cut facts. This government’s record—when compared with comparable governments around the world regarding investment in higher education, skills development and knowledge development—has been absolutely appalling. Our nation as a whole is paying the price, and not just with the skills shortage in the job arena at the moment. It is widely acknowledged that we are moving into an information economy, a knowledge based economy. For our nation, precisely at this key moment in history when the way the things that drive the global economy are being transformed, to reduce investment in areas that are the key drivers in developing those skills is something for which, sadly, our country is going to be paying the price for many, many years to come.

I hope these facts are driven through to the Australian community and to those people who choose what information and what reporting goes into the homes of people in the Australian community, because we really do need to try to make sure that higher education skills, training and knowledge development are given absolute top priority at the next election. A lot of other issues, whether it is interest rates or terrorism or climate change, are all important. But if we continue to fail in the area of higher education and skills development, if we continue to drastically underinvest, then we will be falling further and further behind in long-term opportunities for our nation—and it can take a long time to turn that around and to repair the damage.

That is, I guess, the big-picture description of the situation. ‘Big picture’ is sometimes seen as a bit of a dirty word, sadly, because of the anti-intellectual thread that has gone through some aspects of the so-called culture wars in this area. But it is important that we look at the big picture. However, we also need to look at the individual picture. The individual picture is that many Australians have missed out. More and more individual Australians who are less well off, particularly those who come from groups such as Indigenous Australians, are becoming more and more disadvantaged with regard to their opportunities to access higher education. A disgraceful piece of information which came out recently showed that the number of Indigenous Australians involved in the higher education sector has actually gone backwards in recent years. You can have all the bluster and rhetoric you like from political figures in the government about addressing Indigenous disadvantage, but it is simply a truism that education is one of the key pathways out of disadvantage, whether you are talking about Indigenous Australians or anyone else. For Indigenous Australians to be proportionately going backwards in their access to higher education is a particular disgrace.

Turning to the specifics of the legislation—and Senator Wong has already gone through some of these aspects—I welcome the increase in the maximum limits of the Commonwealth Grant Scheme to pay for new university places in medicine, general nursing and health areas and for clinical training of nurses. Increasing the limits for other grants to provide for additional funding for the Capital Development Pool, the Commercialisation Training Scheme, the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies and the Council for Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences and increasing the maximum funding limits for Commonwealth scholarships are all measures that the Democrats do not oppose. But, again, we need to look at them in the context of the overall poor situation that this government has presided over. Measures in the legislation should enable universities some extra flexibility in setting student contributions and tuition fees, but these can only occur within guidelines and maximum amounts set by the Commonwealth.

One aspect of the legislation that causes the Democrats concern is the increase in the FEE-HELP—so-called—limit to $80,000 for all degrees except medicine, dentistry and veterinary science, where the limit will be raised to $100,000. It is not that long ago that the Prime Minister was promising that there would be no degree that would cost $100,000, yet here we are with some degrees costing double that, and more, and students being required to borrow that amount to be able to access some of these degrees. That ridiculous situation is this government’s legacy for a growing number of Australians. There is a bit of a dilemma with regard to the increase in the FEE-HELP limits, I have to say. I understand some of the arguments in support of enabling it to increase, because the simple fact is that the cost of degrees, as well as the cost of some of the wider things that students have to cover, has increased enormously. But by expanding and further increasing the amount available under FEE-HELP we are also creating a situation that not only forces students further and further into a crippling level of debt but also opens up the capacity for enabling even greater fees. The higher the amount that can be borrowed by students, the greater the argument for being able to increase the amount that can be charged for fees. So our concern is that, by increasing the limits under FEE-HELP, we will further entrench a system which, at its heart, is fundamentally inequitable. We have reached the stage where entry into a full-fee degree is determined just as much by the ability to pay as it is by academic merit. This is a shameful situation and one that, I might say, the Democrats predicted many years ago.

The Democrats have consistently opposed the expansion of the fees and charges being laid on Australian students, because of the impact this has on accessibility and because it excludes more and more students from lower income situations. But we now have full-fee degrees that cost more than $200,000, and even the increased limits of FEE-HELP will not prevent students from taking on a crippling level of debt. It is a recipe for financial insecurity for those students. It can delay when they can make a significant purchase. It can delay when they are able to start a family. And those who graduate with professional qualifications may also charge higher fees to help cover these costs, so the community can end up paying extra for the tuition indirectly.

These increases in FEE-HELP are just one more step along the path towards a greater and greater user-pays component in our university sector. Both individual students and, just as importantly, our nation as a whole stand to lose the more that that comes about. The Democrats’ record shows that we support a strong higher education sector that is accessible to all Australians from all backgrounds. The facts demonstrate that, under this government, not only have we seen a decline in the resources available and the investment in our higher education sector; we have seen a greater degree of government control over how that sector can operate, which is completely contrary to the rhetoric that this government likes to put forward. We have also seen a circumstance where, because of the costs, more and more students from disadvantaged backgrounds are unable to access higher education, unable to upgrade their skills or unable to fully participate in the education experience because they need to spend more and more of their time and divert more and more of their energies into other activities to earn sufficient money to help themselves survive whilst they are going through a higher education institution. It should be noted that these concerns that the Democrats have expressed, as has Senator Wong, have been around for a long time and have been raised time and time again.

To give a very apt indication of this government’s lack of interest in this entire area, it is worth noting the response from the federal government to Senate committee inquiries in recent years into this broad area. The Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education References Committee—now defunct and confined back to an individual, amalgamated committee—brought down the report Bridging the skills divide back in November 2003, nearly three years ago. An inquiry into Indigenous education funding brought down a report in June last year. A report into student income support and the difficulty many students are having in surviving whilst they are undertaking study, whether it is in higher education or other education, also came down in June last year.

What was the government’s response to those reports covering the important areas of education and skills? No response at all. Nearly three years after the report was tabled addressing issues about bridging the skills divide, involving feedback and ideas from people throughout the community and from across the political spectrum and containing recommendations to the parliament about ways to bridge the skills divide, the federal government’s response has been nothing. I could say that shows their lack of genuine interest in bridging the skills divide, except that, sadly, it is not particularly unusual. The federal government’s response to a large number of Senate committee inquiries, even ones that are three years old, tends to be silence.

That demonstrates not only a lack of interest in, engagement in and genuine concern about the democratic process and the Senate but also a lack of interest in the views and ideas of people in the wider Australian community, who share a genuine concern about the need to significantly improve our nation’s performance in higher education and training, skills development and knowledge attainment. The government’s response is basically not to listen at all. It is a shame because it is something that we all as a nation pay the price for, but it is a reality. This government’s record and those facts are very clear and very much on the table.

