Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition will not be opposing the Higher Education Support Amendment (2008 Budget Measures) Bill 2008, because the government made it quite clear before the election last November that it would be implementing these arrangements. However, I would make four points with respect to this legislation. First of all, the policy reflected in this bill assumes that more university students will take up maths and science with the reduction in HECS that has been announced. The assumption, of course, is that students base their course choices on cost—or at least principally do that. I am not yet convinced that that is the case. I think there are all sorts of reasons that students take up particular courses, and I am not sure that the cost of the course is in fact the prime inhibitor or, indeed, the prime motivator. This has happened before in the context of nursing and education. I suppose over the next few years the government, as it should, will be looking at the effect a reduction in the HECS costs has on the retention of students at university and how many students choose to take up these courses. It will be interesting to monitor over the next few years whether, with a reduction in HECS, more students take up the offers. Let us wait and see.

Secondly, the issue underlying much of this legislation, and this bill in particular, is about teacher shortages. This is a serious issue that I know the federal government is looking at in a serious way—perhaps more seriously than some of the state Labor governments. I would make two points about that. I think it is worth remarking on the fact that the teaching profession, to my mind, is too industrial rather than sufficiently professional—that being dominated by the union movement has not necessarily helped the profession of teaching. In the same way that lawyers, accountants and engineers having professional bodies to organise their professional arrangements has meant that those professions have higher status, perhaps in the future, as I know the federal government is concerned about this issue—

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I accept that, although I am not convinced that some of the state Labor governments are as concerned. If the industrial status of teachers perhaps played second place to their professional status, that would be a very, very good thing.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is highly offensive. As a former teacher, that is highly offensive.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that is very appropriate, Senator McLucas, because, as you know, education is very important. You know I know that. We both understand that. I am very concerned that, over the next generation, it will become a far more sought-after profession that many more people will go into—high achievers—and that will mean that we perhaps have to pay teachers more, but it will also mean that the profession has to start looking after itself and not rely totally on the trade union movement. That has not helped the teaching profession, sadly. Also, if we are talking about outcomes here, students benefit when teachers know how to teach. One of the great problems with the teaching profession and their education—this goes back to the education of teachers—is that they are taught how to critique pedagogy, critique the most recent educational theories, but they are not taught to deliver a syllabus. In other words, teachers must—

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Brett, this is absolute rubbish.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McLucas says that this is rubbish, and yet there is a crisis in teaching in this nation. Everyone says that except for you, Senator. There is a crisis in public school teaching in this nation and it is time that the federal government recognise that. One part of the problem is the trade union movement and the other part is that teachers do not know how to teach. That is the problem. It is time that the federal government woke up to it.

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Mason, it would be useful if you ignored interjections and addressed your comments to the chair.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to take interjections on the subject of education. As the Senate knows, I take education very, very seriously, and to say that there is no problem in public education is an absolutely disgraceful thing to say in this chamber. There is a crisis, and every single public school teacher that I know says so. Those young teachers say to me that they walk into the classroom and do not even know how to teach. It is time that university educators taught teachers how to teach—less critiquing of the most recent French pedagogy and more about how to teach a syllabus in Australian primary and high schools. That is what is at stake, and it is a great pity that a former teacher does not quite get that.

The third issue that I want to raise this afternoon is the abolition of domestic undergraduate full-fee-paying students. There is a whiff of class envy here. I concede that before the election the government did say that they would abolish domestic undergraduate full-fee-paying places. That is true, and that is why we are not opposing the bill. I accept that. But there is a whiff of class envy about this policy. Why is it that overseas students can come to this country, go to a public university and pay to do these courses? They can pay, whereas our students cannot. And why is it that Australian domestic students can go to a private university and then they can pay to do these courses? Well, of course, they can. The problem with the Labor Party is that they believe that people who choose to use their own money to pay for their education must somehow be rich. That is the old class envy thing—that people who choose to spend money on education, whether it is primary, secondary or tertiary, are somehow rich. That is wrong. That is a whiff of class envy, the old cloth cap, and it is not on. Still, they did announce this before the last election. I acknowledge that and for that reason the coalition does not oppose the bill. It opposes the policy but not the bill.

The fourth point that I want to raise is compensation for the abolition of domestic undergraduate full-fee-paying places. The government is providing 11,000 new HECS places to compensate universities for the loss of domestic undergraduate full-fee-paying students. The question is: will universities be adequately compensated? That is the question.

Russell Trood (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No; they will not be.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They may not be. Senator Trood says that they will not be, and he may well be right. The precise question should be: will universities be adequately compensated in the proportion to which they currently enjoy domestic undergraduate full-fee-paying students? That is the question. The universities have been a bit equivocal on this. They argue that they might be, yet their arguments are perhaps tempered by a certain fear of government response, so their view has been rather equivocal. But what we do know from Senate estimates is that domestic undergraduate full-fee-paying students were a source of growing revenue to universities. That is the point; they were a source of growing revenue. There were more and more domestic undergraduate full-fee-paying students. This was a source of growing revenue, and the 11,000 new HECS places that have been promised by the government are ongoing, but they are frozen in that number. That is the problem. So, in a sense, a growth of revenue will now be terminated. Universities will miss out, but I say again: the government did make clear this policy before the last election. So, while we oppose the policy, we do not oppose the bill.

I am a bit disappointed with Senator McLucas’s interjections. There are many things we can disagree about in this chamber, but I know that Senator McLucas and Senator Carr, the minister principally responsible for education in the Senate, care a lot about education. Let us not kid ourselves. Public education in this country is at crisis point. We cannot attract and retain sufficient teachers in our public schools and we must do everything we can to retain them. The profession must be professionalised, not industrialised. We must seek to retain our young teachers and bring mature-age teachers into the profession. Only if we continue to promote the profession of teaching, get away from the idea of critiquing the most recent education theories and start talking about delivering serious syllabus to our children will the teaching profession again been respected as it rightly should be.

Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I might start on the point at which the Senator Mason left off—‘Public education ... is at crisis point.’

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I picked that up.

Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, Senator Sherry may have fun with this one as well.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

State Labor governments have failed. It’s a state government responsibility.

Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Successive governments have failed. Labor governments, the last federal government, as well as state governments, have failed to adequately invest in public education. Because the matter at hand today is higher education, I will turn to the bill before us. I thought this was going to be my last opportunity to speak on higher education legislation in this place. A debate on such a topic would not be complete without the Democrats reminding everyone of our core belief that education at all levels should be publicly funded and accessible to all. It should be about your brains and not about your bank balance. But I see from the bills list which has just made its way around this place that I will have another opportunity. Next week we have another higher education bill before us dealing with some of the industrial relations measures that were promoted, I might say in quite a retrograde fashion, by the last government.

