Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a debate that concerns millions of Australian students in higher education today. It is about the 1.2 million Australians with outstanding HECS debts. It is about the millions currently in school or in the workforce who are hoping to study at university. Australians know how important this debate is to their future and their nation's future. Australians understand that this bill will take away the foundation stones of a fair go. Australians believe that access to higher education should not be based on the circumstances of their birth or where they live but, rather, on the clear principle of merit.

Australians do not want to be facing the prospect of taking out a second mortgage to help pay the cost of their child's education and find the idea that they must choose which child gets to go to university an idea that rightly belongs to the Menzies era. It is to these Australians that Labor speaks when it opposes this bill. We stand against $100,000 degrees. We are against crippling debts. We are against the Americanisation and the privatisation of Australian higher education.

It may well be argued that there is nothing of greater value to our nation than our universities. It may well be argued that there is nothing more important to our economy, to our culture and to our society than knowledge and ideas. Universities are the custodians and the generators of knowledge. While there will be a lot of talk about fairness in relation to this bill—because this bill rips fairness out of our university system—it is important in this debate to consider the wider role of universities in the Commonwealth.

Too often, we talk about teaching and research only as a means to an end, but ignore the most challenging and rewarding role of academics—that of imagining things entirely new. Academic creativity is not embraced by the straighteners of our body politic, but it serves as an inspiration for the enlargers. The achievements of the academy go to the very existence of who we are—every bit as much as our sporting triumphs or our military history.

I think of eminent historians like Manning Clark, John Hirst and Iain McCalman, and the younger historians like Hannah Forsyth and James Boyce, who are reimagining the way we look at our country. I think of the writers who tell us stories, such as the Booker Prize winner Richard Flanagan, Hannah Kent, John Birmingham, Tim Winton, and Kate Grenville. I think of Professor Graham Clark, who put Australia on the map in medical science with his invention of the Cochlear implant, now used worldwide. I think of the Nobel laureates Brian Schmidt, Elizabeth Blackburn, Barry Marshall, Robin Warren, John Coetzee and Peter Doherty. All of these people and many more were nourished by our world-class public universities, whether it was as students, teachers or researchers, and in many cases all three. They pass on ideas and knowledge to future generations. They help us conceive who we have been, who we are and who we might be.

It is not just the towering intellects and the world-famous figures who make the achievements of our universities remarkable. Many who have made the transition to public life, including most people in this place, benefitted from a university education. More fundamentally, we thank our public universities for our teachers, our nurses, our engineers, our agricultural scientists, our doctors and our community workers—all the highly skilled professionals who keep this country's wheels in motion and contribute to its social, cultural and physical wealth. In short, our quality of life is vastly enriched by the quality and extent of the contributions made by our universities.

This is not the first time I have found it necessary to make these sorts of remarks in this place. The opposition finds it alarming that these things have to be said at all, but evidently they do have to be said. Not for the first time, we have had to ask why the conservative side of politics is hell-bent on destroying universities' capacities as custodians and as generators of ideas. In this country, since 1974, the university system has been a national enterprise. It has been largely funded by the Commonwealth. The policy directions are set by the Commonwealth. Foremost within this is the notion that access to undergraduate education should not be blocked by the cost of tuition. Equal access and equal participation have long been at the heart of Commonwealth policy. This is a bill that threatens to undermine this principle of the fair go in Australian education.

Its framers know that. Why else would they talk until they are blue in the face about the so-called equity measures and the need for scholarships, pathways and structural adjustment funds? We only need to introduce elaborate new scholarship schemes if the system itself is unfair. We need adjustment funds to try to adjust the inequalities that are inherent in these measures. These special arrangements are in themselves admissions of failure. It is an admission that incurable inequalities lie at the very heart of this package. Attacks on equity and merit, of course, are nothing new to the Liberal Party. Those opposite have form.

I can remember back in 1996 when they came in and unilaterally slashed university funding by five per cent. They hiked HECS fees and they lowered repayment thresholds, and they did this without warning. There was no mention of these matters in the previous election, and then they sought to bring about this very plan to cut spending, deregulate fees and offer faux scholarships. When the cabinet submission was leaked, even John Howard saw that under this proposal lay dragons and he backed off very quickly, but the current minister and the current Prime Minister do not have the sense to understand that fundamental fact of political life. There is a copy of the cabinet submission on my website for those who want to have a look and want to be reminded, either as students of history or scholars of the present predicament. Nothing changes when it comes to the Liberal Party's contempt for universities.

Let me speak plainly and honestly, because the other side will not. This policy is an uncontrolled experiment. We know one thing for sure: it will lead to very large fee increases. One-hundred-thousand-dollar degrees, which currently are relatively uncommon, will become much more common. That is why we have seen so many commentators call for a variety of price restraint mechanisms. The latest independent modelling, which the Labor Party released today, shows the dramatic impact of fees and debt all too clearly. It confirms, as many witnesses to the inquiry told us, that women will be particularly hard hit. Mature-age students will be particularly savagely hit. Students in rural and regional Australia will be most dramatically affected. The government has justified its radical reform by reference to inadequate government funding, but the crisis in funding is a direct result of the government's own decision to take 20 per cent of university funding away from students, hack into the research training scheme, cut funding to the Australian Research Council, cut reward funding, cut equity funding and cut indexation.