The legislation, as I said, does contain some measures which will improve the situation for some people. It contains a measure that the Democrats on balance believe would be dangerous to enable—the further increase of the FEE-HELP amounts. It entrenches a system that we believe is undesirable. It is worth taking the opportunity to reinforce the very strong concerns that have been expressed by the vice-chancellors about this government’s failure to adequately index funding for higher education institutions. It is worth emphasising the problem with full-fee degrees and the ever-increasing amounts of student debt.

I recall the great promises that were made by the federal government and a previous minister when legislation managed to get through this chamber, with the very unfortunate support of a range of Independent senators in this place, that was supposedly to enable a massive injection of extra funding to the higher education sector. Yet, when the ink was barely dry on the assent to that piece of legislation, it was put through, with assertions by some Independents on the crossbenches at the time that it would be a major benefit for universities and would deliver them significant gains. The extra amounts of money were already being clawed back by the federal government.

The failure to have any proper, ongoing, reliable indexation for Australia’s universities is a serious problem and one that the vice-chancellors from universities across the board have spoken about time and time again. We all know that there is quite a diversity of views amongst vice-chancellors about a range of issues to do with higher education policy, but on this area they are of a single mind and a clear view—that the failure to properly index public investment in higher education institutions is causing serious problems in quality and in opportunities for Australians to access the courses and knowledge development that are essential for the long-term health of our nation’s economy, culture and society. It is, again, completely unforgivable that this appalling situation has been allowed to develop.

It should be put on the record that it was an equally unacceptable decision by Independents in this chamber to pass legislation which allowed dramatic increases in fees for students around Australia, on a very feeble and quickly broken promise to make significant extra resources available to universities as a consequence. Many students have already had to pay the price for that. No doubt by this stage, having got control of the Senate, the federal government would have pushed through those changes to increase fees in any case, but without their support there would have at least been an extra year’s grace for students to be saved from the major increases in fees that they have been subjected to, and it would have at least prevented some extra harm being caused to some individuals from less well off backgrounds.

It is important that we give greater priority to this issue; it is certainly something the Democrats will continue to give great emphasis to as we lead into the next federal election, and I am sure that many people from other political parties will do the same. I can only hope that in the reporting and coverage of this highly important issue the true facts about this coalition government’s abysmal record in this area are given proper coverage and that full light is shed on it, because it is something that has caused immense damage to our nation and its future. It has further entrenched disadvantage; it has further led to greater inequalities in life opportunities between the haves and the have-nots in Australia, and unfortunately our nation as a whole will be paying the price for some time to come.

Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2006 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2006 fits in with the government’s general approach to higher education. On the one hand the government rhetoric is all about cutting the sector free of the apron strings of government support in the context of their bold and clear vision for higher education, but on the other their level of action rather than rhetoric sees them cutting the apron strings but replacing them with miles of red tape and a vision which gives way to piecemeal policy delivered as a result of pork-barrelling concerns and half-baked election promises. This bill is typical of this approach, because it delivers a hotchpotch of policy changes which have been hastily introduced into the parliament without much chance for reasoned debate and which lump in overdue good investments with more poorly thought out changes and ham-fisted attempts to fix major problems in the sector.

The two biggest problems that are pertinent to the content of this bill are the lack of appropriate indexation in university grants from the Commonwealth and the impact of the FEE-HELP scheme on the equity and quality of the higher education sector. Regarding indexation, this bill contains the indexation amounts for university grants over the next four years. The problem is that the government is still indexing universities’ core government funding at around two per cent—far less than the rise in the costs that universities face, which is nearer five per cent. This means that each year universities have to provide the same services to their students and the community with less government money in real terms, despite what may appear to be increases in funding in this bill. The OECD’s latest publication, Education at a glance 2006, detailed the breathtaking fact that, whilst the other developed countries in the world have increased their public funding to universities by an average of 48 per cent over eight years, the Howard government has presided over a cut of seven per cent. It is hard to see how any government can claim to be funding universities at higher levels than ever before, as this government does, when the independent review of its spending performed by the OECD has shown so clearly that it is cutting funding in real terms.

The Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee has been consistent in its criticism of this government for its refusal to deliver fair indexation to universities. The Greens have campaigned on this issue, but we also recognise that the problem is not just the indexation but the low base level of the grants to universities from the government to start with. As a result of these low grant levels we see the consequential move to force students to take on the burden of funding universities. The federal government now contributes on average just 40 per cent of funding revenue to universities, with some universities receiving far less than 40 per cent. When people talk about public universities they expect that that will mean that they receive substantial funding from the public purse, not the miserly contribution of 40 per cent of funding from the public purse that we currently see as the average contribution made by the federal government to universities across this country.

This bill will make this sorry situation worse by increasing the amount of money that the government will lend to domestic full-fee-paying students to pay their up-front fees. This bill increases the FEE-HELP loan cap from $50,000 to $80,000, or $100,000 for vet science, dentistry and medicine. This is being done with no indication of the inflationary effect on fee levels. The government is at the same time increasing the number of higher education institutions whose students can access these loans to pay their fees. The institutions recently permitted to offer these government loan full-fee places are private institutions, often fairly new and looking to expand. For them, what better way is there to expand than to milk this government scheme to the max by charging fees up to the highest level that the government will lend to a student and ploughing the increased revenue back into expanding? This is the effect that raising these fee levels has on the growth in the sector. It is an unplanned growth, underwritten by government money in the form of the FEE-HELP scheme but with no thought given to the effect it will have on the quality of the higher education sector as a whole.

And it will have an impact on quality. The government majority on the Senate committee that reported into this bill said that the government considers that these new FEE-HELP limits will improve students’ ability to make choices about their courses of study, promote participation and bring about a more diverse higher education sector. But the newer, smaller, narrower in vision, cheap and efficient no-frills higher education operators that grow on the supply of the FEE-HELP loans impinge on the viability of courses and schools at public universities and other high-quality educational institutions. This means that the government is simultaneously increasing the indebtedness of students and lowering the quality of the education that they are paying for. The government is undermining the integrity of a public higher education system developed over centuries by reducing the share of government spending on higher education and failing to index that spending by at least the cost of inflation.

It is quite a bleak picture, but the spin from the minister is quite different. I was interested to read the transcript of the minister’s recent speech at Murdoch University, in which she told an audience of alumni, staff and students about her vision for the higher education sector and outlined the context which 10 years of the Howard government has delivered. Throughout the speech were a series of peculiar views of the current situation that should not go unchallenged. I will take the Senate through some of these now.

Firstly, seeking to establish the generosity of her government, the minister said:

Currently, there is a high reliance on the Australian Government for funding, both directly and through our management of student loans schemes—accounting for almost 60% of total funding.

That is misleading, because 20 per cent of that 60 per cent is actually student loans—not government money being put into our institutions—so only 40 percent is actually an investment in and public funding of our university institutions by the government.

