John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To think that we were disrupted by question time! Never worry, that is the agenda of the day and we will go along with that. I was talking about the amounts of money for investment in research, which, of course, involves a lot of our universities. If I can just repeat them: $150 million next financial year for the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy; $135.5 billion to deliver 100 new four-year research positions per year under the Future Fellowships scheme; $26 million to speed up research into dementia; $42 million to support new research into tropical disease; and $24 million to support the Antarctic Gateway Partnership.

I want to address the funding and the hysterical and false claims by Labor and the Greens that we are destroying the hopes and dreams of young Australians. I say that is simply wrong when people make those statements. It is a fact that we will provide $37 billion in funding to higher education institutions over the four financial years to 2017-18. I said '$37 billion'. That is a huge amount of money. If we go back to Senator Abetz's answer in the chamber here one day when he was comparing millions and billions and bringing them into seconds in time. One million seconds is just 11½ days; a billion seconds is 31.7 years. When we took billions we talk huge amounts of money. As I said, we will provide $37 billion in funding to higher education institutions over the four financial years to 2017-18. We will spend more and more on higher education each and every year, which is in stark contrast to the previous government. What Labor hides from is the fact that in Labor's last budget year higher education funding was at $8.97 billion. But under the Abbott-Truss government, higher education funding is growing to $9.47 billion by 2017-18.

The really good news is that the subsidisation of students will increase. The Commonwealth Grants Scheme will rise from $6.2 billion to $6.7 billion in 2017-18. In summary, there is more money being spread amongst more students. Let us talk about the students. Under this bill for the first time ever all Australian undergraduate students in registered higher education institutions will be supported for all accredited courses from diplomas to bachelor degrees. This is all about opportunity. I repeat: from diplomas through to bachelor degrees. Each institution will charge its own fees. No doubt some fees will go up and some will go down, but the Council of Private Higher Education has indicated its members will reduce its fees. Students will remain protected by the HECS system under which no Australian student need pay a cent up-front. That will remain locked in concrete. No Australian student will have to pay a cent up-front. No student will repay one cent until they are earning over $50,000 a year. That is a pretty good system subsidised by the taxpayers of Australia, isn't it, Senator Back.

Senator Back interjecting—

You can walk into a university and do not have to pay a cent, and when you finish your degree and get a higher paying job you do not have to pay a cent back until you are earning more than $50,000 a year. University students earn on average 75 per cent more over their working lives than nongraduates and typically earn around $1 million more than nongraduates over their working lives

It is only fair they make a contribution to the cost of their education. I think it is just fair that they make a contribution to it when they are going to earn, on average, $1 million more than their fellow Australians who did not do a degree.

I want to talk more about regional education, because I am from a regional area. In recent years, I have had the opportunity to call in at the University of New England at Armidale, where I live close by; Charles Sturt University at Orange; and the Charles Sturt University campus at Port Macquarie. I want to talk about the great job our universities do with dentistry courses. This is one of my favourite topics, because dentists are in such short supply in many regional and remote areas. The figures I remember are that there are as few as 15 dentists per 100,000 people in remote areas, which is a huge shortage of dentists. I have always been concerned about the lack of doctors, dentists and other health professionals in rural and remote areas. For too long, young people came out of their training and headed straight back to the bright lights of the cities. So, rather than continually talk about it, I decided that I would actually do something about it. Five years ago, in conjunction with the National Rural Health Alliance, I sponsored a first-year dentistry student to the tune of $4,800. The student has to come from a regional area of New South Wales and commit to returning to a regional area to practise. There have been five outstanding recipients of my scholarship: Olivia Jom, Jessica Powell, Alayne White, Amelia Judson and the current recipient, Jarrod Brice, who has just completed his first year at the University of Adelaide.

I want to talk about Jarrod. When we were assessing the final six or seven to see who I would give my scholarship to, Jarrod was on Abstudy. He comes from the western town of Euston in the river country, and he wants to complete his dentistry degree and go out and work in many of those Aboriginal areas where so much is needed in relation to health issues and where dentistry is one of the services that is really in demand and required. These young people have all highly praised the training that they received in their first university year. I also want to pay tribute to their mentor, Dr Christopher Cole, a dentist in Armidale, who has given great support to these students.