We have heard that the university vice-chancellors—if they have to deal with the various vicious cuts—want the ability to charge tuition fees at whatever level they think fit. The minister likes to claim that there is near unanimous support from university leaders. The reality we saw in inquiries and submissions in the hearing is very different. In submission after submission you read the reluctance, caution and hesitant declarations of those that are under duress. Whatever motivations or reservations there are of vice-chancellors, the fact remains: just as it is not the role of this Senate to rubberstamp the desires of the executive neither is it the role of this Senate automatically to give vice-chancellors whatever they want. Successful university-funding policy does not simply provide carte blanche for this nation's vice-chancellors to have unlimited access to funding from the pockets of Australian students and from Australian workers. It is not our role to give them 'the licence to print HELP debt', to quote Dr Sharrock of the LH Martin Institute. It has often been said that getting between a vice-chancellor and a pot of money is a dangerous business, but that is what Labor will do, because there is much more at stake here than the performance bonuses of university managers. Access, equity, workforce needs, research excellence, the capacity to innovate in the face of a rapidly changing world—these are the things that this Senate has to give consideration to in this debate.

The government says that it has the support for its package for the universities; it does not. It does not have any support for its regressive changes to HECS—none at all. There is no support for cutting the funding from research—none at all. There is no support for charging fees for PhD students—none at all. There is no support for the 20 per cent cut to the Commonwealth Grant Scheme. There is a division around the issue of privatisation in higher education—particularly on this misleading, Orwellian concept of the Commonwealth scholarship scheme. Even Universities Australia, when pushed at the committee's hearings, said that it did not want to support this bill in its current form, 'far from it'. Its members, especially those outside the Group of Eight, are much more forthright in their many and varied criticisms. Is there any wonder?

This bill is rotten to the core. This is a bill that the Australian people did not vote for. This is a bill that offends the basic principles of equity. It offends the basic concept that, in this country, if you are bright and work hard, you have a right to expect a high-quality education that is not dependent on your having rich parents or on coming from a privileged background or on your postcode. None of those things are ever going to be accepted by the people of this country. This is a bill that the Australian people feel that they were lied to about. They were misled. Remember the last election: 'no cuts to education, no changes to the administrative arrangements' and the Prime Minister's visit down to Universities Australia's conference, where he talked about masterly inactivity. What a contrast! It was the most radical piece of social engineering we have seen in this country since the last time the Liberals tried it on. This is a bill that should be withdrawn.

The government should go back to the drawing board and should deal directly with the issues facing higher education. In doing so, it should actually consult with the stakeholders before announcing radical new policies. That is what John Dawkins did with the green and white paper approach. That is the proper approach. Earlier, I talked about the many luminaries who have studied, taught and done research in Australian universities. They are far from the only people who have benefited or hoped to benefit from an equitable higher education system. Ordinary Australians should benefit, such as Linley from Tasmania, who not only tells me she got a university education because of Gough Whitlam—she is now a grandmother—she says:

... my three grandchildren are preparing for years 10, 11 and 12. But the cost of sending them to UTAS will make it virtually impossible. The burden of repayments will mean they will not be able to afford their own home ...

And Graham, an Indigenous Australian who is studying at the University of Queensland and wants to do a PhD, says:

I would never have had the courage to start my degree if I knew it would cost me a six figure sum.

Trinh is an aspiring 15-year-old student from Western Sydney whose mother migrated from Vietnam and worked hard to give her children a better life. She said:

I want to grow up and become a nurse and be able to have an apartment where everything's stable. I want to be able to give my mum the things she deserves. But with this current government, I don't even know if I'll make it to university and I'm scared.

How can the Senate remain silent when confronted by these legitimate fears about this legislation? How can the Senate remain silent when it is confronted by the lies that this government told the Australian people prior to the election? How can we in all consciousness tick and flick a package that would cause such massive harm? There is a better way here.

The funding crisis within universities caused by the government can be fixed by the government with one stroke of a pen, by withdrawing the cuts. Labor has shown it can be done. In government, we increased investment in universities by nearly 100 per cent between 2007 to 2017 at the end of that forward estimates. Universities are right to demand that this parliament act. We must, of course, expect that action and we should expect that people will reject this unacceptable plan.

In urging the Senate to reject this bill, Labor is not suggesting that nothing needs to change. The Commonwealth needs to live up to its responsibilities and properly fund our universities—and to do so by working with them, not seeking to impose an ideological position upon them. We need a compact between the Commonwealth and our institutions to promote diversity, to foster excellence in research and scholarship and to maintain access on the basis of merit, not money. In the words of talented historian Hannah Forsyth:

Higher education … needs to keep looking for solutions to the problems that confront the world's economies, environments, democracies and philosophies.

