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

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 7107 together:

(1)   Schedule 2, page 13 (line 1) to page 23 (line 4), omit the Schedule, substitute:

       Schedule 2—Amendments relating to student learning entitlement

            Higher Education Support Act 2003

      1 Section 70-1

        Omit "7 years", substitute "8 years".

  2 Section 73-5

        Repeal the section, substitute:

  73-5 Ordinary SLE

     Ordinary SLE for persons eligible immediately before 1 January 2012

  (1)   A person who was an eligible person immediately before 1 January 2012 has at the beginning of that day an increase of 1 *EFTSL in the person's *ordinary ESL.

  Ordinary SLE accruing after 1 January 2012

  (2)   A person who (by birth or otherwise) becomes an *eligible person for the first time on or after 1 January 2012 has at the beginning of that day an *ordinary SLE equal to 8 *EFTSL.

Meaning of eligible person

  (3)   An eligible person is:

  (a)   an Australian citizen; or

  (b)   a citizen of New Zealand; or

  (c)   a *permanent visa holder.

3 At the end of section 73-30

  Add:

  (3)   A person who ceased to be an eligible person before 1 January 2012 and next becomes an eligible person again on or after that date is taken to have had, immediately before so ceasing to be an eligible person, an *ordinary SLE that was 1 *EFTSL higher than the person actually had.

(2)   Schedule 3, item 1, page 24 (line 6), after "free intellectual inquiry", insert "for students, researchers and teachers".

(3)   Schedule 3, item 3, page 25 (line 10), after "free intellectual inquiry", insert "for students, researchers and teachers".

On behalf of the opposition I have moved several amendments to the bill and they relate to two areas: student learning entitle­ments and free intellectual inquiry. I noted the parliamentary secretary's comments at the second reading stage with respect to the student learning entitlement and indeed free intellectual inquiry. Can I briefly address that. Indeed, these amendments go to those issues. While the government and indeed members on the crossbenches have argued in debate on this bill that there are, firstly, very low instances of professional students in Australian universities—that has been the claim—and that there are, secondly, prob­lems with effectively administering this legislation, the opposition believe strongly that simply abolishing the student learning entitlement is sending the wrong message both to the student and also to the taxpayer. That is why we have sought to amend this bill.

In fact, it is true that there are low levels of professional students in Australian univer­sities. I accept that. The opposition accepts that. As a result of the Howard government reforms and the introduction of the student learning entitlement, to abolish the student learning entitlement in its entirety—which is what this bill seeks to do—might see the return of students doing degree after degree for decades at significant public expense, with no ability for the government to recover their HECS debt. That is the problem. Understanding that there have been some substantial changes in the way some under­graduate degrees are taught, the coalition believes the upper level of student learning entitlement should be set at eight years rather than the current seven years. The parliament­ary secretary correctly adverted to the fact that currently the student learning entitle­ment is seven years. The opposition's amend­ments propose that it be eight years. There is a specific reason for that. This would allow students to undertake, for example, a bachelor of science degree with additional honours years and then complete a medical degree on top of that. In other words, eight years would cover almost every contingency.

I want to make this point; I want to make it once but I want to make it as loudly as I can: far from losing their relevancy over time, the student learning entitlements, the opposition believe, are even more important under the student demand driven system that this bill establishes. Let me explain why. The opposition believe that abolishing the student learning entitlement, which is what this bill does, combined with abolishing the restrict­ions on the number of Commonwealth supp­orted places, which this bill also does, results in a system where an unlimited number of students can study for an unlimited amount time. Let me say that again. What this bill does is allow an unlimited amount of students to study for an unlimited amount of time. The coalition will not wear that. We believe that it is appropriate to draw a line somewhere. We think eight years is about right. Seven years may have been too short. Undergraduate degree structures in this country have changed over the last few years, and the opposition understands that. But we do not believe that the taxpayer should bear the burden of an unlimited number of students studying for an unlimited amount of time. That is why we urge the Senate to adopt the coalition's amendments.

The other issues that are covered in these amendments relate to free intellectual inquiry. I noted the parliamentary secretary's comments with respect to them. Can I say I agree with what the parliamentary secretary said, largely. Free intellectual inquiry is very important and the coalition of course supports it. But I want to raise this issue. It is true that many students—I am being candid here, of course, as I always am in the Senate—many conservative students, feel at times that academics do not treat them appropriately. They believe sometimes there is bias and they believe that their own intell­ectual inquiry is hindered. That is why the coalition seeks to amend this bill to ensure that students also have the right to free intellectual inquiry.

I listened to what the government and those on the crossbenches said. They argued that in fact free intellectual inquiry is covered already by the bill. Well, the oppos­ition believes it should be made very, very clear that that is the case. As you would appreciate, Chair, when I was lecturing I was always a host of objectivity. I had students who had quite silly views, echoing some of Senator Carr's views, for example. But of course I treated them with great objectivity and marked them appropriately. But I cannot be certain that all academics are such para­gons of virtue. That is why I have raised these issues. I think it is important that, while academics must be able to pursue free intell­ectual inquiry—and I do not have any argu­ment with that at all—so should students.