As so many Australians are now coming to realise when they read their payslips each week, HECS does not make education free; you have to pay back every last penny. That means it is private funding of university, not public funding. The minister went on to say:

Today, Australia’s universities have access to higher levels of revenue than ever before. In 2004, total revenue available to higher education institutions from all sources was $13 billion—an increase of more than $5 billion or a 65% increase on 1996 funding levels.

Again, that is misleading. If the indexation level of higher education is pegged at a conservative five per cent—that is, less than the government’s own indexation for schools—then, over 10 years, you would have a rise in cost of $5.05 billion. So total revenue has not kept pace with inflation. The minister went on to say:

Australia’s funding of universities is often compared unfavourably to countries such as Finland and Sweden, where virtually all funding comes from the public sector and students pay minimal or no contribution—although this is changing. However, proponents of this ... model fail to mention government taxation rates in Finland and Sweden.

Is the minister advocating an increase in taxation rates? If not, is she implying that the Swedes and the Fins are somehow worse off because of their high-quality, free higher education and higher taxation rates? If so, she may wish to note that Finland is ranked second on the World Economic Forum’s global competitiveness index, and Sweden is third, as compared to Australia’s 19th place. She may also wish to note that Sweden and Finland have a higher proportion than Australia does of people who are happy and satisfied with life as a whole, according to the World Values Survey.

The Greens advocate for a change in funding policy which would bring us closer to matching the successful policies of countries like Sweden and Finland in how we fund our higher education. To begin with, we would abolish HECS and return Australia to a situation which we had not so long ago—that of free tertiary education. It is interesting to note here that a recent convert to the idea of abolishing HECS, at least for some courses, is former Liberal Premier of Victoria Jeff Kennett, who advocated last week for the abolition of HECS for courses in which he considered Australia had a skills shortage, such as engineering.

However, the minister and this government are not interested in Commonwealth investment in education. Never mind that Australia is richer now than ever before in history and that the government is awash with cash. This minister and this government want other people to pay for higher education. The minister put it this way in her speech to Murdoch University:

What is not ... widely known or appreciated is that while states contributed $230 million, they took out more than $377 million in payroll tax. State and territory governments in fact profited from their universities in 2005 to the tune of $147 million.

In other comparable federations, state governments acknowledge the benefits to their communities of their universities and contribute accordingly. So there’s an obvious untapped source.

Clearly, the minister wants to find another excuse to freeze public funding from the Commonwealth to universities. It is not just state governments that the minister is planning to ask to pay more. Students and ex-students are also in her sights. She tried to argue that the student debt crisis is overblown when she pointed out in her speech:

To date, around 780,000 (41%) of people have repaid their debt—

that is, their HECS debt—

The average outstanding debt is around $10,500.

According to the minister, this is apparently good news. But, when you turn it around and you say that nearly 60 per cent of Australian HECS graduates are now carrying a debt from their tertiary education, it does not sound quite so great. For young people, an average outstanding debt of $10,500 is a substantial amount of money, particularly if they have other debts in the form of credit card debts as well.

It is depressing to see what is happening to the higher education sector under this government. Their vision, which is pretty clear from the speech that the minister gave at Murdoch University, is all about government disengagement, privatisation and commercialisation. They do not talk about what education is for, or about the central importance that it plays in shaping the society we live in and progressing the collective benefits of that society, both at home and globally.

Australia is in a period of unprecedented economic boom. Just a couple of weeks ago the Treasurer found he had an extra $1 billion in tax revenue that he had not expected, on top of the $15 billion surplus already reported. Yet, despite these riches, we never appear to have enough money to make a long-term investment in education—in public schools or in pre-schools, in TAFEs or in universities. Instead, we see from this government an attack on student life through voluntary student unionism legislation, an attack on staff working conditions through the higher education workplace relations requirements, funding cuts—as noted by the OECD—rising student debt levels, ministerial meddling in research directions and the encouragement of small degree factories to undermine our great public university institutions.

The minister concluded her speech to Murdoch University by reminding the audience that she is a graduate of Harvard Business School, which is all well and good. But the point of her reference went well beyond big-noting herself. The minister’s thrust was to explain how, in the United States, much of the high levels of funding for the most prestigious institutions come from the deep pockets of their alumni. She then volunteered this as another funding source that might help to replace federal government funding for Australian universities.

The Greens have a very different vision for higher education, a vision that recognises the contribution that universities make to all of our society and the need for governments to be investing in great public institutions such as our universities, which provide benefits to the whole of our community. We need to have this investment in our students to allow them to become top quality graduates and we need to invest in research to continue Australia’s proud tradition of innovation and excellence. This is the kind of investment that realises massive benefits for the broader community.

When every qualified Australian can have access to university education, then the culture, the society and the economy benefit. When every community can access the resources of a local university campus, it is not just the students reaping the benefits. When graduates can pursue their chosen career paths free of the burden of debt, then the caring careers—the careers that are about public service more than private profit—can flourish. This is an alternative vision that the Greens have for investing in our higher education institutions so that the whole of our community can benefit. I would argue that is the necessary vision if we are to build and invest in the great community of Australia into the future.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand tonight to speak in support of the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2006 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2006. It would be entirely inappropriate for me to stand here without answering comprehensively the various attacks and outrageous claims that have been made by Senator Bartlett and opposition senators in this place with respect to the government’s policies on higher education, and I would like to deal with those at first instance.

I would like to speak to the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Legislation Committee report on the bill, which has recently been tabled, so it is a public document, and note as a member of that committee that we received just three submissions to that inquiry. The majority entirely support the bill and have urged its passage without amendment. I thank the secretariat for the work that they have done in collating that report. I would also like to provide some general comments about the importance of higher education and the merits for Australia today with respect to some of the health aspects of our government’s policies, including under the bill before us, and make some general comments on some more notable and relevant issues such as the importance of the curriculum, the preparation of an appropriate curriculum for Australian students and the importance of the history debate in Australia.

Turning first to answer some of the allegations that have been made by the opposition senators, Senator Nettle has indicated that it is a bleak picture that is being faced by Australia today. Senator Bartlett has made allegations which are entirely erroneous with respect to the participation of both Indigenous students and people with disabilities at university. I would like to correct the record and also make some general comments.

I also wanted to note that the majority committee report says that the legislation increases funding to universities and delivers an extra $6.23 billion, ‘making the total appropriation in excess of $25 billion over the quadrennium to 2010’. As I say, the committee report is a public document and is available for all to see.

Let us have a look at some of the facts with respect to our policies. Over the past decade the total number of students studying in Australian universities has grown significantly from 656,121 students in 1994 to just under one million—or 944,977—students in 2004, an increase of 288,000-odd students or 44 per cent. The number of Australian students at university has risen from 604,177 in 1995 to 716,422 students in 2004, an increase of 112,000-odd students or 19 per cent.