Dwelling in the ruins is no solution.

This bill is no solution. Its ideology is no solution. No sugar coating, no side deals, no nudges or winks will save it.

The Senate has a legitimate choice here, and that choice boils down to one option in reality. Either we can destroy the university system as we know it by introducing structural changes to the university system which will see them have to cope, as the Parliamentary Budget Office highlights, with funding cuts of $18 billion—irreversible changes in the structure of universities—or we can reject this bill: send it back. That is what we should do. That is what the Labor Party will be urging all senators here to do, and I have every hope that that is exactly what will happen.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

By far the majority of Australians—those born here and those who come here to find a new life and opportunity—want a good education for their children, for the nation's children. The bill before us, the Higher Education and Research Amendment Bill 2014, will rob people of opportunity and hope to achieve that. It should be voted down in its entirety. There are no deals, no negotiations that can turn this bill into a winner.

The Liberals and the Nationals did not even have the courage to take this bill in any form—details of this bill—to the last election. They should now have the decency to withdraw it. There are nearly one million students in Australia who will be impacted by these changes if they go through. For people without a silver spoon, education is the key to survival. It gives you a leg up and makes freedom and choice possible. Education empowers people. Prime Minister Tony Abbott's education, however, is a very different story. It is about the entitlement of a rich boy from Sydney's North Shore who takes his power for granted. He is not bothered by $100,000 fees for a university degree or by public money earmarked for higher education going to for-profit companies.

By raising university fees the Liberals and the Nationals are slamming the door on opportunity for millions of Australians. Coalition policy is about keeping the world as a place with haves and have-nots. That approach is the basis of the bill we are considering tonight, and that is why the Greens say so emphatically that it should be scrapped completely. The bill is neoliberalism in its most crude form; 101 of neoliberalism is to strip the costs off government and put them on to ordinary people. The essence of this bill is to take $5 billion out of the public allocation for our universities and put the costs on to students through higher fees.

Minister Christopher Pyne, in pushing ahead with this bill, is ignoring the growing opposition to this destructive legislation. One of the lines we have heard trotted out time and again from the minister is the fact that apparently the entire university sector is behind the proposed shake-up of higher education that he is now engineering. It is clear that the minister and his coalition colleagues—Nationals as well as Liberals—have a strong preference for meeting and discussing higher education issues with university executives and managers over staff and students. What they need to remember is that the vice-chancellors and senior management are not the entirety of the sector; they are actually only a small part.

Just last week we saw the creation of the National Alliance for Public Universities, an organisation seeking 'to give voice to the researchers, teachers, administrators and other staff who oppose the deregulation of fees and whose perspective has been overlooked in the national debate'. The organisation has grown rapidly, with 500 academic staff signing up in a few days. The charter of the National Alliance argues:

Universities provide both public and private benefits. To fulfil these, they must function independently of market forces and political interference.

They go on to say:

… universities have a social mission, enabling social mobility while striving to dissolve entrenched social inequalities altogether.

I congratulate them on their launch and welcome their voice in this crucial debate. These are the people who are truly representative of the university sector, along with the students, not the Group of Eight vice-chancellors, many of whom have been camped out in the minister's office attempting to lobby crossbenchers week after week. Sadly, the Group of Eight vice-chancellors have been prioritising their ideological commitment to unrestrained markets over the needs of their staff and students.

I would also like to congratulate the many students who have highlighted the damage this bill will cause. And I think at this time it is worth remembering the courageous students who took their protest to the ABC's Q&A program. They warrant a brief mention in this debate. Some people, including a few media commentators, grumbled that these young people had a bad attitude and apparently lacked respect. But most of those who criticised have a prominent voice within the public discourse on this and a range of issues. Most Australians, particularly young Australians—the ones who will be hardest hit by these measures—do not have a public voice, and the action at Q&A made a significant contribution to the debate on the Pyne bill. Just today—

Senator McKenzie interjecting—

I do acknowledge the interjection from Senator McKenzie. Just today two students at Melbourne University took direct action on this issue, blocking the entrance of a university building. Why do people do that? Because they are so deeply troubled and concerned. These students were campaigning against the proposals contained in this bill, and for free education—a realistic and affordable alternative for students. I said earlier that there are nearly one million students in Australia who will be impacted by these changes—250,000 of them are on youth allowance and will have their debt significantly increased as a result of the proposal to slash start-up scholarships and replace them with loans. There are also 140,000 university staff. They are the people whom we should have to the forefront of our mind when we debate this bill.

The issue of fees is where we see the deeply damaging aspects of this legislation. We have heard vice-chancellors and senior management—prominent backers of the bill—using the lack of guaranteed high levels of funding as their main line of argument in backing fee deregulation. Many of the vice-chancellors have said that they have to support fee deregulation, as successive federal governments had inadequately funded higher education and that now they would be hit by this latest 'slash' approach to higher education, with a $5 billion cut. This is where we actually need to look closely at what is going on here. But it is also disappointing how the vice-chancellors respond to these cuts rather than being a strong voice out there advocating for a well-funded higher education sector.