Let us look at what this package means for regional students—students from places like Scone, Tweed Heads, Inverell, Moree and the small and large towns across rural and regional areas. Regional students will be the big winners. Providers will be able to offer more courses and compete for students. From 2016, they will be able to set their own tuition fees—universities like the very well regarded University of New England at Armidale. This university was founded in 1938 as a college of the University of Sydney and became fully independent in 1954. It is Australia's oldest regional university.    They do outstanding research there, particularly the CRCs.

In 2012 the Poultry CRC, headed by my good friend Professor Mingan Choct, won the prestigious World's Poultry Science Association Education Award, which recognised the CRC's efforts in outreach activities. It was poultry's equivalent to an Olympic gold medal, as it only happens once every four years and only one award is given out in this particular category. This is the type of excellent work being done in our regional universities and it was enhanced under our program. The Nationals have a strong link with UNE through Dr Earle Page, later Sir Earle Page, who was the first Chancellor of UNE, in 1954, and of course was Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the Country Party.

Non-university higher education institutions in regional communities—such as the higher education courses offered at TAFE—will also benefit from the government funding. The government will provide $274 million in regional loading in recognition of the higher costs incurred by regional campuses. That $274 million is a good subsidy and good financial support. Commonwealth scholarships will offer disadvantaged students more support than ever. These include fee exemptions, living costs and other support. The new Commonwealth scholarships will actually support disadvantaged students. We will require that universities and other higher education providers spend $1 in every $5 of additional revenue raised on scholarships for disadvantaged students. So those universities who raise their fees by $5 will have to spend $1 to promote more scholarships. In simple terms, the scholarships will be an enormous benefit to students from regional Australia because they will provide major support for living costs for regional students.

What are the university leaders saying about the bill before us? I quote from a media release by the Rural Universities Network and the Group of Eight on 8 September with the heading: 'RUN and Go8 urge Senate to pass higher education reforms with safeguards for low-income graduates and structural support for regional universities'. The release says:

Deregulation will allow all universities to play to their strengths.

The Australian Technology Network of Universities said on 28 August:

This significant structural reform provides universities with the autonomy to implement sustainable financial arrangements for teaching that align with the needs of current and future students.

Chief Executive of TAFE Directors Australia, Mr Martin Riordan, said on 28 August:

The package of higher education legislation would finally deliver improved equity for TAFE students, and would support industry demands for more 'work-ready' skills.

That is most important—work-ready skills so that people can go and do their TAFE course and be ready to get to work as we need them.

I mentioned the University of New England earlier. Let me quote from Mr Jim Barber, who was the Vice-Chancellor at UNE for several years. He says:

Australia never has and still doesn't provide demand-driven education in the sense of a service that is shaped by student preference or need.

This is most important. Mr Barber goes on:

Truly demand-driven education requires at least two further changes to our higher education system.

First we need education providers who are willing and able to unbundle the single-product offering that has been eligible for Commonwealth funding so far and second, we require a funding and regulatory environment that allows this to occur.

He goes on to say:

Indeed, a demand-driven system would require that students are not only able to choose the services they require but also the manner in which those services are delivered.

Mr Barber says:

… the prestigious university brands will find themselves going head-to-head with a raft of cheaper but equally high-quality competitors.

That is the important issue with this bill. I repeat:

… the prestigious university brands will find themselves going head-to-head with a raft of cheaper but equally high-quality competitors.

The other encouraging budget initiative is the opening up of Commonwealth-supported places to TAFEs and private providers. This Is important because traditional universities are so constrained by fixed costs associated with Infrastructure and academic employment conditions that it is unreasonable to expect them to achieve the level of unbundling necessary to create genuine choice.

Let's give our students genuine choice on what they want to do, what they want to study, what their profession is going to be. Mr Barber concludes:

Taken together. these budgetary and regulatory developments should increase the range of educational options on offer in Australia, providing students with genuine ¬choice rather than Mao suits.

When that happens, Australia will be justified in describing its higher education system as demand-driven.

I will conclude by saying that is the important thing. Let's provide what the students want, not just a basic fixed course, and of course have encouragement from overseas. Our export earning from education is huge for this nation; I think it is the third largest export earner in our country. People come here from overseas to be educated, of course in primary-secondary but also many in tertiary, and that is why the universities support this. Sure, there are going to be amendments, and I commend Minister Christopher Pyne for working with senators Leyonhjelm, Day and others to see that this does pass the Senate.