The bill before us, the Higher Education Support Amendment (2008 Budget Measures) Bill 2008, is one that the Australian Democrats will be supporting—not without qualification, of course. It implements a number of commitments made by the Labor Party before they came to office during the election campaign in 2007, including additional Commonwealth places in education and nursing, a good thing—tick; HECS-HELP; fee reductions for maths and science units, again another good thing and something the former government could perhaps have taken notice of many years ago; and the expansion of Commonwealth scholarships, another good thing. The big ticket item or the one that seems to be most contentious is the phasing out of full-fee degrees for domestic undergraduates. We are pleased to support in particular that last measure. As members of this chamber would know, we have long campaigned for a reinvestment by governments in our higher education system. A reduction in the contribution amounts for maths, stats and science is welcome on the face of it. These disciplines, we know, are fundamental to our ability to be innovative and to add value to our knowledge based economy, yet there are some pretty dire stories coming out of industry and academic sectors about the shortage of mathematicians and scientists in this country. A broad and complex approach needs to be adopted.

Obviously anything that reduces the barriers such as financial disincentives is a good thing and is one we support, but there are many other things we need to do. I have heard of major companies, such as BHP Billiton, having to import their mathematical talent from overseas. What does that say about our so-called clever country or education revolution, or whatever rhetoric we care to use in these debates, when we are importing from overseas the skilled professionals we should be able to produce in our own country?

The Democrats believe it is commendable that the government is attempting to address these particular skills shortages. I also wonder to what extent the reduction in a fee will address some of these issues. It is an important incentive to provide but a lot more needs to be done. It is always difficult to pinpoint why a student picks the course they do. Whether it is based on course cost or what a student has in mind to do as a career, all of these issues play a role in whether or not we get adequate numbers. In maths and science there is an issue to do with branding. Maths does not always immediately identify with a non-academic career path and science often conjures up images of lab work. Neither of these stereotypes do justice to the wealth of opportunities available to those who study maths and science. A fee reduction may help where a student is indecisive or is wavering between the choice of one course over another, but clearly the government needs to do more if they are serious about ensuring and encouraging increased participation in maths and science, and stats as well. We need high-quality teaching right throughout the school years and university. We also need to show the students who are at the cusp of tertiary education the variety of opportunities available to maths and science graduates so as to make these degrees as attractive as others whose career paths are more readily apparent, such as engineering. On that note, I might make a shameless plug of the Senate’s inquiry into space.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Looking into space!

Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Into space. Space is big, as Douglas Adams would say. Why is it that space has this giggle factor? I do not get it. Space, as in space up there—indeed, I am not sure whether my colleagues are aware of this inquiry. It is an incredibly important one looking at big issues of nationhood and national interest but also talks about the very real career opportunities available for people studying maths or science. I think many of the submissions that came to that inquiry rightly identified the need to think big. Inspirational science is needed to capture the imaginations of prospective students.

So while the Democrats support the fee reductions in this bill as something of an incentive in some respects, clearly the government cannot rest on its laurels. It has to do more to address these critical skills shortages in our community. The expansion of Commonwealth scholarships that is given effect by the legislation before us, if implemented properly, will give students from lower socioeconomic and rural and regional backgrounds the opportunity to attend university. This is desperately needed, of course. The participation rates from students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds fell from 15.1 to 14.6 per cent between 2001 and 2006. So if we think about that in some of the key areas by which we measure disadvantage and the participation of those groups that are traditionally disadvantaged or underrepresented in the higher education sector and we use those usual cohorts to look at lower socioeconomic groups, they are not improving their participation rate based on those figures between 2001 and 2006. Essentially, what we are saying is: we are still locking out poor kids from universities—that is the gist of it. And anything this or any other government can do to rectify that is welcome. I might suggest that fees and charges are still a financial disincentive and constitute a barrier for those students, be they young or old, from those particular backgrounds.

Over that same period, the participation rates of students from rural and regional areas also fell from 19 to 18 per cent, so we are going backwards. I would be curious to see what the National Party says about this, because this is a travesty. How can we have an education system that is considered accessible and, to a degree, publicly funded—but we all know what has happened with funding not just over the period of the last government—that is equitable and open when we know that people from those particular backgrounds are still not improving their participation rates? I think it is appalling and I hope that in the life of this government we will see a marked improvement. I will watch with interest, but I think one measure of a society is how available and accessible its education systems are to its citizens, and that is particularly true when it comes to higher education. Those of rural low SES comprise 10.6 per cent of the population, yet only 5.9 per cent occupy higher education places. This is an indictment; it is certainly not indicative of an accessible or equitable education system.

This legislation will ultimately double the number of undergraduate scholarships from 44,000 to 88,000 and does the same for Australian postgraduate awards to almost 10,000. That is due to take place by 2012. More than 230,000 domestic students commenced study in the first half of last year, so an increase in the number of scholarships of this magnitude will, as a very crude calculation, potentially make a scholarship available to around one in three students. We welcome this move also but again we have to sound some cautionary notes. Doubling the number of scholarships sounds good for the headlines, but there are concerns in the sector about the adequacy of the scholarship as a means of income support.

For one, Commonwealth scholarships are a maximum of four years length, which is not enough to cover some combined degrees or the length of certain degrees such as medicine. If an applicant is successful, the scholarship scheme should be flexible enough to cover the entire full-time length of their chosen course of study. The adequacy of the rate of payment under these awards is also open to question. Using Australian postgraduate awards as an example, there is a yawning gap between the stipend rate for these APAs and average weekly earnings, and that gap unfortunately continues to get bigger. The Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations estimates that the stipend rate will fall below the Henderson poverty line by the end of this year. Again, if we believe investing in the best and the brightest, particularly at the postgraduate scholarship level, then we should be doing it properly, not letting people fall below the Henderson poverty line.

There is a private senator’s bill before this place—I tabled it a while ago—to, among other things, abolish the distinction between full-time and part-time scholarships and to make all scholarships which satisfy the criteria in the existing provisions tax free. I almost thought for a while, particularly when then Minister Brendan Nelson was responsible for the education portfolio, we had a chance of cracking that one. I thought that, because it is not a particularly costly bill and it seemed a fair and appropriate thing to do, we might lose that distinction and, in particular, see part-time scholarships tax free. I urge the government to consider taking on, if not that private senator’s bill, that particular measure, that initiative. It is rather penny-pinching, don’t you think, to tax part-time scholarships—quite extraordinary. As one way of making scholarships more attractive, the government could do worse than include this bill in their legislative agenda.