Let me correct the record with respect to Indigenous student participation at university. Indigenous student participation at university has increased over the past decade from 7,000 in 1995 to 8,879 students in 2004, which is a very significant increase of 1,879 students. Students from a low socioeconomic status background are going to university in greater numbers than ever before—the number has gone from 83,399 in 1995 to 101,312 a decade later, which is an increase of nearly 18,000 students. Access by rural students, and I come from a rural and regional part of Tasmania, to a university education is also improving, with rural students increasing in number from 102,000-odd in 1995 to 119,812 in 2004.

What about students with a disability, which Senator Bartlett also referred to? Students with a disability are going to university in increasing numbers, with an increase from 11,656 students in 1996 to 26,363 students in 2004. One can see that the allegations made against the government in those respects have been proved false. In fact, as a government we are providing more flexibility; we are removing red tape so that the universities have the ability to take on more students and to do the job that is required to be done.

Let us have a look at the figures in relation to increased funding for universities. Coalition government funding for the higher education sector has increased significantly over the past decade, from $5.3 billion in 1995-96 to $7.8 billion in 2005-06. Universities have access to higher levels of revenue than ever before. It is estimated the total revenue available to higher education institutions from all sources was $13 billion in 2004, almost $5.1 billion more than in 1996. That is a 65 per cent increase. What is so wrong about the private sector providing some of these funds? What is so wrong about students providing some of those funds? Why should the government be the sole provider? Those opposite are harking back to the past.

Revenue from overseas student fees was $1.9 billion in 2004, an average increase of about 15.5 per cent each year since 1996 and accounting for around 14.7 per cent of sector revenue—a very important part of the revenue for that sector. Following the major reforms to the higher education sector in 2003—I will touch on those in a minute; very hearty congratulations are due to the former minister, the Hon. Brendan Nelson, for his work to make those reforms happen—it is estimated that universities will receive additional student contributions of around $1 billion over the four years of 2005-08.

I would specifically like to acknowledge the Hon. Brendan Nelson for his early work, with the Prime Minister, in getting the Backing Australia’s Ability report through. He had a long-term plan to help secure sustainable funding and ensure that Australia meets the needs of students. The government spent nearly a year reviewing Australia’s higher education system and in 2003 developed a comprehensive reform package. That was entitled Our universities: backing Australia’s future. That reform package for the university sector will deliver an additional—I emphasise ‘additional’—$11 billion to the sector over 10 years. That is no pie in the sky amount of money. That is no insignificant amount of money. That is a very substantial increase.

I want to acknowledge my Tasmanian Senate colleagues, particularly the Hon. Paul Calvert, Eric Abetz, Richard Colbeck, John Watson and Stephen Parry, and Tasmanian Liberal members of the House of Representatives Michael Ferguson and Mark Baker, for the hard work that was done to ensure that we got a good result for Tasmania. We have received a regional loading of $13.8 million and the total funding for the university is now some $167.8 million. That has been a good result for the university. We can see—and we have seen—expansions not only in the south but in and around Launceston, thanks to the lobbying efforts of Michael Ferguson, the federal member for Bass. There was quite a significant expansion of the Invermay and Mowbray campus.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a great campus!

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is right; it is a great campus and it is well received by the students. And not only that: Mark Baker, the federal member for Braddon, has worked hard and received expansion of resources and activity on the north-west coast, specifically at Burnie. I know that Senators Parry and Colbeck are particularly appreciative of the work of Mark Baker. They have worked very hard to get good results for the north-west coast.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They have been tireless advocates.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They have been tireless advocates for their region, as Senator Parry has indicated. I want to touch on the allegation that voluntary student unionism has been a disaster for students. I am very disappointed to hear those allegations, because I think that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The eating has occurred this year, by students across Australia. They have appreciated the opportunity not to be compelled to join a union.

I specifically want to acknowledge the work of Senator Eric Abetz. When he and I were at university in Hobart, back in the early 1980s, this was a raison d’etre, a key reason for being, for us as Liberal students. Together with many other students, we fought hard in support of voluntary student unionism to free up the opportunities for students so that they would not be compelled.

Up until now, Australian students have, as a condition of their enrolments, been paying up to $590 per annum in compulsory union fees. These fees are unrelated to the student’s academic courses and are charged without regard for the student’s ability to pay. How unfair! Part-time students and external students, who may never set foot on a campus, have been required to pay compulsory fees for services they do not use. Under compulsory student unionism, a single mother training to be a nurse would be forced to pay for the canoeing and mountaineering clubs, when all she really wanted was the degree. How unfair is that! We opposed compulsory union membership and we believed that students should not be forced to join a union, pay compulsory union fees or pay for goods and services that they do not want and organisations and causes that they do not support.

I also want to acknowledge Senator Mitch Fifield, who, together with many other colleagues in the coalition, has worked tirelessly to ensure that this policy is implemented across the board. Those people should be acknowledged.

This bill delivers on commitments made by the Prime Minister on 6 April this year as part of COAG’s consideration of Australia’s health workforce and mental health needs. I want to touch on that. In this Senate chamber in the last week, we have had some discussion and debate on mental health needs. That is a very important part of Australia’s future—as is the health workforce.

We have 400 new medical places, commencing in 2007, and, with the full 400 available by 2009, that is worth $60.6 million over four years. I wish to make two particular comments about Tasmania. I give hearty congratulations to the Australian government, the Howard government. We have committed and paid $12 million for a new medical school based in Hobart. That was on a dollar for dollar basis with the state government. There is still some question over the commitment by the state government, and further discussion will be had in that regard, but this has delivered opportunities for Tasmanians.

We have increased the number of medical school places from 61 to 82. That is a significant increase for Tassie. That is 21 extra medical school places. We hope that those students, when they complete their degrees, will be able to in large part stay in Tasmania—live in Tasmania and enjoy the best of Australia based in Tasmania. That will benefit rural and regional parts of the state. That is obviously a very good thing.

The bill also delivers 1,000 new university places in nursing from 2007. That is worth $92.6 million over four years. I know that Michael Ferguson has fought hard for the nursing school in Launceston, as have my colleague Senator John Watson and I. It is a very well regarded campus, the curriculum is well appreciated and the students enjoy living and studying in Launceston.

The bill increases the contribution to the clinical training of nurses from $688 to $1,000 per equivalent full-time nursing units of study. This is worth $30.6 million over four years. There are 420 new mental health nursing places, worth $39.7 million over four years, and 200 new clinical psychology places at the post-graduate masters level, worth $11.3 million over four years. I could go on at some length with respect to the mental health nursing places, the post-graduate clinical psychology places, the additional higher education nursing places and the additional medical school places, but all those details are set down in the government’s report and, indeed, the second reading speech by the minister, Julie Bishop.

