Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill. I have listened to the contributions from those opposite in relation to this bill and their arguments in support of the bill. It struck me that there is really no better illustration of the difference between the coalition and Labor than our positions on this issue. When the coalition senators look at the issue of higher education, it seems to me that they perceive something that is merely a cost to the budget. It is a bottom-line issue for them. They propose arguments such as, 'Nothing in life is free. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody's got to pay.' When they look at education, what they actually see is an opportunity to address the budget issue. It reminds me of a contribution from Senator Nash on the issue of health in answer to a question I asked in question time. Again, Senator Nash raised the view that health is a drag on the budget. Unfortunately, that is also an issue which illustrates the difference between our two parties.

Those opposite see education as a market. They want to have market forces apply to the issue of education. We, on the other hand, see education as being a public good which has an overall benefit to society. We see education as an opportunity for Australians to better themselves and to have a broader range of choices for an appropriate career path. I oppose the Americanisation of our higher education system. I say that that would be a terrible outcome for our country.

As internationally renowned and Queensland based economist John Quiggin has pointed out:

"Except for the top 1 per cent of the population, US provision of undergraduate education is far worse than in Australia …

"Moving towards a stratified model on US lines would be a backward step for the vast majority of Australian students."

According to Universities Australia, the cost of important courses such as engineering and science will have to increase by 58 per cent to make up for the cut. Nursing will need to increase by 24 per cent. Education will need to increase by 20 per cent. Agriculture will need to increase by 43 per cent. My colleagues in the National Party really should be hanging their heads in shame if they seek to support this particular bill. Environmental studies will have to increase by a whopping 110 per cent. These are not figures from the Labor Party; these are figures from Universities Australia.

In total, the Abbott government budget measures cut $5.8 billion from higher education—teaching, learning and university research. This legislation enables the delivery of $3.9 billion of these cuts, including by slashing funding for Commonwealth supported places in undergraduate degrees by an average of 20 per cent and, for some courses, up to 37 per cent. This legislation is reducing the indexation arrangements for university funding to CPI in 2016, down from the appropriate rate the previous Labor government introduced. This means $202 million in cuts over the forward estimates period. It is a major contributor to a $2.5 billion cut per annum in 10 years time, according to the Parliamentary Budget Office. This legislation is cutting almost $174 million from the Research Training Scheme, which supports training of Australia's research students, scientists and academics of tomorrow. And, of course, this legislation is introducing fees for PhDs.

One has to ask the question with these cuts, 'Why are we here?' Why are we here today even discussing these issues? When you look at the position of the coalition in the past on the funding of universities, it has been relatively clear. I go to the media release of the current education minister, Christopher Pyne, of 26 August 2012. At that point, Mr Pyne said:

While we welcome debate over the quality and standards in our universities, we have no plans to increase fees or cap places.

That was two years ago.

If we move forward to the Liberal Party policy document that came out in January 2013 in which the coalition laid out its election platform, that document said:

Then in February of last year we had Mr Abbott give a speech to a Universities Australia conference in which he said:

First and most important, we will be a stable and consultative government. If we put in place a policy or a programme, we will see it through. 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.

Of course, we have not seen any of the consultation or stability in this government that was foreshadowed in that speech to Universities Australia. Then just prior to the election, on 1 September, the Prime Minister, speaking on the Insiders program, said:

And I want to give people this absolute assurance, no cuts to education…

Then after the election, in November of last year, the minister made the following comment:

We want university students to make their contribution, but we're not going to raise fees…

And when asked by the interviewer why he would not raise university fees, Mr Pyne said in response: 'Because we promised we wouldn't before the election.' So there we have it—a reinforcement over a period of time of a relatively consistent position that was expressed, but we now have before us the manifestation of another broken promise by this government of twisted priorities.

Not only does the Labor Party have a very strong and proud position on the issue of higher education, but I also have a very strong personal view about this issue. I was brought up in modest circumstances in terms of my family background, and I was a beneficiary of the Whitlam government's university and education reforms. I am forever indebted to the Labor government of the Whitlam era for those changes. In the late 1970s I was able to commence a university degree and to go on to complete that. In my own family, now as a father of four, I have two daughters at university and they are very concerned about the prospect of change in this area. And I have two school-aged children who are certainly facing the prospect of changes that this government is looking at. I take on board some of the contributions that have been made earlier on in the debate. I know that tertiary education is not the only path that people can take to a fulfilling life, but it is a tried and tested way in which people, particularly people from modest backgrounds under our current arrangements, can get on that ladder of opportunity, can seek to better themselves and can have a broader range of choices available to them for a fulfilling career.