On top of those concerns, the Democrats are continually worried about the apparent tightening of access to student income support, particularly in recent times. Since 2002, the proportion of full-time students receiving income support has fallen—it has gone from 35 to 27 per cent. Again, going back to the issue of urging and encouraging participation from those traditionally disadvantaged groups in higher education, we know one key factor makes a difference. Even if people are debating whether or not fees and charges are a financial or a psychological disincentive to enter into or participate in higher education, we know one thing helps for sure—the research is clear—and that is income support. Under successive governments, the availability of income support and the amount available to individual students and families has been woeful. It is getting worse if you look at it proportionally. Again, it is something I would urge the government to do something about.

As you may know, the Democrat initiated Senate inquiry into student income support—the first Senate inquiry to examine solely the issue of income support for students—made a number of recommendations that would ensure that students had better access to income support. It would mean that they would be more able to participate in higher ed or continue their studies, and it would open up education at that level for many families who previously have not been able to participate for financial and other reasons. Clearly, it is not in the interests of students, nor in the interests of our nation—given that we are so dependent on the skills that they acquire—for students or aspiring students to be distracted by poverty or excessive work hours.

I mentioned that perhaps one of the more contentious aspects of this bill was the abolition of full-fee places for domestic undergraduates. But this is certainly not contentious for the Democrats. This reform is long overdue, it is one that we wholeheartedly support and I congratulate the government for doing it—and doing it with alacrity. I actually thought I might wait a little longer to see that measure introduced in legislation and, hopefully, pass successfully. However, I recognise that for university institutions this is not so simple. I understand that they are worried about the shortfall in funding, and that they are worried about the consequences of this measure in terms of the money that they have in order to provide quality education for their students. But having said that, full upfront fees for domestic undergraduates have no place in a public university system in our nation—and I welcome the opportunity to vote on legislation that finally abolishes that.

As you would know, the Democrats have campaigned against full upfront fees, particularly at an undergraduate level. But if you go back into the dim, dark Democrats past, we have also campaigned against full upfront fees at a postgraduate level. Forgive me—it is that nostalgic, 11-days-to-go feeling that has probably taken over a little here, remembering the Democrat’s very good record on fighting for publicly funded and accessible education. I am reminded that we not only opposed the introduction of those full-cost fees at undergraduate level, but also at the postgraduate level.

The government does, however, need to be very careful to ensure that the compensation it provides under this legislation is adequate to compensate universities for the loss in full-fee places. As I say, universities and their administrations are very concerned about that. I have heard that the sector is disappointed by the amount of compensation that has been made available. Indeed, it has been suggested that it is roughly half the amount that was sought by those institutions, and I would be curious to hear the duty minister’s response to those particular complaints.

Some universities were charging more than $200,000—one of the highest fee-charging arrangements that I have heard—for a full-fee degree. This, of course, comfortably exceeds what they would receive through a Commonwealth funded place. The government might be saying: ‘That’s tough; universities will have to deal with it. It was their choice to charge those fees in the first place.’ But I acknowledge we need to be careful, and we need to be careful for a couple of reasons. Firstly, these full-fee places were attractive to some universities as a result of the dearth of public funding. Because of the lack of investment in higher education over the years by governments, universities had become quite dependent on that flexibility in relation to full-fee charging arrangements. Failing to deal appropriately with the abolition of full-fee places will merely entrench the financial difficulties of the past dozen years or so.

Secondly, there is potential for unintended consequences. Universities could refuse the additional Commonwealth places and instead focus on recruiting more international students as a way of compensating for the money that will be lost. It is a complex issue; I acknowledge that. We do not want universities to be worse off from this move, nor do we want to implicitly disadvantage those universities which did not offer full-fee degrees for domestic students in the first place. I ask the government to ensure, one way or another, that universities do not miss full-fee places.

Broadly, at least, this legislation therefore heads in the right direction. When combined with the $11 billion Education Investment Fund and the $500 million one-off renewal fund announced in the recent budget, the government is beginning—just beginning—to make the kind of reinvestment in education that the sector needs, while also starting to reduce the fee burden that students have to deal with.

Those of us who have been passionate about, and still believe in, the potential for higher education to allow people to achieve their goals, regardless of background, and who believe that higher education should be seen as a national investment—not an expense—are waiting to see what comes next. I must admit I am a little sceptical about some of the reviews that the government has called for. I hope that they are not merely a delaying tactic, although at this stage I am prepared to give the government the benefit of the doubt. I think, though, if they take much longer to announce the results of the VSU review, I might start to change my mind. There are some very clear issues on the table for this government, especially a government that purports to believe in a so-called education revolution. The government needs to give us less rhetoric and more detail as to what this actually constitutes.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear, hear!

Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Bernardi. (Time expired)

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to incorporate a speech by Senator Crossin on the Higher Education Support Amendment (2008 Budget Measures) Bill 2008.

Leave granted.

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

The incorporated speech read as follows—

Higher Education Support Amendment (2008 Budget Measures) Bill 2008

This bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (HESA) to revise maximum funding amounts in the Commonwealth Grants Scheme; Commonwealth Scholarships and other grants to reflect additional funding for indexation increases.

This bill makes important amendments to HESA to address urgent national priorities in higher education.

This bill implements budget initiatives such as the abolition of full fees and a growth in the number of scholarships offered. Such measures will clearly help families who are doing it hard to get their kids a tertiary education, especially those in rural or remote areas such as where many of my constituents live.

From January 2009 universities will not be able to enrol a new domestic undergraduate student on a full-fee-paying basis except in circumstances where the act prohibits their enrolment as a Commonwealth supported student, or they accepted a fee paying place this year but deferred study until next, or are a former overseas student who has become a domestic student.

Furthermore this bill reduces the amount of HECS-HELP repayments for graduates working in early childhood education in rural and regional Australia, especially in Indigenous early childhood.

This will be done through use of the postcodes - where there is an Indigenous population of 20% or more, teachers in early childhood positions will qualify for reduced repayments of fees due.

There will be more Commonwealth supported places in early childhood education and nursing.

Furthermore this bill increases capital funding for infrastructure projects at James Cook University for the establishment of a Dental School and at Notre Dame University for more Commonwealth places in medicine and nursing. Both of these steps will increase the available places in skill shortage subject areas.

There will be a reduction in the maximum annual student contribution amount for subjects such as maths and science subjects for new students starting these subjects in 2009.