Before I make some additional comments, I want to acknowledge the very important announcement by the Prime Minister, John Howard, with respect to the Beaconsfield goldmine. Why would I refer to the Beaconsfield mine tragedy? It is because the government has committed $1 million to the Larry Knight Scholarship. Larry Knight, sadly, passed away on 25 April this year as a result of the Beaconsfield mine tragedy. His wife, Jackie, following discussions with members of the government, has accepted and approved the announcement of the Larry Knight Scholarship, which is for students who wish to study engineering, mining and metallurgy at the University of Tasmania.

Professor Daryl Le Grew has agreed to the Larry Knight Scholarship. Professor Le Grew has provided outstanding leadership for the university since his appointment and has been a tremendous advocate for the university. Certainly I know government senators appreciate his hard work and his efforts to advance the cause in Tassie. It has now been announced and is underway, I understand, for next year. I think that is an excellent announcement by the Prime Minister and I thank him on behalf of the community at Beaconsfield for that very thoughtful commitment. The involvement I had was in making that suggestion of the Larry Knight Scholarship to the Prime Minister. That has been taken up and implemented. I think it is an excellent measure.

With respect to education more generally, Minister Julie Bishop has provided outstanding leadership, particularly in recent times. I want to congratulate Julie Bishop for what she has done in terms of wanting to have a debate about the curriculum in Australia today. Yes, the states and territories think they have it all their own way, but she has commissioned an independent study by the Australian Council for Educational Research to examine curriculum content and standards in English, Australian history, mathematics, physics and chemistry.

The report, expected by the end of 2006, will be fascinating. I believe it will show that, with respect to the development of the curriculum and the various committees and boards set up by the various state governments around this country—I will not say that they are totally controlled by them—the Australian Education Union have a role to play in each case. I simply ask the question: why would the Australian Education Union have such a dominant role with respect to making recommendations and advising and implementing school curriculums? They are a very powerful union, and you can see that they are powerful. Unions across the board have committed $47 million to the Labor Party over the last 10-odd years, and that money is still coming in thick and fast. So I can see that he who pays the piper calls the tune. I hope that this report exposes some of the decisions that have been made in educational policy and has a good look at the various committees and boards that make up curriculum decision-making bodies.

I also acknowledge the recent article by Michael Ferguson, the federal member for Bass, on the importance of more transparent and accountable curricula and the preparation of them. He wrote an article in the party room booklet, which has been distributed to members of the government.

Finally I want to commend and thank the Prime Minister and the Hon. Julie Bishop for establishing the Australian history summit. It has been vital that we consider the study of Australian history. It should be planned through not only primary school but also through secondary school, and it should be a distinct subject in years 9 and 10. I have believed this for a long time, having argued that we should have Australian history as a compulsory subject in secondary school during various public forums and at state councils of the Liberal Party since I was a young student at university. I thank the government, particularly Julie Bishop and the Prime Minister, for their leadership in that regard, and I hope that it comes to an excellent conclusion.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2006 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2006, but, before I do, may I welcome Graham and Caroline Jay from my hometown of Fremantle in Western Australia, who have been in the nation’s capital enjoying the best of the best. They have been overawed with what they have seen in Canberra this week.

The government can take no credit for this bill—you cannot take any credit for fixing something you stuffed up. The sad thing is that we are going to see a lot more of this type of legislation as the Howard government is increasingly forced to save itself from its own incompetence. Since coming into office the coalition government has not had a good word to say about the education system in this country. There has been a constant theme of badmouthing the standards of teaching and what is being taught in schools and universities.

It also explains why there has been such appalling underfunding of our public university system in Australia. This underfunding has become so chronic that all the enrolment growth in Australian universities since the change of government in 1996 has been in full-fee-paying students—predominantly in foreign full-fee-paying students but more recently in Australian full-fee-paying students. The government is so committed to full-fee places that it deprives young Australians of the opportunity of getting into university on a subsidised basis.

Commonwealth outlays on universities as a percentage of GDP has fallen consistently over the past decade. Australia now only spends 1.5 per cent of GDP on tertiary education, which is about the same as Poland and much less than our regional competitors like Korea, which spends 2.6 per cent of GDP.

If we look at the academic performance of the Howard generation as a result of the underinvestment, we see that Australia is 20th out of 28 OECD countries in terms of education attainment in the 25- to 34-year-old age group. What has happened while a succession of Liberal Party federal education ministers have been running around the country looking for Maoists? Australia has run out of doctors and nurses. It is going to make for an interesting history lesson in the years to come how the federal ministers for education saved us all from the Maoists but forgot to make sure we had enough doctors and nurses.

This bill is about fixing some of the problems that the Howard government has created. It is not about some far-sighted policy. It is not about having vision. It is not about good management. As such, I support Labor’s second reading amendment, which calls on the Senate to condemn the Howard government for, among other things:

... reducing public investment in tertiary education, as the rest of the world increases their investment;

                 …         …           …

... massively increasing the cost of HECS, forcing students to pay up to $30,000 more for their degree;

... creating an American style higher education system, where students pay more and more, with some full fee degrees costing more than $200,000, and nearly 100 full fee degrees costing more than $100,000;

and:

... failing to invest in education, training, distribution and retention measures to ensure that all of Australia has enough doctors, nurses and other health care professionals to meet current and future health care needs …

The OECD’s Education at a Glance 2006 is a 454-page in-depth analysis of education systems across the developed world. It makes for depressing reading. This report informs us that, while the rest of the OECD countries have increased their public investment in tertiary education by an average of 48 per cent, Australia is the only country in the developed world to see a decline—of seven per cent. That is an increase of 48 per cent for the rest of the developed world and a decline in public investment in tertiary education by the Howard government of seven per cent. It certainly shows that this Prime Minister and this government deserve an F for their efforts in education and training. Our great trading partner Japan increased its investment in tertiary education over that period by just over 30 per cent. We have gone backwards by seven per cent.

Included in the funding this bill proposes is the application of indexation to university grants across the forward estimates years. The rate of indexation being applied to university operating grants this year means that they will increase by just two per cent, unfortunately. By comparison, average weekly earnings rose by an average of 4½ per cent annually between 1998 and 2004. As salary costs are the largest component of university operating expenses, ranging between 45 per cent and 70 per cent, this gap between indexation and wage costs continues to rise. Since 1995 the gap between rising average salary costs and the rate of indexation provided by the Commonwealth has accumulated to more than $500 million.

The OECD members have shown an average increase of 48 per cent, but unfortunately Australia is going backwards. The very same report went on to indicate that Australian students are now paying the second highest fees in the world. The only country in the world with higher fees than Australian university fees is the United States. That is not a very good reflection on the way we treat education in this country. This government has set about a process of Americanising everything, and it has all but achieved it when it comes to education. As the OECD report which I referred to earlier noted:

In Australia, the main reason for this increase in the private share of spending on tertiary institutions between 1995 and 2003 was changes to the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) that took place in 1997.