This is important, and the basic bottom line here is that, at the moment, when someone does a degree, 60 per cent is paid for by the taxpayers even when they pay the HECS, HELP-FEEs et cetera back. They will earn over their lifetime an average of $1 million more than those Australian workers who did not go to university. We wish to raise that to 50 per cent. That is not too much to ask. I mentioned free education at the start of my speech. There is no such thing as free education; someone pays. Many of the bricklayers, the shearers, the builders, the truckies—the blue-collar workers—who are out there paying tax, allowing these people to get their so-called free education that is not free have never stepped foot on a university campus. They have never been to university, but they work hard in their blue-collar work. It is likewise with many secretarial and women workers in so many important jobs keeping our country going. Many of them have never been to university, but they pay the taxes to allow others to go to university.

Life is about fairness. This bill also attends to fairness, and I commend the bill.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014. This government is determined to undermine anything that creates opportunity for all and attack anything that addresses inequality, and that is what we have in this bill before us today: an outright attack on education. Those of us on this side believe university education should be accessible to all Australians, while those opposite would see it restricted to an elite few.

In their budget the Abbott government announced a triple hit to student fees. The changes cut the Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding for course delivery by 20 per cent, deregulate fees and change the HECS repayment indexation rates and thresholds. All of these changes will lead to higher costs for degrees. Today in question time we have seen in a response to a question from Senator Back by Senator Payne the government back away to the changes to the HELP/HECS indexation rate, but this is not enough. They need to abandon this package and go back to the drawing board. No amendment, no tinkering is going to fix this bill, because the bill is fundamentally wrong. The bill is a dog's breakfast.

This bill is nothing but a blueprint for an Americanised higher education system which will create a two-tier system. The Abbott government's first budget included massive cuts to funding for Commonwealth supported places which subsidise the cost of undergraduate university degrees for domestic students. Those opposite intend to cut on average 20 per cent from Commonwealth supported place funding, with some degrees cut by as much as 37 per cent. The government's own figures reveal that these cuts will rip $1.9 billion from universities. The impacts of these cuts are clear. Organisations from the Group of Eight to the National Tertiary Education Union have released modelling showing that university fees will need to go up by around 30 per cent just to make up for the cuts to Commonwealth supported places funding. In fact, according to Universities Australia, the cost of important courses like engineering and science will have to increase by 58 per cent just to make up for the cuts.

To facilitate these huge fee hikes the government is also seeking to remove price controls—that is, to deregulate student fees—from 1 January 2016. The removal of these price controls will see the prices balloon not only to cover the funding gap created by the government's cuts but also to fund research and a government mandated provisions of scholarships.

And let's be clear about the impact of fee deregulation. Fee deregulation will lead to substantial fee hikes. The international experience shows us what the future of higher education in Australia will look like if these changes go ahead. Nowhere in the world has deregulation of university fees led to price competition and lower fees for students. In fact, our own experience of partial deregulation of student contributions have already proven the fallacy of price competition in university fees. When the Howard government partially deregulated student contributions to allow universities to charge anything from zero to the maximum for a course, we saw every single university put the student contribution to the maximum amount.

We know that fee deregulation will not keep student contributions down. We know this because of the international experience and through our own experience of partial deregulation. Instead fee deregulation will see university course fees double or even triple. We will see degrees with $100,000 price tags. There should be no doubt that the Abbott government's plan for $100,000 degrees will make many talented students think twice about pursuing a university education. Those who deny this obviously do not understand the decisions that families and students face. Saddling the next generation with debts of this scale will see people unable to buy a house or they may even put off having a family. People in the community understand this and understand the decisions people will have to make when they are considering going to university. That is why almost two-thirds of people reject the government's proposed changes to higher education, changes that will lead to a society made up of haves and have-nots and changes that strike at the heart of the idea of a fair go. This is neither fair nor in the best interests of our nation. These changes are not only short-sighted, but they are also ill-advised. The changes will have a particularly vicious effect on rural and regional universities, on mature age students and on people in vital but comparatively low-paid professions. Labor believes that government have a responsibility to properly fund universities, because quality higher education not only transforms lives but it transforms families, communities and our economy.

We all know the benefits of a good education and the power education has in transforming people's lives. Labor knows the benefits of giving young students hope and optimism and a reason to strive to achieve and get good results. We know that a university education should depend on your results at school and a student's commitment to hard work. It should not have anything to do with your parents' bank balance or where you live. A university education should be accessible to everyone and not just to a privileged few who can afford it. As Gough Whitlam said:

… a student’s merit rather than a parent’s wealth should decide who should benefit from the community’s vast financial commitment to tertiary education.