Fee deregulation might be called a competitive agenda. But it is, pure and simple, an extreme budget measure in the first instance, to shift the $5 billion—the cost burden—that the government wants to save for itself onto students. By cutting students' subsidies by an average of 20 per cent by place, the government is essentially forcing all universities to raise their fees in order to retain their current level of funding. That is what the vice-chancellors should be spelling out and is the point they should have been arguing. Fears of prohibitively expensive fees were clearly set out by the independent National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, based at the University of Canberra. The NTEU, the ACTU and the National Union of Students also set out these issues in the submissions before the inquiry into this legislation.

It is worth commenting at this point on some of the comments from coalition members. Today, again, Senator McKenzie has been out there publicly accusing people who address this issue of fees—and the very real issue that we, and students in particular, have ahead of us, of $100,000 fees—of scaremongering.

What is going on here is that I and others are out there informing the many unions, community groups and students—we are being responsible. It is informing students of the reality that they will face. Even the University of Western Australia released its figures saying it will cost $16,000 a year for a degree, but if you look at that $16,000, you will see that over a five-year degree, which is increasingly common for many students, it will move into the range of $100,000 once interest on student debt is included. When you look into what so many of the coalition's own backers of this aspect of the legislation are saying and when you inform people of the high fee levels that they will face, that is where you will get proof that it is not scaremongering but reality.

Not a single witness at our inquiry agreed with the minister's proposition that university fees will go down as a result of deregulation. Given that university vice-chancellors are viewing fee deregulation as a tool to boost revenue, it is obvious that fees will increase across the board if this bill is passed by parliament. So there is great interest in this issue. When the budget first came out and we started hearing the details about the government's planned cutbacks and then the legislation came out, there just was not enough information out there about what the fees could blow out to.

One of the contributions the Greens made to this issue is the development of a website: whatwillmydegreecost.com.au. This site was obviously of value, which was just about providing information—that was all that it was doing—because it received so much traffic in the first few hours of its operation that it actually crashed. We quickly had it going again. In the space of a few weeks, it was viewed 1.3 million times. Over half a million students and future students used it to calculate the cost of their degrees under a deregulated environment. That highlights that it is not scaremongering; the government are being irresponsible. They have been trying to sugar-coat their poisoned piece of legislation by making out that it is something that it is not. The horror story of these high levels of fees is something very serious.

While the very damaging budget that the government brought down has disadvantaged people in the main—and, certainly, this legislation does—this bill also reaches into middle-class Australia. This is something I am coming across more and more with middle-class families. Socially, I am often with people who are lawyers, small business people and workers in the professions. I have had the experience of where they have actually been looking at their children and saying, 'How am I going to afford to send them to university?' This is increasingly troubling people in our communities.

I want to move on to the issue of Commonwealth-supported places. If this bill becomes law, public subsidies will be given to private for-profit higher education providers for the first time, to the tune of $450 million. Again, please focus on that—$450 million. It is not money just sitting there; it is money that once would have gone to our public universities. If the bill goes through, it would be there to help a number of companies increase their profit margins. The minister has been unable to confirm that new students will enrol in the courses with these private higher education providers.

This is very relevant to how this money plays out, and the bill's explanatory memorandum confirms that the rate of growth in student enrolments in this area will be slower than in previous years. The end result of these changes will be a windfall of half a billion dollars in subsidies to private education providers without any guarantee of increasing access. So the money is set aside and the government is telling us that all these students will flood to these providers. But when you question the minister he cannot confirm that more students will actually enrol and that more students will come into the system.

During our inquiry, the committee heard strong evidence from the Australian Education Union regarding the problems associated with allowing private providers to access public funding for higher education. We need to ask the question, and it needs to be answered: who is going to hold these operators to account? The experience with the vocational education and training sector shows the depth of this problem when these dodgy operators come in, and there are just too many of them there already. They can see that there is money and that it is easy pickings. They move in—and move in quickly. This is another serious worry regarding how this plays out.

The result of opening up the vocational education and training system to the marketplace brings growing doubts regarding the quality of the education provision that comes from the private sector and the cost of qualifications for the students who may enrol. Far from the opening up of the market in the VET leading to a downward pressure on prices, we now see the spectre of $30,000 being charged for diplomas and advanced diplomas in VET. Right now, under the current system, a degree at a public university will cost less than your technical and further education training costs under the system that has already been opened up to the marketplace. This is because the cost is being shifted onto students. The bill will not require private providers to reduce their fees as a result of receiving government support, and that is where we have this very serious problem with how this will play out with the private providers.