The report comments on trends in higher education around the globe and says:

... increasing private spending on tertiary education tends to complement, rather than replace, public investment. The main exception to this is Australia ...

Under the Howard government, Australian students and their parents are footing the bill for massive funding cuts. I never went to university, but my daughter does. Fortunately, I am in a position where I can afford to pay her fees for her. But I struggle to comprehend how people on far lower wages, paying off mortgages and the like and facing rising fuel prices, can ever expect to send their children to university.

Massive increases in university fees are forcing up the total debts faced by students and graduates by $2 billion a year, taking Australia further down the track of an American style university system. Senate estimates figures from the Department of Education, Science and Training show that university graduates and students will owe $18.8 billion by 2008-09. From 2004 to 2005, domestic student numbers rose by just 0.2 per cent while the accumulated HECS debts rose by nearly $2 billion. The average HECS fee paid by Australian students has doubled under the Howard government, discouraging prospective students from taking university places that they have worked so hard for.

The Howard government’s HECS hikes mean that medical students are now paying more than $30,000 over and above what they would have paid when Labor left office. Law students are paying more than $20,000 extra; engineering students, more than $16,000 extra. These are massive increases in fees. Students and their parents only have one place to lay the blame, and that is squarely on the shoulders of the Howard government.

We all know the PM is very keen on history. Every time one of his ministers is engulfed in scandal or dragged before a royal commission, he likes to trot out his ‘History wars in education’ diversion. And the dancing bears in the commentariat all prance around in full agreement with the PM and dutifully ignore the scandal of the day. Well, if the PM is so keen on history, here is some history he might like taught in our schools. On 14 October 1999 the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, was asked a question without notice by Mr Barry Wakelin MP, the member for Grey, in the other place. Senators will recognise that this was a dorothy dixer—a set piece by the Howard government, planned and rehearsed. The Prime Minister stood before the House and the Australian people and said:

We have no intention of deregulating university fees nor have we any intention of introducing HECS for TAFE courses. ... The government will not be introducing an American style higher education system.

Hansard tells us that the member for Fremantle interjected and that the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, went on to say:

There will be no $100,000 university fees under this government. That is a figment of the Labor Party’s propaganda machine, and everyone knows that is what it is.

That is history in Hansard in black and white. The Prime Minister, in answer to his own dorothy dixer, promised the Australian people that there would be no $100,000 university fees under his government and that any suggestion otherwise was a figment of Labor’s imagination.

In the years since Prime Minister Howard made that promise, the Howard government did deregulate university fees. There are now almost 100 full-fee degrees in Australia costing more than $100,000. According to the Good Universities Guide 2007, a full-fee-paying place in medicine/arts will set students back a staggering $237,000 at the University of New South Wales and $219,100 at the University of Melbourne. Medicine at Bond University costs $233,100, while medicine/law at Monash University would rack up a debt of $214,600. These are the fees being imposed on students by the Howard government, and it is nothing more than a disgrace. I guess this is like the ‘never ever’ GST statement or perhaps like the ‘Work Choices legislation being good for Australia’ statement, or the government’s pledges on lower interest rates. I remember a certain Prime Minister announcing in the 2004 election that it would be an election about who the Australian public trusted the most. Mr Prime Minister, going from having no $100,000 university degrees, which was your promise, to 100 degrees now costing over the $100,000 mark answers that question.

Schedule 1 of the bill funds government commitments arising from the Council of Australian Governments’ health workforce and mental health packages, including new medical, general nursing, mental health nursing and clinical psychology places and increased funding for nurses’ clinical training. Labor welcomes the additional places to deal with health workforce shortages, but the government has neglected this area for far too long. The fact is that after we pass this bill we are still going to be waiting another five or six years before we have any extra doctors and three or four years before we have any extra nurses. We need the extra doctors and nurses now.

Not only do we have a shortage of doctors, the Howard government’s education ministers have not noticed that Australia’s dental services are going down the tube. Under the Howard government, the number of dentistry graduates in Australia per year is the lowest it has been for 50 years. Australia is ranked 19th out of 29 OECD countries for the number of dentists per 100,000 people. At The Nationals annual conference last weekend there was a motion calling for dentistry to be included in the Medicare scheme. It seems that The Nationals have only just discovered that dental services for Australians who cannot afford to see a private dentist have massive waiting lists. How ironic. The Nationals are, after all, members of the coalition Howard government that axed the Commonwealth Dental Scheme in its first year in power. The poor old National dodos do not seem to understand that the Howard government is too busy beating up on history teachers and state governments to worry about the dental problems of ordinary Australians.

While the government may have no future direction, Labor does. Labor firmly believes in the importance of our tertiary education sector. Labor believes in the nation-building and economic growth benefits of tertiary education. Under Labor’s policy, all Australian universities would be better off. Labor believes in an Australia that has a world-class education and training system that provides real choice and higher quality. In July this year the member for Jagajaga launched Labor’s higher education white paper entitled Australia’s universities: building our future in the world. That white paper sets out Labor’s new policy framework for higher education, research and innovation that is necessary to address Australia’s future needs.

Our policy would see a new national standards watchdog, the Australian Higher Education Quality Agency, established. The agency would ensure that Australian universities were producing quality graduates, underpinned by quality teaching and research. Labor would properly index university grants, ensuring that our institutions were adequately funded.

We would scrap full-fee degrees for Australian students at public universities, removing the two-tiered system that currently operates under this government where students with the ability miss out to those with the bank account. Under Labor, students will get access to higher education according to merit, not their financial means. That means there will not be any more $100,000 or $200,000 degrees at our universities. There is one government that believes in university degrees costing $100,000 or $200,000, and that is the Howard government. Labor will put an end to that. Labor will seek to actively address the current skills shortage by expanding associate degrees to give more Australians access to training in these technical areas.

The consequence of 10 long years of Howard government cuts to our universities is that the quality of Australian higher education is now under pressure, with risks to the reputation of Australian degrees. Funding cuts have pressured universities to increase student numbers, chase revenue wherever they can find it, raise student-to-staff ratios and class sizes, cut back tutorials and cut corners on student assessment. After 10 long years of neglect by the Howard government, Australia is crying out for more scientists, doctors, nurses, dentists, teachers and others. And instead of tackling the problem and doing something constructive to ease the shortage, the government has increased fees, has cut funding and blatantly refuses to adequately index university grants.