The changes in this bill will make higher education inaccessible to so many. They will deter many people from going to university. In spite of all the evidence that shows the crippling impact of higher fees, Mr Pyne and those opposite have tried to claim that their changes to higher education will actually benefit students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds because of the deceptively titled 'Commonwealth scholarships'. These Commonwealth scholarships will receive Commonwealth funding of zero dollars. These scholarships will be funded entirely by students. Under the governments proposed changes, universities will be required to direct 20 per cent of the additional revenue raised by higher fees to providing equity scholarships. This means that students, including those from low-socioeconomic backgrounds, will be funding these scholarships. And because of the ill-conceived design of the policy, it will be the elite universities, which we know have the lowest proportion of disadvantaged students, that will have most for these scholarships because they will be able to charge higher fees. These Commonwealth scholarships could be the biggest con in this entire package. But people see through this and through the bluff and bluster of those opposite and know that these higher education changes are not going to help students from disadvantaged backgrounds. The Minister for Education, Mr Christopher Pyne, claims that his proposed changes to higher education will benefit regional universities. He went as far as to say:

… regional and rural universities will be the big winners from these reforms …

However, the evidence presented to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill painted a very different picture. Professor Peter Lee, Chair of the Regional Universities Network, told the inquiry's Brisbane hearing that the combined effect of a 20 per cent funding cut and uncapped fees would cause serious financial hardship for students at RUN campuses. Professor Lee said that he thought:

A mature age student who is working, often part time, an enrolled nurse … trying to become a registered nurse and a bookkeeper trying to become an accountant are not well remunerated. A teacher aide trying to become a full teacher … These are the characteristics of our students at regional universities … I think it does have a disproportionate impact on the types of students we enrol.

Similarly, the changes contained in this legislation will be a disaster for my home state of Tasmania. The University of Tasmania is the state's only university. It will be celebrating its 125th birthday next year. At the University of Tasmania, 29 per cent of the students are from low-SES backgrounds. I have to say that it will not be celebrating this bill or the massive cuts it faces of $35 million a year. That figure is not put forward by the Labor Party; this figure has been put forward by the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Tasmania, Professor Rathjen. Professor Rathjen knows that he will need to somehow come to grips with a massive cut of up to $35 million a year, each and every year. Even some of the government's own members of parliament belatedly understand the terrible effect of these cuts. The Liberal member for Bass, Andrew Nikolic, broke ranks and conceded that higher interest rates for student loans will hurt Tasmanian students, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Mr Nikolic was reported in the media as saying:

Tasmania has a unique situation and I don’t believe a one size fits all solution works for a community like Tasmania, where there is one university with campuses spread across the state.

I said to him (Mr Pyne) that Tasmania was a disadvantaged community and we need to make sure that the smartest kids from the poorest backgrounds get a fair go as well.

Now Mr Nikolic and his Tasmanian Liberal colleagues need to stand up and admit that the funding cuts and deregulation will also disadvantage Tasmanian students. By now he and his Liberal colleagues should also understand that UTAS may be forced to close a campus in northern Tasmania because of these changes. UTAS will have to make some very difficult decisions, because we know that this bill and these cuts will be felt hardest in regional Tasmania and the impact will be diabolical. UTAS must decide whether to raise fees, slash courses, abandon research or close a campus or a combination of all of these terrible options because of this bill. This bill is deeply flawed, unjust and will financially cripple students. This bill is rotten to the core and is one Australians did not vote for. This bill represents yet another broken promise from this government, which promised 'no cuts' to education.

In August, I had the privilege of hosting, with my colleague Senator Carr, a roundtable on the changes to higher education at the Sandy Bay campus of UTAS. It was well attended and one of the main concerns was that these cuts will deter poor students from going to university.

For many, a university education will no longer be an option. As families sit around the dining table, discussing their future university education will not even be a topic for discussion. Parents already struggling to put food on the table and pay their bills will not want their children faced with crippling debts from studying. We are talking about massive debts, with $100,000 degrees. By any measure these are extraordinary costs.

At the roundtable, most of the participants feared that the cuts in this bill may create a social underclass. In fact, one educator said all students must be aspirational and she believes the cuts will create a new underclass. Another long-serving and internationally respected academic described the cuts as 'catastrophic' for the Tasmanian economy. Many young Tasmanians and many mature-age students will not want to take a gamble on being able to go to university and get a job and pay off their big debt.