The maximum annual contribution for students in maths and science will be reduced from $7412 a year to the lowest national priority rate of $4162 from 2009.

Commencing maths and science students will pay the same rate as those in education and nursing. All of these being skill areas of great need nationally, and these changes will encourage more people to move into these studies.

So this bill helps families to get their kids a better education by offering more scholarships. It encourages more students to study

in nationally important areas such as nursing, childcare, maths and sciences. This will help to reduce the shortages in those skill areas.

At the same time as reducing costs for students, there will be a Transitional Loading under the Commonwealth Grants Scheme to fully compensate Higher Education providers for reduced revenue resulting from reduced student contributions for maths and science units, and for replacing full fee places with Commonwealth supported places.

So both the students and providers benefit from proposals in this bill. No body or institution will be disadvantaged in any way. Students have more chance of a scholarship and higher education bodies are compensated for any loss of revenue through removal or reduction of fees.

Universities will have 11,000 new Commonwealth supported places by 2011 and potential students will be able to compete for these places on ability —not as under the previous government on what they could afford to pay.

In total the number of Commonwealth supported scholarships will be increased from 44000 to 88000 by 2012. That is a doubling of Commonwealth supported places within the next 4 years.

It is recognised that revenue from overseas students paying full fees is important for the higher education providers and full-fee-paying places will continue to be available to them.

Australia is recognised internationally as a high quality provider of higher education, and many overseas students come here by choice. This has benefits again both for these students and for us as a nation. Nothing will be done that might reduce overseas demand for fee paying places in our higher education institutions.

These overseas students are however very much an addition to our higher education system and our own domestic students get top priority and overseas students can be treated differently but fairly in matters of entry requirements and fee payments.

So this bill implements budget measures which are an integral part of our election commitments.

It implements immediate action to address priorities in areas of skill shortages such as maths and science, early childhood education and nursing.

It helps to restore some degree of equity and access to higher education for our domestic students while at the same time in no way disadvantaging overseas full-fee-paying students or the higher education providers.

The measures in this bill are of course in addition to our commitment to the $11 billion Education Investment Fund and the $500 million Better Universities funding which will provide further great support for our higher education sector over the years.

Together with addressing these immediate priorities in this bill the government will take reforms further through the Review of Australian Higher Education being led by Professor Denise Bradley.

This bill therefore represents a start to reversing the situation of the past 11 years under the previous government where higher education funding was annually being reduced in real terms and conditions being made more and more prescriptive.

Whereas many OECD countries increased higher education spending by up to 48% over the past decade, we in Australia saw funding decline by 4%. This was done knowingly and deliberately by the previous government despite the ever increasing evidence of the growing skills shortage that now threatens our economy as a legacy from that previous government.

They did not look to the future but instead chose to ignore all warning signs of upcoming problems and follow a slash and burn policy and reduce federal funding to higher education.

The previous government not only reduced funding in real terms but also pursued ideological policies that were more and more throttling academic freedom and higher education autonomy with government regulation and a “one size fits all” policy.

This government will change all that and enable our universities to offer quality higher education to all, while at the same time following full and proper governance procedures appropriate to each institute.

Our Education Revolution will see higher education given far higher priority with more autonomy to universities to run themselves. They will have the opportunity to once again reduce class sizes and spend more time on teaching rather than on administration.

We believe in education opportunity for all and this bill moves back towards increased equity of access by abolishing full fees; increasing the number of Commonwealth scholarships; providing incentives to study and work in key areas such as maths and science, nursing and early childhood education; and funding infrastructure projects at James Cook and Notre dame universities.

While this is only one bill forming a part of the Rudd Government ongoing Education Revolution it is important. It will improve higher education access and equity for domestic students without in any way disadvantaging overseas students who as full fee payers are an important part of our higher education picture.

It will do so in a way which ensures universities are not penalised by any loss of full-fee-paying student revenue.

It will do so in a way with emphasis on higher education in areas of high national need such as maths, science, nursing, early childhood education.

I commend this bill to the chamber.

Russell Trood (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always a great pleasure to participate in a lively debate on an issue that is as important to this place as education is. I would like to contribute to the debate and hope to make a constructive contribution to the concerns that are before the Senate this afternoon. The Higher Education Support Amendment (2008 Budget Measures) Bill 2008 comes before us in the context of a national conversation that took place last year around the time of the election, when the Labor Party spent a great deal of its time telling us about the need for an education revolution in Australia. Up and down the country, spokesmen and women for education on the Labor side told us about the shortcomings of the Australian education system. They told us about the failures of teaching, the failures in learning, the absence of research and the underfunding. There was a litany of complaints about the nature of Australian education. This was not just at the higher education level, which is what this bill is concerned with; it was at the primary level and the high school level as well. Apparently there was virtually no part of Australian education that did not need some kind of change, some kind of reform. In fact, those who had a lack of familiarity with education might have thought that Australia’s education system resembled that of a rather poor and underdeveloped African republic on the basis of the rhetoric and the charges which were made with regard to the strength of the education system in our country.

Revolutions, it seems, are not what they used to be. They used to be about substantial upheaval. They used to be about transformational change and reform. They used to be about substantial and significant alterations to the status quo. And what have we got here? The revolution seems to amount to giving a few computers to a few schools across the country and saying: ‘That is what the need is. That is what the requirement is. If we provide you with that opportunity then the revolution is complete and our rhetoric is satisfied.’ What a dissembling that is. It is classic Rudd government spin on the way in which we should be dealing with the very serious question of education in our country.

The saddest thing about this so-called revolution was that it ended up junking, disposing of, one of the very great innovations that had taken place in Australian education over the last few years. Of course, I am speaking of the Investing in Our Schools Program, which was introduced by the Howard government. It was an extremely successful program for our schools, one that provided sports arenas and equipment for many public schools. It provided drama facilities for some schools. It provided air-conditioning in some instances of which I am aware. It provided musical instruments. It provided the opportunity for some schools to get IT equipment which would otherwise not be available to them.

It is interesting to ask in the context of this very valuable program why it was necessary for the federal government to enter this field and why it was necessary for this program to be introduced in the first place. The answer to that question is a very straightforward one: the state governments, who of course have primary responsibility for this area, had completely neglected their responsibilities. They had been delinquent in providing the funds which were necessary for these elementary parts of a school education in Australia in the 21st century.