Out of abundant caution, Parliamentary Secretary, I urge you and the government to accept the coalition's amendment that students be included and that free intellectual inquiry be made a right for them. That would satisfy me, the coalition and, I think, many hundreds of thousands of undergraduate students in this country.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government does not support these amendments. These issues have obvio­usly been considered at great length. Consist­ent with the shift to a demand driven funding system, the government agreed, in response to the Bradley review, that the student learning entitlement provisions of the act would be abolished from 2012. The student learning entitlement currently limits a person's ability to study at university to seven years of full-time study, subject to a series of exceptions which allow for extra time.

Since the introduction of SLE in 2005, students are increasingly enrolling in double degrees and longer medical programs. Desp­ite this, the figures collected by the Depart­ment of Education, Employment and Work­place Relations show that fewer than 0.2 per cent of current higher education students are at risk of exceeding their entitlement. Abol­ishing this rule will cut through this unnec­essary and ineffectual piece of red tape and make it easier and simpler for all Australians to access higher education, including those who wish to return to study later in life to learn new skills.

Australia's universities, which have long been required to divert resources to admin­ister this costly and ineffective entitlement system, argued in a submission to the Prod­uctivity Commission in 2009:

There is … no policy objective being served by the SLE, and there are considerable savings that can be achieved from its removal. As the first students subject to the new arrangements will shortly be exhausting their SLE, it is particularly timely to solve this issue now to avoid problematic decisions having to be taken regarding upcoming enrolments.

The government's decision to remove this piece of red tape has been well received by many, including the Group of Eight universities, who said:

Whenever there is a chance to cut red tape it should be taken. Regulations should only be imposed when there is a demonstrable need for them.

  …   …   …

Australia does not have a systemic problem of excessively long study periods that is found in some other countries.

Even the former Minister for Education, Science and Training, now the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, has acknowledged that the student learning entitlement is flaw­ed policy. In July 2006, in a speech to the John Curtin Institute of Public Policy about university regulation, the member for Curtin described the student learning entitle­ment as red tape, and she said:

Turning to the ubiquitous issue of government red tape – I am happy to listen to sensible suggestions as to how I can remove impediments to diversity and increase flexibility. As a result of the AVCC’s report on red tape, I have agreed to consider the abolition of the Student Learning Entitlement which measures a student’s consumption of commonwealth supported education.

So it is disappointing that the coalition is now fighting to defend a policy that the then minister for education had hand-picked to be scrapped. In fact, by seeking to amend the student learning entitlement to allow an ordinary entitlement of eight years they are simply adding to the red-tape burden. Abol­ishing this Nelson era rule will free up universities and allow them to get on with teaching the next generation of students. It will ensure that students are able to commen­ce and complete their studies on the basis of merit. For these reasons, the government opposes amendment (1) moved by the opposition.

I also have comments with respect to amendments (2) and (3), relating to freedom of intellectual inquiry. The government does not support these amendments either. The bill introduces into the act, as I said before, new protections for freedom of intellectual inquiry within Australian universities. Uni­versities will be required, as a condition of funding, to have a policy which upholds free intellectual inquiry in learning, teaching and research. Proposed new section 19-115 provides:

A higher education provider that is a Table A provider or a Table B provider must have a policy that upholds free intellectual inquiry in relation to learning, teaching and research.

The opposition's revised amendments add nothing to the bill, which already provides these appropriate protections for freedom of intellectual inquiry in the domains of learning, teaching and research. For these reasons, the opposition amendments will not be supported by the government.

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

I thank the minister for her contribution. I have heard those comments by the member for Curtin before. You are quite right: she did say that; but it was not in the context of a bill that seeks to uncap student places. This bill uncaps student places and, by getting rid of the student learning entitlement, means that students can study for as long as they like as an undergraduate. The import of this bill—and I am now repeating myself, but this bears repeating—is to uncap student places so as many students as want to can now study at Australian universities for as long as they want to. That is the implication, the result, of this bill. Of course that has imposts on Treasury. It is fair to say that while forward estimates indicate base fund­ing being made available for new students who will commence as a result of the uncap­ping of student places, the government has not thus far made allowances for infra­structure and other costs over the forward estimates that will also be required to fully implement an uncapping of student places.

To cut a long debate very short, the prob­lem simply is this: the government really has not done its homework about how much the uncapping of student places will cost the Australian economy and the Austra­lian Treasury. Now is not the time for this debate, but I do want to emphasise that the reason the opposition is seeking to amend the bill is simply that we do not believe the taxpayer should have to fund an unlimited amount of students studying for an unlimited amount of time. With the greatest respect to the minister and the government, the govern­ment has not answered that. The administra­tive convenience of universities, while very important—I accept that—is not the only consideration certainly so far as the taxpay­ers are concerned.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take this opportunity to assure the opposition that the government will be monitoring demand and supply for graduates in all disciplines in the early years of imple­mentation. I know the opposition has receiv­ed that assurance from the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Work­place Relations and we will be making sure very close monitoring and observation of the new implementation occurs.

Question put:

That the amendments (Senator Mason's) be agreed to.

The committee divided. [09:58]

(The Chairman—Senator Parry)

Senator Wong did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Coonan

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.