This bill will have far-reaching implications for UTAS. These implications have been acknowledged by the Liberal state education minister in Tasmania, who has been pushing for a special deal for the University of Tasmania. The Tasmanian Liberal government is so concerned that it has been talking about the need to provide compensation for the University of Tasmania, because they know that the changes in the bill will be detrimental to the University of Tasmania, students and the broader Tasmanian community.

In his submission to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill the Tasmanian Liberal Minister for Education and Training, Mr Rockliff, stated:

The Tasmanian Government is concerned that an unintended consequence of the reforms will be the University of Tasmania needing to focus more on teaching and less on research, or limit offerings in important courses such as science, engineering and agriculture, or indeed, limit campus locations. Any of these changes could likely drive students away from the state.

It seems that driving young people to leave Tasmania is this government's only plan for my home state. But what those opposite need to realise is that we are talking about real people; real people will be affected by this bill.

But, as I have said, the implications for Tasmanians are much broader than just the impact on students. As well as contributing to the social fabric of Tasmania and the strong sense of community, UTAS contributes an estimated $1.7 billion each year to the state's economy and is one of Tasmania's largest employers. There is considerable concern about the impact these changes will have in Tasmania.

Properly funding universities not only provides opportunities for individuals, but for families and communities and the nation as a whole. Funding universities properly is an investment in the future of this nation. The government's changes are exactly the opposite. These changes would deprive so many people of the opportunity to attend university. These changes would deprive our nation of the next generation of social workers and nurses, of scientists and engineers. These changes would lumber people with a lifetime of debt. These changes would be yet another broken promise from a government that promised 'no cuts to education'.

And before I finish, I want to put on record Professor Rathjen's concern about these changes. He said:

The ability of the University to recoup those reductions in revenue—

That is the revenue I talked about earlier of $35 million each and every year—

through fee premiums may be limited by the economic circumstances of the island.

… Those subjects that we do not teach, the research that we do not conduct, or the social programs that we do not support are unlikely to be replaced easily by other providers.

There is considerable concern in Tasmania—and, as I have said, it is not just from the University of Tasmania; it is from the whole community—as to what this rotten bill will do to higher education in Tasmania.

This bill breaks another promise: the promise not to make cuts to education. I know that by now the Australian community and indeed the Tasmanian community are, unfortunately, very used to this government reneging on broken promise after broken promise after broken promise. No amount of tinkering, no amount of amendments—such as those that were announced today by Mr Pyne in question time, to continue the negotiations on this bill—will make it a good bill. This is a rotten bill and it should be rejected. I urge the Senate to reject this bill.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014. This bill seeks to radically deregulate university fees by allowing universities to set whatever fees they want to charge students. The government currently caps the costs of tuition fees based on the type of degree students choose to undertake—for example, nursing, teaching or law. The bill also opens up HECS-HELP loans to students outside public university sectors. Students in private universities, TAFEs and other private education facilities studying for a diploma in a private university will for the first time in Australia's history attract public funding.

At the same time, the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014 seeks to cut funding to universities in a number of ways. It seeks to: impose a 20 per cent cut across the board to subsidies for undergraduate student places; force a 3.25 per cent one-off efficiency dividend on the Australian Research Council, which will cut funding to research conducted in universities around the country; make a reduction in funding to the Research Training Scheme, which supports higher education research students; and reduce government funding of higher education over the long term by forcing changes in indexation for Commonwealth grant funding.

The bill also seeks to force universities to fund a certain number of scholarships out of the profits they will make from charging fee-paying students more money for courses.

This Senate is faced with a number of important decisions which will have a significant impact on the future of Australia. These decisions, especially those with regards to the government's plans for higher education, will profoundly change the course of national events and the culture of Australia for better or for worse. Unfortunately if this legislation passes this Senate, Australia will be worse off.

If we accept the Liberals' proposed radical plans for higher education contained in this bill, as a nation we will take a large step to the right. Our country will become less caring, a place where class differences become greater. A fair go will be a term our children will read about in history books rather than experience first-hand. I fear that if this Senate follows the course set out by the Liberals in this education bill, our grandchildren's prosperity and opportunities in life will be influenced more by how much wealth and status their family has rather than their ability to work hard, study, learn and show disciplined behaviour. The haves, in a future Australian society dominated by Liberal policies presented to this parliament in recent times, will be guaranteed to have more. And the have-nots will be forced to fight amongst themselves for a fair go and a smaller share of the Australian common wealth.