We now have the curious situation, the sad situation, the tragic situation, where we are expected to believe that a revolution was necessary. I was never persuaded that a revolution was necessary in Australian education. Certainly, reforms were desirable. I am not suggesting for a moment that we could not have improved the education system at all levels in various kinds of ways, but there was certainly no need for an education revolution. But one of the key programs dealing with the education system, which was valuable for Australian schools, has been removed and innovation has been quashed.

This bill deals with higher education issues. The Howard government was lashed on these issues for a long period of time by the Democrats, as we have heard this afternoon. The election promises from the Labor Party in relation to the reforms which they said were necessary were long and rather tedious. I do not need to go into them. But it is entirely typical of the Rudd Labor government that the revolution in relation to higher education comes down to not very much at all. Indeed, what was virtually the first thing the government did when it arrived in government? It set up an inquiry into higher education. So now we are waiting for Professor Bradley’s review to be completed. On the basis of that review, perhaps those of us who are anxious might fire up the revolution in some way. It might provide us with a road map. It might provide us with some sort of direction in which the education program might proceed into the future. But we are not there yet. At the moment we are waiting for the Bradley review to be completed, or at least we are waiting for its results to be announced. Who knows how long that is actually going to be?

In the meantime, what we have is the Higher Education Support Amendment (2008 Budget Measures) Bill 2008, which is before the Senate this afternoon. I acknowledge that there are in fact some useful reforms in this bill and I think they ought to be commended. The bill, as Senator Stott Despoja has mentioned, proposes an increase in Commonwealth scholarships, giving priority to areas where there seems to be a national need, such as nursing, teaching, science and engineering. That increase in scholarships is certainly welcome. There is a doubling of postgraduate awards in the bill. That is also welcome. There is increasing alarm throughout the higher education community in Australia about the general decline in the number of people who are in graduate schools, and that of course is a matter which is going to profoundly affect our future. So the increase in scholarships might well arrest the decline. If it does so, then that is to be applauded.

Senators from New South Wales and Western Australia will certainly be delighted that there is funding in this bill for the facilities required by the University of Notre Dame. I am pleased to see a university receiving some support in that way. The bill also provides extra funding for students in maths and sciences. What we know about maths and sciences is that, as disciplines, they are in decline. The number of people who are interested in moving into maths and science is in decline. There seems to be a real barrier to people making that a specialty in their undergraduate education. There are real barriers to people moving into those areas of teaching. This is not just a national problem; it is an international problem. If that is the case, if this bill and the provisions that are in it encourage more people to move into maths and sciences then it is to be welcomed. It may provide those incentives and, if it does, then so much the better.

The bill also provides for the funding of facilities at the dentistry school at the James Cook University, which is an institution in the state of Queensland which I am delighted to represent in this place. The bill makes $449.5 million available over four years for the establishment of a dental school in Cairns. Also, $33 million will go to capital infrastructure. Further, approximately $7 million will go to clinical training. I welcome those allocations of funding. JCU has already a strong and strengthening reputation as an important regional university, particularly in tropical specialties in the area of tropical disciplines. This dentistry program will continue that tradition; it will provide an education in dentistry which will focus on providing services to regional, rural and Indigenous communities. Those services are to be welcomed, because those of us who travel around our electorates all know how difficult it is to get dentistry and other kinds of clinical services in those regional and remote areas. If the funding of the dentistry school at JCU contributes to an increase in resources in that area then it is certainly to be welcomed.

The interesting thing about this initiative is that it is not a Labor initiative. It is in the bill, and I welcome it in the bill, but in fact this was a coalition initiative; it was announced prior to the election as an initiative that the then Howard government was prepared to introduce, should it be re-elected, and we would have carried through on that commitment. What we discovered, of course, was that it was such a good and important initiative, one that was so widely welcomed across the community, that the ALP could not do other than emulate it a couple of weeks after the announcement was made. It was pleasing to see that part of the so-called revolution involves the introduction of an idea and a proposition which were actually the coalition’s idea and proposal going in to the last election. A rather troubling aspect is that this proposition in this bill is not funded to the same extent as was intended to be the case in relation to the coalition’s funding, which was proposed as a figure of about $52 million. There is a danger that the kinds of funds for JCU which have been provided in the bill will be less than are needed. The result of that might well be that some student positions might be underfunded and, more sadly, if it were to come to pass, some of the outreach activities which are intended to be involved in the clinical training might also be curtailed. In any event, I am delighted to see that the funding for JCU has come through and that they will be able to go forward with their school of dentistry.

I suppose the contentious part of the bill, and the last item that I particularly want to make mention of, is the matter of full-fee students in undergraduate positions in universities. This attracted some lively attention earlier in the debate. Senator Mason referred to a ‘whiff of class envy’ in relation to this matter. I actually think it is not so much a reflection of a whiff of class envy—although it is probably that—but more a reflection of an ideological obsession that the Labor Party has with these kinds of positions. It seeks to reverse a policy which was introduced by the Howard government. It is useful in these contexts, when a policy is being reversed, to reflect on the reasons why the policy was introduced in the first place. One of the reasons for it being introduced in the first place was that it offered universities a greater measure of institutional flexibility in the way in which they offered their undergraduate courses. It was not something that all universities necessarily wanted to participate in. Indeed, even in 2006 the number of students who were enrolled in these kinds of undergraduate full-fee-paying courses was relatively small: about 2.5 per cent of the undergraduate population, amounting to in the vicinity of 14,000 students. So it was not that every university rushed towards offering these kinds of positions, but it was that some universities decided that their mission statements and their approaches to delivering education could be fulfilled by offering these kinds of courses.

The ALP, the now government, has always opposed this way of offering higher education—and for absolutely no convincing reason. There are always arguments, of course, but the arguments amount to very little indeed. These places drove down, allegedly, the entry standards into programs. There was never any evidence that that was actually the case. Allegedly it was a policy that offered education to the rich. Of the students of whom I am aware who entered these programs, my experience was that very few of them were actually rich. They wanted to go into a particular program for a particular reason, they had a very strong commitment to those areas of discipline, they could gain entry in this way, they were prepared to make the commitment and they were prepared to provide the resources which they needed to enter those kinds of programs.

The facts always belied the arguments which were made as to why these particular places ought not be available in universities. From my perspective, the ALP always led a rather narrow, irrational and ideologically opposed debate about the virtues of these programs. I do not share the ideological biases, of course, which underpin the arguments against them, and I do not share the ideological convictions which underpin this particular reform—although, as Senator Mason has said, we do not oppose the bill, because we recognise that it was an issue which was taken to the last election.