Labor supports this bill, as it provides the much-needed funding for extra medical and mental health workforce places, as well as much-needed capital injections for our medical schools. However, we are unwilling to let this government get away with its shocking neglect of our higher education system over the past 10 years. I commend Labor’s second reading amendment to the Senate.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Science and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to contribute to this debate on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2006 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2006. It is quite a happy coincidence that we would be debating this bill when, in the Great Hall tonight, we have had the announcement of the Prime Minister’s Prize for Science and the Prime Minister’s science awards for Australian science excellence. The winner of the Prize for Science this evening was the Australian National University Professor Mandyam Srinivasan, who has worked with the US Army and NASA to design tiny craft based on his research of bees’ brains—an extraordinary contribution to Australian science excellence. He is certainly a worthy recipient of that prestigious award and I congratulate him. As well we had the announcement that Monash University biochemist Dr James Whisstock has received the Science Minister’s Prize for Life Scientist of the Year for his work in exploring the protein ‘serpin’. This is very significant research into that protein, which controls biological processes linked to diseases including dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. He too is a worthy recipient and I extend my congratulations to him.

Also, the Sydney astronomer Dr Naomi McClure-Griffiths, who discovered a new spiral arm of the Milky Way, received the $50,000 Malcolm McIntosh Prize for the Physical Scientist of the Year. She is a dynamic young scientist who obviously has a wonderful future ahead of her. Marjorie Colvill, from Tasmania’s Perth Primary School, won the $50,000 Prime Minister’s Prize for Excellence in Science Teaching in Primary Schools. We could see from her enthusiasm and her approach to primary science teaching and enhanced literacy that the children in Tasmanian schools are in great hands. Sydney teacher Anna Davis was awarded the $50,000 Prime Minister’s Prize for Excellence in Science Teaching in Secondary Schools. She works at Casimir Catholic College in Marrickville and is teaching science and inspiring students in the sciences in a school which reflects a diversity of cultures. She has an amazing capacity for stimulating curiosity in the sciences. They are very worthy award recipients and I congratulate them all.

It is timely that we are debating this higher education legislation amendment bill because there are few people who would entertain the notion that education is not the key to individual or national advancement. We know it is widely accepted that the best way forward for any nation is to invest in its people. The best way forward is to educate people, to invest in human capital and to nurture and develop an environment in which innovation and development is encouraged. This is not in doubt in any way.

If this government were serious about enhancing and advancing the talent of Australia’s labour force, it would also be serious about education, not the single-minded productivity agenda of slashing wages and conditions to produce a short-term economic result. That is not development and not investment in productivity; that is simply a recipe for hindering the further development of our people and at the same time limiting the opportunities that workers in this country have. Labor governments of the past had an incredibly positive position in relation to an education agenda—we invested in our people and we invested in our future—and a Beazley Labor government will continue this proud tradition.

In the past decade there has been appalling underfunding of our public university system in Australia. That underfunding has become so chronic that all of the enrolment growth since the change of government in 1996 in Australian universities has been in full-fee-paying students, predominantly in foreign full-fee-paying students but more recently in Australian full-fee-paying students. The government is so committed to full-fee places that it deprives young Australians of the opportunity of getting into university on a subsidised basis.

In the last couple of years there has been a decline in the number of Australian undergraduate places that are subsidised by HECS, and that has occurred for the first time in half a century. Just as disturbingly, the government forecast in a statement made by the then education minister, now the Minister for Defence, that there will be fewer undergraduate students in Australia over the coming decade. So, where Labor has an aspiration to increase access and increase the number of university graduates, the coalition government is forecasting a decline. The outlook for our public universities is a very sombre one. Some of them will succeed because of their reliance on foreign full-fee-paying students, but the truth of the matter is that we are losing competitiveness as a destination for foreign full-fee-paying students. As a consequence, that is now beginning to taper off as a source of revenue.

The demand for university places across Australia has declined by five per cent since 2003. Many Australian universities, particularly in regional Victoria at Ballarat University, in Western Australia at Edith Cowan University and in Queensland at the James Cook University in Townsville, are not actually attracting enough students to fill government subsidised places this year. In fact, this is the first time a Victorian university has not filled its government supported places since 1989. There seems little doubt that HECS rates are turning potential students away from study in regional Australia.

This year maximum annual HECS rates ranged from $3,920 to $8,170 depending on the course of study. These HECS fees are simply too high for students living in regional areas. We have also seen that, amongst the developed countries in the OECD, Australia alone has effectively reduced its education spending on higher education in both the university and TAFE areas by seven per cent. At the same time we have seen the release of yet another report condemning the Howard government’s performance on higher education. The OECD’s Education at a Glance 2006, an in-depth analysis of education across the world, shows that those other OECD countries have increased their investment in public education by 48 per cent. Simple maths shows that there is a 55 per cent differential between what is happening in Australia and what is happening elsewhere. Every vice-chancellor in Australia knows the impact of the reforms Dr Nelson put in place, the amount of red tape and bureaucracy and the significant detriment that all universities face because of immense funding pressure.

What that means is that Australia is going backwards while everyone else is moving ahead. Worse still, the report shows that the Howard government’s HECS hikes mean Australian university students are now paying the second highest fees in the world. The report comments on trends in higher education around the globe and says:

Increasing private spending on tertiary education tends to complement, rather than replace, public investment. The main exception to this is Australia.

Under this government Australian students are footing the bill for massive funding cuts, and we are one of the worst countries in the world on this.

Labor also condemns the government for failing to invest in education, training, distribution and retention measures to ensure that all of Australia has enough doctors, nurses and other health care professionals to meet current and future health care needs. The point that I am making is that the lack of investment in these particular areas over 10 years, when those in the university sector called for greater provision and saw that there was going to be a future problem of great significance, relates directly to the problem we have in this area.

This bill finally takes that up, in concert with the deal done at COAG regarding the health workforce and mental health package, to provide new medical general nursing, mental health nursing and clinical psychology places and increased funding for nurse clinical training. There is provision in the bill for that. We have 605 new commencing medical places, 1,036 new commencing nursing places, that extra funding for nurse clinical training, 431 mental health nursing places, 210 new clinical psychology places and 40 new places for a centre for excellence in Islamic studies. This is an omnibus bill, and you will find all sorts of bits and pieces in it, not just in the medical area but across a range of different approaches.

There is also money for a commercialisation training scheme for new postgraduate research places in science and innovation. That is a welcome measure because historically we have had a fundamental problem in Australia in turning innovative ideas and products into commercial reality. Translating the great ideas and inventions that we have into something that Australia can really make something of is our one continuing fundamental area of underperformance. In some cases the reason has simply been scale and the fact that Australia does not have the market depth to develop these onshore. In some cases you have to get the big providers.