If we want to be given a glimpse into the future, we should look to America's higher education and health systems, which appear to inspire and motivate the Liberal members of this parliament. America's higher education and health systems are unforgiving, market-driven social structures, which the economic rationalists love—that is, until those economic rationalists experience one of the knocks in life where family sickness or unexpected personal misfortune means a life of poverty and a continuous struggle for survival. While I admire America's love of personal rights, freedom and liberty, their respect for what is right and just, their productivity and innovation, and while I am in awe of their willingness to shed blood to protect this world from tyrants and dictators, that does not mean that I am blind to the faults of their society and their culture. Two of America's biggest cultural faults, I believe, are found in their education and health systems, where wealth and social status always guarantee better education and health outcomes for younger people.

That is why I am fearful that, should the Australian Senate agree to the Liberals radical legislative proposals, which have been heavily influenced by the world of JFK in health and education, then our grandchildren's future will contain the worst of the American culture while missing out on the social safeguards found in their Bill of Rights, their Constitution and the guarantee of wealth-creating opportunities of being a citizen of the world's largest economy.

If you compare my pecuniary interest register with that of other members of the Australian parliament, it will not come as a surprise when I say that I am probably one of the least wealthy senators. I know what it is like to be poor and sick and to have to count every cent. I have experienced first-hand some of life's misfortunes. I know how hard it is to fight back after you have hit rock bottom and that is why I am determined to fight and to speak out for the poor people of Tasmania and for present and future Australians.

I will make decisions today in this Senate that will help the Australian battlers receive better education and health opportunities. Politicians in this parliament, those who have been born to wealth and privilege, those who naturally consider themselves as part of Australia's ruling elite, those who do not like me and people like me because I did not go to their schools or socialise in their groups and those who say I am not qualified to stand in this Senate will never really understand why I will vote to reject their plan to fundamentally change the culture of Australia. They will take my opposition to their extreme right-wing policies as a personal attack on them. However, it has nothing to do with them. It is the future of poorer Australians and battling Tasmanians that I am voting to protect.

It is the underdog and the fact that I want a higher education system that is free to all young Australians that I am fighting for. Because Liberal and National members of the parliament chose to hide their plans for higher education before the election, the Australian people have not been presented with an opportunity to properly debate and consider the future of higher education in Australia. The debate about the future of higher education in Australia only started after the last federal election. And it has been a one-sided debate which assumes that a return to free higher education has been ruled out. Why?

The standard reply from the Liberal members of this place is 'we need a sustainable model'. The only thing that I know for certain is that this Liberal government and its education minister will not be here in two years—they are unsustainable themselves. Under Mr Pyne's leadership, the Liberal government held a gun to the heads of our universities, University of Tasmania included, and took their money. They now want to impose on our young people a radical plan to allow university course fees to skyrocket and, in doing so, change the culture and future of higher education in Australia to match that of America. Their plan lacks political legitimacy because it was never discussed with the Australian people before the last federal election.

The government's higher education plan has no mandate. My strong suggestion to both the government and the opposition is: get your house in order; consult with the experts, students and ordinary Australian people and put a plan together, and then take it to the next federal election. Let the Australian people decide at the next federal election who has the best plan to deliver higher education to future generations of Australians. In the meantime, this Abbott government must get its priorities right. It has plenty of money in the budget. There is the $25 billion over the forward estimates for Paid Parental Leave, $30 billion for foreign aid and $5 billion for federal government bribes—and they are bribes—for those states that sell off their public assets.

Give the public funding back to the universities. Create certainty for students and families and allow a proper debate on the future of university deregulation. There is no urgency to put in place a new government policy for Australian higher education. This is a matter which can be sorted out between now and the next federal election. This deal for higher education must be right and agreed on by the majority of Australians. The haste in which the current education minister is pushing this deal reminds me of a dodgy used-car salesman trying to flog a lemon in Sydney's western suburbs, and I am not buying it.

Another unsavoury tactic the education minister is using in order to try to force me into accepting his higher education mess is the restructuring of the University of Tasmania. The University of Tasmania, in order to remain academically healthy and relevant to Tasmanian young people and to be able to continue with their world-class research, needs to be restructured. Minister Pyne has made it clear to me that without his higher education plan passed through the Senate, then restructuring at UTAS 'can't happen'. This, of course, is not true. Restructuring at UTAS can go ahead without the Liberal's plan to turn our higher education system into the academic equivalent of the Hunger Games. My message to the education minister is simple: stop the spin and tell the truth. Your hands as a minister are not tied. The education minister can authorise the restructuring of UTAS without this legislation passing this Senate.