The issue of Commonwealth scholarships is one that the government has been trying to use in the past week as a key argument to make out that this system that they are bringing forward is such a fair one. They are even trying to start to equate it with free higher education, which is a stretch. But nothing is beyond this minister. No Commonwealth government funding will go into the so-called Commonwealth scholarships. Universities will be forced to increase their fees by at least 20 per cent before a single dollar will be diverted to these scholarships. Universities like the Group of Eight will be able to maximise the increase in student fees under deregulation, and they will have the largest pool of funds for these scholarships. This will distort the university activities. Group of Eight universities have the lowest proportion of students from low SES backgrounds.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is changing.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, it will change under your system, Senator McKenzie. I am pleased the senator interjected at this point, because the sell-out by the Nationals of our regional universities is something that has to be documented and needs to be recognised. It is absolutely monumental. Minister Pyne has shown deception because he has said he did not expect fees to increase significantly under a deregulation system. But the minister cannot have it both ways. Either fees will increase significantly or Commonwealth scholarships will not exist. The whole issue of Commonwealth scholarships is something that is being brought forward as a scam to try and justify assistance being there for disadvantaged students. But there will only be a small number. We do not even know the form that those scholarships will take at the moment. Each university can work it out for itself, and there is no guarantee that those students who may receive scholarships will not end up with a heavy cost burden at the end of their education.

The issue of research is something where the government has also been deceptive. It has said that there will be no cuts to research. But in this bill the government is proposing a 10 per cent across-the-board cut to the research training scheme. This is an enormously backward step, placing greater financial burden on our universities, and remember that this comes on top of all the cuts that we have seen to the CSIRO, the cooperative research centres and so many other key research bodies.

Turning to the regional universities, I repeat that the sell-out by the Nationals of our regional universities is huge. Our regional universities could possibly be the most vulnerable aspect of this bill when we come to consider the various institutions. Regional universities like the University of Wollongong and the University of Newcastle are clearly from big areas. There are no universities there for them to compete with. It really shows that the whole competitive argument that so much of this bill is based on falls over when you look closely at how this works. I particularly pay tribute to the many organisations that have worked so hard to defeat this bill, including the National Tertiary Education Union, the National Union of Students, those who work with postgraduate associations, the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation, the ACTU, the Australian Education Union and the Australian Medical Students' Association.

If the bill were to be passed it would create a higher education system that would be inequitable and elitist with limited accessibility to the highest quality public education institutions. Australia is already near the bottom of the OECD. When it comes to public funding for higher education, despite 96 per cent of Australian students— (Time expired)

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise very proudly tonight to speak to the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014. I also rise to speak as the chair of the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee. We conducted a very comprehensive inquiry into this piece of legislation. There were over 169 submissions and four days of hearings, and I would like to congratulate all of those who took time out to make a submission to the inquiry and indeed to attend our hearings and give us very good evidence. I would also like to place on the record, on my behalf, particularly, our thanks to the secretariat for their tireless work in producing what I think is quite a comprehensive report, in which we traverse the history of higher education in Australia, which lands us at the place we are today: the reality we have to deal with if we want to continue to have and to increase the excellence of our higher education system while continuing its strong accessibility.

I just want to briefly quote Nelson Mandela: 'Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.' So, for the first five minutes, I absolutely adored everything Senator Carr had to say about higher education, the role of universities in society et cetera. They are absolutely crucial. That is why they have to be financially sustainable and accessible to all—which is exactly what this government is doing through this education reform agenda.

When the credit card statement arrives, the responsible thing to do is to actually pay the debt, just as this government is setting out to do, having inherited Labor's hefty credit card bill. A commission of audit took place, and ministers were told to find savings within their portfolios. A package of higher education reforms was the result of Minister Pyne's deliberation, striking a fair balance between careful savings and strategic investment—strategic investment by this minister. The ultimate goal is to spread opportunity to more students, drive creativity and innovation, and ensure that our universities are equipped to face the challenges of the 21st century and that Australia is not left behind. The higher education sector gets it, and supports the government's planned reforms contained in the bill that we are speaking to tonight—reforms which directly benefit higher education providers, students and communities, whilst driving economic growth and productivity.

The key element of the reforms is fee deregulation. That will give universities the longed-for freedom from government control, allowing them to make independent choices, not just about fees but about teaching methods, courses to be offered, scholarships and other services, in response to the market. And let us face it: 'the market' in this conversation is students, and they are not all young people leaving year 12. There is strong evidence that fee deregulation will lead to greater competition, and with greater competition comes greater choice. And, contrary to the rowdy views of a small number of critics, the higher education sector welcomes it. What bemuses me is the failure of our critics, including Labor, to acknowledge that fee deregulation already exists for postgraduate and international students, and that most higher education providers see full deregulation as the next logical step in the evolution of our higher education system.

In fact, students have been progressively making increased contributions to the cost of their higher education under successive governments since the 1980s. Even in Whitlam government years, there was no 'free education' because, in reality, university costs were funded by the taxpayer. Cabinet papers also later revealed Gough Whitlam's free tuition had little impact on the composition of student intake, with a continued overrepresentation of students from wealthy backgrounds.