We do not have one of the great strengths of the United States system—an intersection, or an interweaving, of the academic areas with business so that people can move readily from one area to another. Nor do we do have the interfaces they have that allow them to better commercialise their products because there is that flow, that understanding and that experience. I am highly supportive of that approach. It is extremely welcome. We need to do a great deal more of it, as we need to develop our technology parks—and I will come back in a moment to the Australian quality of research—and the interaction that we have with our universities.

We have some serious objections to the issues around higher education being proposed by this government—the massive increase in the cost of HECS, forcing students to pay up to $30,000 more for their degrees, and the creation of an American style higher education system where students are paying more, with some full-fee degrees costing more than $200,000 and nearly 100 full-fee degrees costing more than $100,000. Senator Sterle addressed that issue in his contribution to the debate.

It is imperative for Australia’s international position that the research undertaken in our universities and research organisations achieves excellence. We celebrated some of that in the science prizes this evening. It is important to the preparedness of the Australian community to support the efforts of our researchers so that the quality of performance can be demonstrated. It is also important to be able to identify where Australia’s current and emerging research strengths lie so that future investment can be directed to sustaining them. It is imperative that as a nation we deepen our research capability in some key areas in order to compete with the best universities in the world. Insufficient public investment in research is failing to sustain research efforts and prevents Australia from building world-class, world-scale research capabilities in areas where we have the potential to compete globally.

By international comparison, Australia’s investment in university research is small in scale yet widely distributed. The dissipation of Australia’s relatively small-scale investment in university research hampers our ability to continue to play a role on the world stage in knowledge advancement. Other countries are scaling up their research capabilities, with major infrastructure investments and incentives for attracting and retaining international stars and high-quality research teams around them. Many of those countries with deep public research capabilities also have large corporate research and development capabilities and strong links between the two. Australia has very little private research and development. We only spend 0.89 per cent of our GDP in this area.

So there are lost opportunities in a number of different areas. It is one of the reasons we have such an underprovision of the skill sets that we should have in Australia. There is a fundamental skills crisis in this country because not enough people have been trained. We needed the increase in places for doctors and the clinical places for nurses that are provided in this bill well before now, and we need to do a great deal more.

What is the government currently doing to fill the hole? It is bringing in people from overseas utilising the 457 visas we have been hearing so much about, which were originally for companies such as IBM or Xerox to bring in executives. These companies would bring them here for up to four years and fill those niches. The number of those visas has dramatically expanded to hundreds and thousands. We need to train young Australians. We need to train them first and we need to train them now. We have needed to do that for the last 10 years, but shamefacedly we have to say that has not been done. We have done our young people a disservice. But the system is under immense pressure because of the indexing changes the government has made, and it has less capacity to provide for these training needs.

I think the most critical issue we have to confront is the extent to which we are putting at risk Australia’s higher education reputation by not having a coherent policy response to the needs of the university system. We need our university system to be able to diversify, innovate and meet Australia’s higher education needs, because it is our fourth largest industry. We earn something in the order of $7 billion a year from bringing students in from overseas. We do that because Labor in government initiated the process of opening our education system up to the world and encouraging students to come to Australia. The reason they came was that we could provide a world-class education system. That world-class education system is not as strong as it should be, and it has certainly failed in a number of areas simply because of a lack of government commitment to expanding it and nurturing it in the way that it should.

The Howard government’s massive fee increases are also discouraging some young Australians from going to university. The Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee’s report on applications for undergraduate courses shows a decline in applications over the last three years. In 2003 we had 229,427 enrolments. In 2006 that had dropped to 218,529. Young people are graduating from university with ever-increasing levels of debt, making it much harder for them to buy a home, start a family and get ahead. We have heard that the average HECS fee paid by Australian students has doubled under the Howard government, discouraging prospective students from taking up places at university. The Howard government fee hikes mean that medical students will pay more than $30,000 extra over the course of their degree, law students over $20,000 and engineering students more than $16,000—and that is for HECS places; that is not even talking about full-fee-paying places.

Labor’s plan to fix this mess is outlined in Labor’s higher education white paper Australia’s universities: building our future in the world. It points the way for reform of university funding, world-class and world-scale research hubs, the expansion of associate degrees and a new Australian Higher Education Quality Agency. Labor’s nation-building reform will result in real choice and high-quality education and training for Australians. Importantly, all Australians will benefit, because Labor’s much-needed reform will also deliver the skills our country needs to compete with the rest of the world. Lifting up all universities is central to a Beazley Labor government’s economic agenda. Building the skills of the next generation is how we will build a prosperous future for all Australians.

Labor means quality investment in quality universities. Labor’s plan will also encourage diversity and excellence in our universities. It will cut red tape and reward universities with additional funding in return for a commitment to quality. Labor will introduce a compact with our universities, establishing new funding streams to recognise their different strengths, promote excellence in research and encourage them to diversify, innovate and compete. All universities will be better off under the new funding system. Labor’s plan will release universities from the Howard government’s 2003 straitjacket which strangled them with red tape through programs such as the enrolment targets system. Labor’s plan includes proposals to stop the massive HECS fee increases, reduce the overall financial burden on students and provide HECS relief for degrees in areas of skills shortage.

Labor’s program is well funded, and high-quality universities will build Australia’s future economy by ending that one-size-fits-all model of university funding. Labor has always regarded higher education as the cornerstone of our nation’s social and economic prosperity. We believe that an appropriately funded and resourced higher education sector is the best investment a nation can make on its own. To bring home that fact, how ironic it was that in recognising the three people who won the prizes tonight Mr Howard said:

It is worth noting that all three scientists were born overseas, demonstrating that we are attracting leading scientists to Australia.

What we should be doing is educating, encouraging and nurturing them here.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this evening to commence what will probably be a very short contribution to the debate on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2006 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2006. Nevertheless, I shall make a start. The bill contains a great array of amendments to existing higher education acts. The major amendments of this bill will amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to revise maximum funding amounts. To summarise, it will increase Commonwealth supported places in health workforce courses. I understand that 1,036 additional nursing places will commence next year. The places will increase to 2,735 additional nursing places by 2010. This bill will also see 200 additional new commencing medical places in 2007. These will increase to 2,005 by 2009. There are 431 additional new places in undergraduate nursing courses with a mental health major, commencing next year, and the plan is that this will increase to 1,148 places by 2010. For the record, I add that that is four years away—some will argue it is four years too late.

There will also be funds for 40 new places at the centre of excellence in Islamic studies. It provides an increase in the capital development pool funding to assist new campuses or those undergoing expansion. There are funds for the commercialisation training scheme to increase postgraduate scholarships, to increase maximum payments for the Commonwealth scholarships, to reflect indexation increases for the years 2007 to 2009 and to add a new funding year of 2010. Of course, it revises the FEE-HELP limit.

The Labor Party has given this bill what consideration is possible within the limited time that has been allowed. I know that this bill has been referred to the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Committee and in general we support this legislation.

Debate interrupted.