The problem with this particular reform is that it does violence to certain principles which should underpin a sound higher education program. In my view, one of those principles is that a higher education program should encourage diversity in higher education. It should encourage the opportunity for universities to decide how they want to deliver their educational programs. They ought to be given an opportunity not to homogenise themselves—38 universities all doing the same kinds of things across the country. Policy ought to be providing an opportunity for universities across the country to build on their comparative advantages. They ought to have an opportunity to define themselves as institutions in ways which reflect their own preferences—to focus on particular cohorts of students or to focus on particular disciplines, if that is what they choose to do. They ought to have an opportunity to go with their strengths, to put it colloquially. A program of this kind ought to be underpinned by equity. There is no compelling and valid reason why Australian students should not be, in some cases, asked to pay for courses that overseas students are also asked to pay for.

Aside from the educational philosophy there is the problem of costs. This has been alluded to by the previous speakers in this debate. Under this program $249 million is provided as compensation. My view is that this will not be enough. It will not be enough to compensate universities for the revenue which will be forgone as a result of this policy change—$249 million will only fund about 11,000 of the nearly 14,000 places which are available. So there is going to be a shortfall and someone is going to have to pay for it. Is it going to be the universities? Are they going to be put in a difficult position as a result of this program or not? (Time expired)

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

I seek leave to incorporate my remarks.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

After nearly six years of speaking on behalf of the Australian Greens on higher education I am pleased to be able to deal with a bill which is moving us closer towards The Greens vision for higher education in this country.

The Greens vision for education in this country is that everyone is able to access education regardless of how much they earn or their parents earn. If we want to be a clever country we have to make sure that everyone has access to education. And education has to be a life long learning experience. That means free public preschool so that every kid and particularly every Indigenous kid has access to top quality early childhood education.

The Greens want to see our public schools given the funding they deserve from our federal government. You want to see a real education revolution? Start with putting the money that education ministers from around the country have said is necessary to ensure that our public schools can teach to the minimum standards that education ministers have set down. That’s an additional $2.8 billion each year for public schools. You have to start with that necessary funding for our public schools before can even begin on the path to an education revolution.

When it comes to higher education, the Greens vision for this country is that we return to the situation we had in this country not so long ago, that is, free tertiary education.

Cost should not be a barrier to people being able to access top quality education.

The Greens recognise takes baby steps in the direction of the Greens vision for higher education in this country.

However, in examining the reasoning behind some of these measures we are left wondering why the Commonwealth has not gone further in addressing barriers to entry, accessibility and affordability of higher education which a number of these measures address.

This bill makes some significant changes to the fee structure for domestic undergraduate students at Australian universities. Firstly, this bill abolishes the full upfront fee degrees for domestic undergraduates. The Greens have always opposed the introduction of full fee degrees and in particular the differential entry requirements that have been associated with them. These entry requirements had a serious effect on equity, turning some courses into de facto full fee only degrees right from the outset. One academic from Monash University outlined the problem to me back in 2003...

“Current arrangements in place at Monash University (and in other universities) allow full-fee paying students to switch to HECS places in their second year (subject to satisfactory performance). Hence full-fee paying students leap-frog the VCE/HSC entry requirements and then obtain a subsidised place in their second and subsequent years. The result is that qualified students are denied HECS places in their first year.

The government has claimed basically that expanding the number of full-fee paying students has no effect on current arrangements—it only allows some extra students to enrol who would not otherwise have been able to study. This is not true.

If universities respond to the new legislation as they already have to their existing opportunities to enrol full-fee paying students, there would be almost no HECS places available for first year students in (say) law. All the HECS places would be allocated to second and later year students. All (or almost all) first year students would be full-fee paying. The potential impact on access to, and equity in, higher education is enormous. Such arrangements already exist in one course I know of. “

We now know that these negative equity outcomes became more widespread and as the full fee degree system was further deregulated and FEE-HELP was introduced. The situation got worse and was poised to become endemic. The abolition of full fee degrees is perhaps the most significant measure in this bill and hasn’t come a moment too soon.

When the deputy prime minister spoke in the House of Representatives on this piece of legislation she said that this bill was abolishing full fee university degrees, “to ensure that students gain access to higher education on merit and not on ability to pay.”

The Greens agree and the welcome the abolition of full fee university degrees in this piece of legislation.

We welcome this move. Our support for this is hardly surprising given our support of free public education. The Greens want to ensure that ability to pay is never the determining factor as to what level of education Australians receive.

As I said before, this simple principle informs our policy at all levels of education.

We do not support requiring pre-schoolers’ parents to pay for the most essential education their child will ever receive – early childhood education. We support the provision of free public education of the highest quality at primary level, we support it at secondary level, we support it at post compulsory secondary level, and we support it at the tertiary level as well.

This principle of removing financial barriers to accessing higher education was invoked by the Government when speaking on this bill in the House of Representatives.

When the Deputy PM says she wants “to ensure students gain access to higher education on merit and not on ability to pay”, The Greens say hear hear!

But why only apply this principle to full fee university degrees?

What about those students who do not even try to get into uni or TAFE because they can not afford the high fees, or are scared of the debt they will incur?

The Greens agree with the government that access to education should be about merit not wealth, which is why we want to see all the financial barriers to a university and TAFE phased out not just full fees.

The Government clearly agrees with The Greens about how the fear of debt prevents students from going to university. That is why this bill reduces the HECS debt for science, maths and statistics students in order to encourage more students to enrol in these courses.

The Deputy Prime Minister tells us in her second reading speech on this bill that these measures will,

“provide considerable incentives for students to study mathematics and science at university.”

The logic of this statement is that paying the current higher rates of HECS fees for these courses is a disincentive. The Greens agree.

But we also think that paying the $4,162 that these courses will cost a student to study in 2009 is also a disincentive, and should these fees should be covered by the Commonwealth—as they were when the Deputy Prime Minister went to university.

The logic of alleviating disincentive continues in this suite of budget measures with the introduction of HECS-HELP ‘benefit’ which allows the Minister to reduce or cancel students HECS debts. Why? Well again it is a measure designed to provide incentives (or reduce disincentives) related to the costs of education.

The Greens welcome the move to reduce fees in the area of early childhood education, as we welcome the news that graduates teaching maths or science will have their HECS repayment burden reduced. These are important changes in the fee system in Australian higher education.

And they are changes that The Greens have been advocating for my entire time in Parliament and before that as well.

These changes recognise that fees and debts turn students off education.

As I say, The Greens have been of this view from the outset and we will continue to push for the expansion of this programme of debt relief and fee reduction until all Australians can access university “on merit and not ability to pay.”.. as the Deputy Prime Minister said.