A decade on, faced with the financial strain of a free education, and greater pressure to expand education opportunity for the growing number of students completing year 12, the Hawke government introduced the HEC Scheme. In a speech at the Victoria University of Technology a few years later, the then Treasurer, Paul Keating, said: 'There is no such thing, of course, as a free education. Somebody has to pay. In systems with no charges, those somebodies are all taxpayers.' He added: 'This is a pretty important point. A free higher education system is one paid for by the taxes of all, the majority of whom have not had the privilege of a university education.' So I think we all need to ask ourselves if that is a fair thing.

Bob Hawke, in an interview in 1988, stated: 'I do not have any problem with the concept of fees. In fact, one of the greatest stupidities was the proposition that the Whitlam Labor government introduced a free education. There is no such thing as a free education. It is a question of who pays and how it is paid for.'

The Howard government introduced a partial deregulation of student fees and domestic full fee-paying undergraduate places that were later abolished by the Rudd-Gillard government, without adequate compensation for universities. The Rudd-Gillard government went on to introduce a demand-driven system, whilst cutting funding by more than $2 billion. In fact, the previous Labor government announced a number of 'savings measures'—in plain speak, cuts—to higher education grants and student support, totalling $6.65 million from 2011-12 to 2016-17. Labor's Senator Carr vehemently opposed this whenever it was raised during the inquiry hearings, despite it being fact, in black and white, in the budget and MYEFO papers. It was an odd approach for a Labor government, led by a Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, who advocated diversity and specialisation in universities. Julia Gillard reflects in her new book: 'I am particularly proud of our decision to unchain Australian universities, to enable them to define their own mission and educate more students.' This is precisely what the coalition government's reforms seek to achieve. And she adds: 'As a result of the new system, while students continue to compete for places, universities increasingly have to compete for students. A better run, better quality university can attract students who might be considering other universities.'

Fee deregulation is all about making universities compete for students. One wonders what Julia Gillard thinks of her party's apparent shift in direction. Claims of skyrocketing fees, made by student unions, Labor and the Greens, as a result of deregulation of fees also lack substance. The reliability of the methodology behind two of the most referred-to studies, from the NTEU and NATSEM, has been questioned more broadly.

I just want to go to those assumptions because, as anybody who appreciates a good mathematical model knows, the assumptions underpinning the model are actually what we need to go to before we start screaming about $310,000 degrees for social work, as was claimed this morning. The assumption under the modelling that was used is that we did not go to what the actual fee may be. There has been only one university, the UWA, that suggested a fee setting, and evidence throughout the inquiry from vice-chancellors and all, even some of the Labor Party—even Professor Quiggin came—was that universities are going to charge differently for different things. UWA has decided to do a broad-brush fee across all their courses. Other universities are not going to do that. CSU, for example, with the fabulous vet degree, might choose to charge a premium for that particular product and a different fee for some of their other offerings.

But when we go to the assumptions underpinning that modelling, they jump straight to the international fee, setting the highest fee you can charge within Australia for undergraduates. They then charge the six per cent bond rate over 20 years. Bearing in mind the bond rate for the last 10 years has been only 3.8 per cent. They then factored in some time off, presumably to have some children or to travel. That got us to the worst case scenario for a social work degree, which was $310,000.

In the best case scenario, using those same assumptions, which I have actually poked some holes in, that same social work degree costs $42,000. It is a scare campaign, because it is affecting the students and families who are not seeing higher education as an investment—the first generation, particularly, need to be convinced that it is an investment worth making and they can do their social work degree for $42,000 rather than the $310,000 quoted. So it is an absolute furphy. It is scary and they have to stop saying it, because it is actually not true, even using their own modelling.

The NTEU admits in their report that not every university degree at every university will cost $100,000, but we do not hear that in the public debate and discussion, and that is morally reprehensible, particularly when we are talking about increasing access to higher education for those we need to get through the door.

NATSEM modelling is based in the University of Canberra, and that is understood to be the only university in the whole country that does not appreciate or is actually opposed to fee deregulation. The groups representing universities have issued a variety public statements and modelling showing that universities can be relied on to act responsibly in setting fees. Analysis from the Australian Technology Network, Innovative Research Universities, and the Group of Eight, and assurances from the Regional Universities Network all show this. Member institutions of the Council of Private Higher Education have also confirmed that 'whatever they receive in Commonwealth support for students will be passed on to students through reduced tuition'. So, for Senator Rhiannon to stand up here and say that nobody has talked about lowering fees does not actually go to the evidence. Let us talk about the evidence and the facts, not fear.

Nor is there any basis to comparisons with other deregulated higher education systems. The rhetoric throughout has been of an Americanisation of our system. A directly comparable system does not exist. Australia's higher education system is unique in comparison, as the reform package will ensure that for all students, irrespective of their means, there are no up-front financial barriers to accessing higher education. So for Senator Carr to talk about merit and about financial impact as being a barrier, our system still offers an income-contingent loan scheme that is the ideal of the world. This was evident based on expert views to the Senate inquiry hearings. Professor John Dewar, Chair of the Legislation and Financing Working Group, explained that the US system was not one national system, as would be the case here. Rather it has extremely complicated and diverse. So to say that we are having an Americanisation is false.