By ambushing the Australian people with their higher education policy after the election and by cutting back on university funding, this government have been able to guarantee a one-sided public debate. Until recent times, the majority of people in this public conversation about the funding of higher education have assumed that deregulation of higher education and skyrocketing university fees were a done deal. What was missing in the higher education debate and public conversation was the argument for a free university education.

In order to better understand the background surrounding the debate about higher education reform, I commissioned a Parliamentary Library research brief which examined other countries in the world which provided—and I say, 'provided'—free higher education. It is worthwhile sharing elements of this brief. The Parliamentary Library looked at the effects of free university education: the benefits and disadvantages. I quote from the library brief

The OECD provides a useful analysis:

The cost of higher education and the best way to support students in paying for that education are among the most hotly debated public policy topics in education today. The level of tuition fees charged by tertiary institutions—as well as the level and type of financial assistance countries provide through their student support systems—can greatly influence the access to and equity in tertiary education.

Striking the right balance between providing sufficient support to institutions through tuition fees and maintaining access and equity is challenging. On the one hand, higher tuition fees increase the resources available to educational institutions, support their efforts to maintain quality academic programmes and develop new ones, and can help institutions accommodate increases in student enrolment. Thus, several factors influence the level of tuition fees, such as the salary of professors, in the competition to hire the best ones in a global academic market; the development of non-teaching services (employability services, relations with companies); the growth of digital learning; and investments to support internationalisation.

However, tuition fees may also restrict access to higher education for students—particularly those from low-income backgrounds—in the absence of a strong system of public support to help them pay or reimburse the cost of their studies. In addition, high tuition fees may prevent some students from pursuing fields that require extended periods of study, especially when labour market opportunities are not sufficient in these fields.

On the other hand, lower tuition fees can help to promote student access and equity in higher education, particularly among disadvantaged populations. However, they may also constrain the ability of tertiary institutions to maintain an appropriate quality of education, especially in light of the massive expansion of tertiary education in all OECD countries in recent years. Moreover, budgetary pressures stemming from the global economic crisis may make it more difficult for countries that have lower tuition fees to sustain this model in the future.

Differentiating tuition fees (by level of education, field of education, student background or mode of delivery) is a way for countries to adjust the level of tuition fees to take into account equity issues to access tertiary education, costs to provide education and labour market opportunities.

A few sentences from the OECD analysis stood out for me:

However, tuition fees may also restrict access to higher education for students—particularly those from low-income backgrounds …

Tasmania has more than its fair share of families and students from low-income back grounds.

If I allow this government to have its way and dramatically increase tuition fees for the students at the University of Tasmania, there will be fewer students who have access to higher education. Therefore, there will be fewer young Tasmanians who have opportunities to earn more over their lifetime, to be socially mobile and more productive and to improve their families' wellbeing. How am I supposed to vote for this government's plan for higher education when I know that it will hurt the University of Tasmania and that then, ultimately, the hurt will be passed right through Tasmania by limiting the number of young people with higher education?

The OECD report also said:

In addition, high tuition fees may prevent some students from pursuing fields that require extended periods of study…

This is especially so when labour market opportunities are not sufficient in these fields.

What guarantee has this government given to the people of Tasmania that their higher education plan will not produce fewer masters students and people who hold doctorates? The answer to that question is this: there is no guarantee—there is no guarantee! How am I supposed to vote for this government's plan when I know it will cause fewer innovation, research, business and job creation opportunities?

This debate about higher education in Australia is being conducted as if a deregulated tuition fee system is the only way the rest of the world delivers learning opportunities to its sons and daughters. Once again, the Parliamentary Library briefing that I commissioned opens any reasonable person's mind to other funding models:

The OECD report, Education at a Glance 2014: OECD Indicators show that public tertiary institutions in eight OECD countries do not charge tuition fees. These countries are the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden) and Mexico, Poland and Slovenia. However, during the past decade, Denmark and Sweden (as of 2011) have introduced tuition fees for international students …

Why can't Australia follow the example set by the Nordic countries? After all, they are recognised worldwide as having some of the best education systems and teachers. Their businesses and professionals are acknowledged as some of the most innovative, productive and profitable in the world. Surely we could do a lot worse than follow their example—or at least we could consult with their education experts. At the very least, this is an important debate that our nation should have before we vote in this Senate on legislation which has the potential to profoundly change our culture and society for the worse. The Parliamentary Library report shows that Nordic countries invest between one and 1.9 per cent of their GDP on higher education. If we invested a similar amount, we would spend about $25 billion—the same amount we currently spend on the defence of Australia.