I have visited universities and spoken to students across the country as an MP and before entering parliament. That experience left me in no doubt as to the impact that student poverty has on the quality of the education we produce in this country.

I have heard many stories about students working full time in low paying jobs just to pay the rent and pay for their groceries and the impact that that has on their ability to put time and effort into their supposedly full time university study

You can’t tell me that these students are achieving their full potential.

Bear in mind that the Commonwealth is subsidising the cost of the tuition for the majority of these students and if the government wants to ensure that that investment is benefiting the whole community they need to ensure that students can focus on their study while at university rather than have to spend all their time at uni working with reduces the number of students who complete a quality education.

The Greens yet again call on the government to increase student support.

This is an issue that has been conspicuously dismissed in the budget. There are no proposals from the so-called ‘education revolution’ government to increase AUSTUDY, Youth Allowance and ABSTUDY.

The Greens join the higher education sector, National Union of Students, the National Tertiary Education Union and Universities Australia in calling on the government to urgently overhaul student financial support measures and deliver students a living wage whilst they are studying.

The Deputy Prime Minister has indicated that the ‘Bradley review’ of the sector will have a broad terms of reference and that this review will be looking at participation, access and opportunity. The Greens expect that this review will, like all other investigations into this area, find that student poverty is undermining the quality of higher education, is a threat to equity and must be urgently addressed.

The Greens welcome the increase in Commonwealth Scholarships in this bill from 44,000 to 88,000 by 2012. The Greens want the scholarship system to be examined as part of the Bradley review with a view to expanding the support available to students or even better, subsumed by a comprehensive system which ensures that students are able to concentrate on their studies during term time and are not forced to work more than 20 hours a week on average as the current student population does.

In the area of post graduate studies again this government has moved in the right direction but inexplicably fallen short of what the sector needs. This bill increases the number of Australian Postgraduate Awards which deliver financial support for PhD and Masters by research students to nearly 10,000. That is a positive step but again it doesn’t address the very real financial pressures that these students face because the level of financial support these awards give leaves postgraduates forced to work instead of researching or else struggle on an income less than the Henderson Poverty Line.

The philosophy underpinning the measures in this bill is of a much healthier variety than the previous government. The Greens hope that this government is starting to recognise that education spending is an investment rather than a cost. But what’s missing is the political drive to see the logic through and make the very large contributions that the sector needs. If these investments are not made in the next budget—which will be after the Bradley review has been completed—then the government’s rhetoric about an education revolution will be precisely that. Rhetoric! They will be exposed as frauds disguised in the language of commitment to education but with not follow through and no guts to commit to a genuine education revolution.

I will not be in the parliament when this test is faced but my fellow Greens will be—and in increased numbers. The Greens will continue to advocate for public education and for the investment that public education needs and deserves for our whole society to flourish. But time is running out—after 12 years of neglect its time to act.

One of my first speeches in this place was about my commitment to benefits of public education and about the need to support public higher education in particular. Then like now it came on the eve of a major review of the sector. Back then I told the Senate’

“The Greens believe that the solution to the self-created crisis in higher education is rooted in a fundamental reinvestment by the federal government in the sector—not via increased access to loans schemes but by a direct investment in the higher education sector.

In this context, the Greens see a review of higher education as timely—not as a chance to undermine the public education system but as a chance to put appropriate funding, appropriate investment, back into public education and to put this back on the agenda.”

It was true then and it is still true today. I have a little more hope now but The Greens will not rely on hope. Instead we will continue the fight to make Australia’s public education system the envy of the world and in doing so ensure that our community is best equipped to meet the challenges of the century - and meet them together, as a thoughtful, harmonious and prosperous people.

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to incorporate my remarks.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

Mr President, I rise to speak in favour of the Higher Education Support Amendment (2008 Budget Measures) Bill 2008.

I do so because this Bill is yet another example of  the Government following through on its election commitments ... in this case, following through on our key higher education election commitments.

Unfortunately, the Opposition has chosen ... yet again ... to treat the will of the Australian people with contempt by attempting to stop this democratically elected Government from making good on its promises through the 2008-2009 budget Bills.

This Higher Education Support Amendment Bill is true to the very heart of Labor policy when it comes to education: We believe in better access and a fairer system.

We believe good-quality, universally accessible education is a right, not a privilege.

We also believe in doing something about the skills crisis gripping this country – and to this end, too, this Bill takes steps.

As law, this legislation will offer incentives for young people to study and take up a career in maths, science and early childhood education – all priority skills areas for our economy and society.

We’re ensuring, too, that higher education provider funding for maths and science will be maintained.

The Bill will move to make higher education accessible for Australians in several ways.

It will abolish full fees for domestic students and double the numbers of undergraduate scholarships and postgraduate awards available.

It also provides for the funding of places and infrastructure for James Cook University Dental School and medicine, nursing and education at the University of Notre Dame.

Through measures such as these, Labor is working to bring back fairness and equity to higher education.

When I first spoke in this place, I reflected on having benefited from the Whitlam Government’s policy to broaden access to the tertiary education system.

And now, before us today we have a Bill that will again assist young Australians realise their potential and reduce the burden on families when it comes to university fees.

There will be an extra positive spin-off for rural and regional Australia, too, with the reduction of HECS repayments for those graduates who work in early childhood education jobs in the country.

So this legislation is about equality and opportunity.

Universities will have 11,000 new Commonwealth-supported places with on-going funding by 2011 to replace the full-fee-paying places that will be phased out from 2009.

Students will be able to engage in merit-based competition for these places, rather than having their chances based on their ability to pay.

And no existing student will lose their place.

Australia has much to gain in terms of culture and research efforts from being part of international educational exchange - and the Government encourages higher education institutions to enrol fee-paying overseas students.

Places for overseas students are in addition to, not in place of, domestic students.

The Government’s higher education commitment is to better equip Australians to take their place as productive members of our society ... through increased knowledge and opportunity.

This also will rein in the skills crisis and make our country a more prosperous one.

Therefore I commend this Bill to the Senate.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all those senators who have spoken on the bill, in particular Senator Brett Mason. It is always refreshing to see his lively contributions, and it was particularly so on this occasion. I note with a touch of regret that Senator Carr is not here to handle, in a representative sense, his own legislation. Senator Carr, of course, has a well-known interest and passion for education legislation, and watching he and Senator Mason contest the education debate is always useful.