Similarly, a submission from the Group of Eight explained that debt burdens like those in the US are simply not possible in Australia. In Australia, our HELP system of student loans means that graduates only repay when they earn enough to be able to do so, whereas in America the crippling debts are incurred by graduates because they do not have a provision for such loan support.

Further deregulation will drive a more competitive environment for universities, so charging exponentially higher fees will only result in empty lecture theatres and tutorials. Australian students are not idiots. They will go elsewhere. As the Australian Technology Network's Vicki Thomson logically explains, it would be untenable from a business perspective to do so. Vice-chancellor after vice-chancellor reiterated that there were not going to be $100,000 degrees hither and thither. There is strong evidence supporting the view that fee deregulation will boost equity and innovation. While providers will be able to determine course costs, they will have to compete on price and quality in order to attract students.

There is also strong stakeholder support for extending funding to sub-bachelor courses as well as to private universities and other higher education providers, with considerable benefits for regional students. We do not hear about these students. We do not hear about this absolutely fantastic access and equity aspect of this reform package.

Universities, colleges and TAFEs in the regions will be able to offer more courses with qualifications leading to careers or further study. The idea has merit, with a growing number of universities and TAFEs having already forged partnerships across regional Australia—for example, Federation University Australia at Ballarat and La Trobe University, in my home state of Victoria. These universities and TAFEs are also targeting first-generation students from families that did not previously have such opportunities, and nor could they afford it. By 2018, more than 80,000 additional students nationally will benefit from these increased opportunities—coming from the regions, disadvantaged and Indigenous backgrounds, mature age students and those with low ATAR scores. In the regions we have incredibly low year 12 completion rates, which means that you cannot easily go to university. These reforms seek to improve student mobility, while giving private and non-university providers flexibility to specialise and differentiate from one another.

The Kemp-Norton review of the Demand Driven Funding System found that expanding access to sub-bachelor pathway courses would lead to the improved efficiency by better matching students with appropriate courses. TAFE Directors Australia also endorsed these reforms, saying:

Commonwealth funding is required to support the increasingly important role TAFE plays in broadening student choice and access, strengthening the capacity and reach of the system, particularly in regional areas, and addressing critical shortages of higher skills in the Australian economy.

I want to go to the report, because while we hear a lot from NUS students, predominantly who attend Go8 universities I have to say. They always end up here in this place or in the other place. That is fine. I love hearing from students. But I did not hear Senator Carr nor Senator Rhiannon talk about the students who attend private institutions, or the TAFE students, who will be the beneficiaries of so much of our reform package. Going to the report where the Chisholm Institute explained to the committee that they built their degrees on industry strength. These are higher education providers that have very clear and direct links with industry. There are a certain cohort of students who appreciate that but who do not necessarily want theoretical philosophy degrees. They want to realise that the education they are getting at their local TAFE or local institute is going to result in a job. Right now, degrees at these institutions are costing $22,000 or $32,000.

I want to go to Miss Sara Moad, a second year Bachelor of Dance student with a private provider, that Senator Rhiannon does not want to see have the benefit of being treated equitably with other such students. She chose a career in a profession that is not well represented in our public universities, and I will quote her:

If and when the bill is implemented, I will have already graduated, with a debt of $56,000, of which $11,000 is an administration fee of 25 per cent—

which our legislation actually seeks to get rid of—

more than I need to save for a house deposit. Compare this with my brother, who will have completed a three-year degree in design at a public university, with a HECS debt of around $15,000. I will pay more than three times the amount … How is that equitable? Professionals in the performing arts have the ability to share so much with their communities and build culture, and often do so despite earning a lower income compared to other professions.

Senator Rhiannon and Senator Carr want to ensure that Miss Moad continues to pay $11,000 more than her brother and it is simply not fair when we want to go to equity.

I want to briefly touch on the Commonwealth Scholarship scheme. Those institutions with more than 500 enrolled students will be required to put 20 per cent of the revenue raised through increased course fees towards scholarships targeting students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Again, Senator Rhiannon, you went to complain about the Go8 universities' under-representation of that cohort of Australians, in their university lecture halls. This measure will ensure that that proportion increases. So I really would appreciate your support in getting that increase in the Commonwealth Scholarship scheme so that we can get more disadvantaged students into the great universities in many of our capital cities.

There has been a lot of debate about regional students and the effect on them, but many country students do not opt to study at a regional campus. In fact, evidence is that most of them do not choose to do so. We can talk about the Regional Universities Network, but I am also talking about regional students—regional kids—and their future and, by default, our future in regional Australia. They do it for a lot of different reasons. Steps must be taken to ensure that they can overcome the very real financial barriers to them accessing a quality education of their choice that currently their parents or they themselves have to bear. Our bill seeks to do this. Our Australian education system is unique because it remains cost free at the point of delivery, contrary to Labor's scaremongering. The Minister for Education, Christopher Pyne, has pointed out that, because the government currently lends to students at the bond rate, it is fair for them to be charged that. The committee inquiry report showed, I think, overwhelming evidence that that may need to be revisited. I am confident that the minister will consider the report and the evidence we received as we move forward.