In closing, I am appealing to my fellow crossbench senator, Senator Ricky Muir. I believe his vote will be critical in order to defeat this radical Liberal plan to increase the cost of university degrees. I ask that, before he votes, Ricky consider the tens of thousands of children who come from working class backgrounds who will never be given the opportunity to better themselves and improve their lot in life through a university education—because the Liberals' costs will scare them and stop them from even dreaming of a university degree. This legislation is deliberately designed to keep working class people in their place by Liberals who think they are born to rule and lord over normal Australians. I strongly oppose the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It will come as no surprise that I support the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill—not because I am part of the landed gentry seeking to oppress the working class or to stop the impoverished from receiving an education; such nonsense does not reflect any of the facts in this bill. My support for the bill and for reform of higher education is a longstanding commitment. I am perhaps the most failed university student in this place, and I had the opportunity to attend the then South Australian Institute of Technology, now the University of South Australia, when HECS was first introduced. In keeping with my current status, I took the unpopular view at the time that it was right for individuals to make some contribution towards their educational requirements. There is no such thing as free education. It is paid for by somebody, and the free education that Senator Lambie and others are talking about is paid for by taxpayers. Taxpayers already make a huge contribution to government and yet not everybody goes to university—and not everybody who goes to university studies practical, sensible things that are going to generate wealth for the community. Some go to university because they feel it is a compulsion and they need to do it in order to somehow get ahead. There is nothing in this bill that stops any individual who wants to go to university, if they attain the right entry requirements, from attending university. They do not have to part with any money, and they do not have to pay any money back until they have got one of those job opportunities that Senator Lambie talked about and earn over $50,000 a year.

The point is that we have to make reforms in this country that make people think about the cost to themselves or to other taxpayers of the choices that they make. That has been one of the hallmarks of this government—and it has been rejected loudly by those on the other side, who do not like accountability, and financial accountability in particular. Is it not right for those who say they want to study arts or they want to be a doctor or they want to be a dentist—they all make valuable contributions to our society—to pick up some of the tab for their education funding via a very low-interest loan from the government? On the other side of the coin, those equally important people who decide to become an electrician or a carpenter or a builder and do a trade make their contribution by taking a very low salary and by investing through their employer in vocational training, for which there is also some support from government—but the translation is that they become on-the-job students, if you will. I am not going to say that a university graduate plays a more vital economic role than a tradesman—I would not tell that to my children; I would not say they have got to go to university and study arts or do a particular course simply because it is expected, because I do not think university is necessarily for everyone. But the opportunity should be there for everyone.

This is where the arguments that I just heard from Senator Lambie and others go wrong—there is nothing in what is proposed that stops people from entering the higher education sector. Yes there is a cost, yes there is going to be a competitive marketplace put forward by universities, but shouldn't universities be able to compete not only on price but on quality of education as well? They have to be able to say they are going to provide a more comprehensive package or a less comprehensive package; that they are going to specialise in one field while another university might specialise in another. People can then make appropriate choices. That is the hallmark of a responsible and sustainable higher education system. Already we are putting some $8 billion, rising to $9½ billion, into higher education in this country. It is a good start, and what we are quibbling about is asking people to pay back some of the cost of their education when they have a job and they have exceeded the threshold salary level. That is what young people have got used to today. It has not stopped them going to university, and this bill offers even more flexibility for universities to provide the education that matters. It is great to have philosophers and theorists and researchers, but for people who are interested in getting ahead in the business world or in making a substantial financial contribution to their families and to the nation, more often than not they have to learn a commercially viable skill—and I believe a commercially viable skill is what has been lacking in a number of university courses. That is a personal view. If you want to get ahead financially, you have to learn something that is commercially viable, that is practical and that is going to add value to your employer or is going to add value to the marketplace out there. That is inherently sensible because, if you learn something that is not going to be able to provide you with a living, we have to ask ourselves what is the point of pursuing it at any meaningful level? But we are not going to be disqualifying individuals from making the choices that they want to make.

Debate adjourned.

Pro ceedings suspended from 18:30 to 19:30