I want to pick up on one point from Senator Mason’s contribution. He referred to higher education being at crisis point in Australia. Senator Stott Despoja picked up on this point as well—if higher education is at crisis point, as Senator Mason suggested, what does that say about the government of which he was part for almost 12 years, when it comes to higher education? I do not believe it is correct; I think ‘crisis point’ is overstating a range of issues that the higher education sector faces. But, if that is Senator Mason’s contention, what was his government doing for almost 12 long years?

I acknowledge the very longstanding interest, level of contribution and considered contribution of Senator Stott Despoja. She made the point that she thought this would be the last legislation in respect of higher education that she would have the opportunity to make a contribution on. However, she has apparently found another piece of legislation that will be debated next week. I hope that eventuates—we all know the pressures on time today and next week when it comes to legislation. I wanted to take the opportunity to acknowledge Senator Stott Despoja’s very, very considered, knowledgeable and keen interest in higher education during her period in the Senate; I do not think it should go unsaid. I thank her for her contribution.

Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So that is my general summation and my thankyou to those senators who have spoken on the bill. The bill before the Senate amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to implement the government’s education revolution 2008-09 budget package in higher education. These measures carry through the government’s public election commitments. I emphasise that we made a series of commitments during the election campaign and I would hope that by now everyone would be very well aware of the determination of this government, in particular that of the Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, to deliver on all our election commitments. There are no core and non-core promises, as we saw from the previous government; we will be delivering on all election commitments.

The commitments delivered in this bill are complemented by the budget’s two major education infrastructure initiatives—the Better Universities Renewal Fund and the Education Investment Fund—that together will provide a much needed investment in restoring university facilities. These funds will fund major infrastructure investments in our universities. These initiatives are part of the government’s commitment to ensuring higher education plays a leading role in equipping Australians with the knowledge and skills to make Australia a more productive and prosperous nation.

This bill makes important amendments to the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to address urgent and immediate priorities. One such priority is to amend the act to provide incentives for students to study mathematics and science at university. The maximum annual student contribution amount for new students studying mathematics, including statistics, or science units will be reduced from $7,412 a year to the lowest national priority rate of $4,162 in 2009 for an equivalent full-time student load. Commencing maths and science students will contribute at the same rate as students studying education and nursing units of study. These are areas of particular workforce need. Existing students will also benefit if they transfer into a mathematics or science course.

On the issue of mathematics, whilst I am not renowned for my knowledge of education policy, I have experienced and have firsthand knowledge of the impact of the lack of mathematics graduates, specifically in the area of actuarial studies, through my work in superannuation. I will digress briefly to say actuarial studies is very important in the areas of superannuation, insurance and long-term forecasting. The critical shortage of mathematicians is making things more difficult in the policy area because actuarial studies is dependent on very sophisticated mathematical formulae, modelling and calculations. If you do not have maths graduates in that area, if you do not have mathematics graduates going into actuarial studies, you find, as with many other areas where mathematics makes an important contribution, that has significant, profound and adverse ramifications for our society.

The bill also provides incentives for maths and science graduates to pursue related careers, including teaching these subjects in secondary schools, through the new HECS-HELP benefit, which will give effect to the government’s policy for HELP debt ‘remissions’. The HECS-HELP benefit will also encourage early childhood education teachers to work in areas of particular need. The HECS-HELP benefit will reduce an eligible person’s compulsory HELP repayment. For certain eligible persons, if no compulsory repayment is required to be made, the benefit may be a reduction in the person’s accumulated HELP debt. The amendments to the act provide the framework for the HECS-HELP benefit and for the details of the eligibility requirements and the amount of the benefit to be specified in HECS-HELP benefit guidelines. The maths and science HECS-HELP benefit will be available to people who graduate from a maths or science course from the second semester of 2008 onwards, having undertaken that course as a Commonwealth supported student, and who are employed in a related occupation.

The early childhood education HECS-HELP benefit will be available to eligible people who have graduated at any time from an early childhood education teaching course undertaken as a HECS-liable or Commonwealth supported student, and who are employed as a teacher in an early childhood setting in an eligible location—regardless of whether their repayment income is such that they are required to make a compulsory repayment amount in the income year.

Another of the government’s key election commitments reflected in this bill is to ensure that students gain access to higher education on merit and not on ability to pay, by phasing out full-fee-paying undergraduate places for domestic students in public universities from 2009. From 1 January 2009, universities will not be able to enrol a new domestic undergraduate student in a full-fee-paying place, except in circumstances where the act prohibits their enrolment as a Commonwealth supported student. Additional exceptions are for students who accepted a fee-paying place this year but have deferred taking it up and for students who commenced their courses as overseas students but later become domestic students. Fee-paying students who began their courses before 2009 will be able to continue their courses on a fee-paying basis.

The Labor government will allocate up to 11,000 new Commonwealth supported places by 2011 to replace the full-fee-paying places that will be phased out from 2009. Funding for the places will be ongoing. If universities demonstrate that assistance is required to ensure the delivery of replacement Commonwealth supported places, the Labor government may provide additional funding, over and above that for the places, through the new transitional loading that is being introduced through this bill. In addition to the measures I have outlined, the bill will also provide for increased funding under the act for additional Commonwealth supported places in early childhood education and nursing; for the expansion of Commonwealth scholarships, including the doubling of the number of undergraduate scholarships from 44,000 to 88,000 by 2012 and the doubling of the total number of Australian Postgraduate Award holders to nearly 10,000 by 2012; for capital infrastructure, additional Commonwealth supported places and clinical outreach funding for the establishment of the James Cook University Dental School; and for capital infrastructure and additional Commonwealth supported places in medicine, nursing and education at the University of Notre Dame Australia.

The measures in this bill, in addition to our commitment to the $11 billion Education Investment Fund and the $500 million Better Universities Renewal Fund, which are not covered by the act, represent the start of the Labor government’s education revolution in higher education. Together with addressing these immediate priorities, the government is taking its reforms further to make the required long-term, systemic improvement in the higher education sector through our review of Australian higher education, led by Emeritus Professor Denise Bradley AC. This is important work. It will report on the future direction of the sector and its capacity to meet the needs of the Australian economy and its options available for ongoing reform. The government’s response to the review will build on this legislative package that I present to you today.

I note with a touch of sadness that Senator Kim Carr is not here—I know his long-term passionate interest in education—to have delivered the very comprehensive and summary overview of our education revolution. That will commence once this legislation is implemented. In fact, I am half-tempted to send a copy of my speech to wherever he is just to remind him of what he has missed with the passing of this legislation.

Finally, I always believe it is important to acknowledge senators who incorporate their speeches. There were two—Senator Nettle and Senator Wortley—and I do thank them for doing that, given the time limits that we are operating under in terms of the general budget. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.