The bill will see $11 billion extra funding for research—and I think that is fabulous—and $139 million to the Future Fellows program. That is not in the Labor Party's dissenting report; they do not want to keep that. They do not want to ensure that we are leading the world in research and can underpin that going forward. I support the bill and I recommend that the Senate does the same.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014. It staggers me as to how much longer, and I suspect it will be until the next election, this Abbott government is going to go on hoodwinking the Australian people that, somehow, whatever it says does not represent a broken promise or indeed is an untruth. One of the biggest areas of hoodwinking of Australian voters must be in the area of university funding; it has to be in that area. I want to draw the Senate's attention to the Labor Party's substantial dissenting report—a well-researched document, a lot of facts and figures—unlike the majority report, which is quite emotive in parts. Our report has facts and figures based on what our own research tells us and of course based on the evidence that we heard.

I want to start with budget night. What we found out on budget night, despite promises to the contrary from Mr Abbott in the lead-up to the election, was the announcement of the most radical shake-up of higher education in 30 years. You might think that that is fair enough if the government had alerted the Australian voters before the election of its desire to do that. But no, that budget announcement, that radical shake-up, the most radical shake-up of higher education in this country for 30 years, came completely out of the blue. The Abbott government gave no indication in its statements either prior to or immediately after the 2013 election that it was anticipating radical changes in higher education. I would like to quote the Prime Minister, then the Leader of the Opposition, and what he promised in 2013:

In an era of busy government and constant change, it's insufficiently recognised how often masterly inactivity can be the best contribution that government can make to a particular sector … A period of relative policy stability in which changes already made can be digested and adjusted to, such as the move to demand-driven funding, is probably what our universities most need now.

He went on:

We will be a stable and consultative government. If we put in place a policy or a program, we will see it through. If we have to change it, we will consult beforehand …

Let me just repeat that:

If we have to change it, we will consult beforehand, rather than impose it unilaterally and argue about it afterwards. We understand the value of stability and certainty, even to universities.

I put it to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that what we have seen from the Abbott government in this radical change to universities is completely that: a unilateral change without any consultation. Certainly, as members of the committee that inquired into the bill before us, we asked universities if they were consulted and none of them were. Even if you try and gloss over it and say that the billions of dollars being taken out of universities is somehow magically still there, the fact is that this government has put in place the most radical change in 30 years without one skerrick of consultation. That just follows its pattern of broken promises and of no consultation—of, 'We're in government; we're doing what we want.'

The other thing that shows us that this is policy on the run is all the mistakes that the various ministers made when trying to explain this policy. We saw Christopher Pyne saying, 'No, this new student debt won't be retrospective,' and yet it was. We have seen mistake after mistake by Minister Pyne in trying to explain this package. That tells me that this package was done on the run. Somebody came up with a bright idea, perhaps on the back of an envelope, and it was given to Minister Pyne to implement without any plan. You either know the truth and don't want to admit it or you don't know it, and clearly Minister Pyne did not realise that his new student debt would be retrospective. And on and on it goes.

I want to start at the heart of this package, which is the 20 per cent cut to universities. It does not matter how the government tries to dress it up; it is a cut. Interestingly, we have heard senators on the government side trying to say that, overwhelmingly, universities support this package—well, they do not. During the inquiry, we did not find a university that said, 'Please, I put my hand up. Give me a 20 per cent cut in funding.' Every single university had real concerns about that 20 per cent cut in funding. That is what is at the heart of this package.

Then we go to fee deregulation. It is not fee deregulation; it is just charging whatever students will pay. It is just turning universities into a market. It is imposing an American system on our system in Australia. We have seen the failed markets in various parts of the world and here we are, taking our institutes of higher education and simply turning them into a market. Indeed, some of the witnesses to the Senate inquiry referred to going to Myer and having a choice of shirts. It is beyond words to suggest that we are down at that level of competition. It is ridiculous to suggest that. But the 20 per cent cut has to be found somewhere, and all universities expressed concerns about this cut and this loss of vital income. There was no dissent from that. The fact, of course, is that this loss of income can only be recouped from one source, and that source is students, by imposing unimaginable debt on people at a very young age—in their early 20s or, if they do a doctorate, maybe even into their mid- and later 20s. Imposing lifelong debt, unimaginable debt, on very young people shows that the Abbott government has complete disregard for students.

The government come in here, day after day, and say that they do not want to be the government to impose debt on future generations—but that is exactly what the Abbott government are doing here. There is no getting away from the fact that they are imposing a massive future debt on a young person, a debt of at least $100,000 and possibly more. We have already seen the University of Western Australia, in my state, put its fees up. The University of Western Australia is one of the universities that advocates for people to do four and five years of study, and for longer degrees we will see these sorts of debts being incurred by students.

It is fair to say that the vice-chancellors did not have a lot to say about student debt, but they certainly had a lot to say about the interest charge. There was not a university—

Debate interrupted.