As I said, Labor does have a very proud record of investment in Australia's universities. Labor boosted universities' real revenue per student, including government and student contributions, by 10 per cent—an extra $1,700 for universities to spend on quality teaching for every student. Overall, Labor lifted government investment in universities from $8 billion in 2007 to $14 billion in 2013. We committed to proper indexation for university funds. If we had kept the funding model introduced by the Howard government, universities today would be worse off to the tune of $3 billion. Labor made it easier for young people to study with student start-up scholarships, which helped more than 427,000 Australians with the costs of study. We also introduced a relocation scholarship, helping 76,000 people to leave home to obtain their degree. Importantly, Labor also boosted funding for regional universities by 56 per cent. We also invested $4.35 billion in world-class research and teaching facilities through the Education Investment Fund. That includes $500 million earmarked for regional Australia so country kids could have the same access to quality courses, and universities would be able to attract and retain world-class researchers.

As part of that commitment to education, the Labor Party not only supports education in this place—we have also been conducting a campaign out on university campuses and among the general public. In August of this year I visited a number of Queensland universities to meet with vice-chancellors, staff and students, talking directly to everyone affected by the proposed changes. I wanted to talk directly with real people on the ground in our local communities who, at the end of the day, are ultimately the ones who are going to wear the brunt of these terrible changes. In August I visited the University of Queensland with Sharon Bird, the shadow minister for vocational education, and we participated in a moderated expert panel on higher education set up by the University of Queensland Student Union. There was an overwhelming response from students who had a variety of concerns and questions that they needed answering. I also participated in a forum at the Queensland University of Technology with Amanda Rishworth, the shadow assistant minister for education and shadow assistant minister for higher education, and here we participated in an information seminar on proposed changes to higher education.

Students at QUT also voiced their concerns and asked the panel various questions about the proposed changes. I have also visited Central Queensland University in Rockhampton to get the perspective of a regional campus, and I had the privilege of meeting a large number of students at CQU, with many of them voicing their strong concerns around the course cost increases, which would see them with massively high university debts. It was here at CQU in Rockhampton that we heard from an incredible number of students, telling us they did not want the Abbott government's proposed higher education changes. It is clear that these cruel reforms will hit the regions especially hard. At every point during my campus visits I observed an underlying and collective distress about what is happening to our accessible higher education opportunities in Australia.

Unfortunately it seems that it is not only in this place that our federal government is attacking the higher education system. In my own home state of Queensland, I mention as an aside that the Newman government is attacking the TAFE system. TAFE is an important public provider, delivering quality training to Queenslanders. However, the Newman government is systematically dismantling Queensland TAFEs, with cuts to staff and by reducing course offerings and increasing fees.

I have mentioned that it is regional areas which bear the brunt of these changes to the higher education system. I reiterate my point that I believe the National Party senators should hang their heads in shame if they are intending on supporting this proposed legislation. The impacts of the cuts are quite variable when we look at the changes that will occur. Based on research that has been done by the National Tertiary Education Union, if we look at the five campuses most affected by the cuts to Commonwealth funding, we see that three of those five universities are in regional areas and that two of them are in my home state of Queensland—the University of the Sunshine Coast and the University of Southern Queensland. In our estimation, the University of Southern Queensland has an 8.7 per cent cut in total revenue and the University of the Sunshine Coast has an 8.9 per cent cut. There are other universities that do not fare so badly. For example, the University of Melbourne has a relatively modest cut of 2.9 per cent by comparison, but of course that is still quite a significant amount of money. In the case of the University of the Sunshine Coast, we estimate cuts of $50 million; and, in the case of the University of Southern Queensland, $82.7 million over the period of 2016-19. In total, over that period of time, my home state of Queensland suffers a cut of $840 million in university funding.

Reducing government funding for higher education at this time of our nation's economic development would be a terrible outcome. As the mining boom is tapering off and moving from an investment phase to a production phase, our transition to a higher skills base is crucial for our nation's future productivity. As economist John Quiggin has pointed out:

Structural change in the economy over the past century has required steadily increasing levels of education. The pace of change, and the need for education has accelerated with the rise of the knowledge economy, based on personal computers and the Internet.

He goes on to say:

The complexity and informational richness of the modern workplace is such that the skills of a high-school graduate are increasingly inadequate for the majority of jobs. Increasingly, either specific technical skills, or the general cognitive skills acquired through tertiary education, are necessary qualifications.

Quite simply, what Australia's workforce needs is more, not less, access to higher education in order for us to be able to compete in a global economy of ever increasing complexity and technical advancement.

Just one example of how these reforms will affect one industry sector is provided by the Australian Veterinary Association in their submission to the parliamentary inquiry into this bill. They state in their submission:

The changes to the funding and regulation of higher education will severely impact the veterinary workforce and its ability to provide an essential service to Australia’s economy and communities.

By way of overview in their submission, they made the point:

An effective, sustainable veterinary workforce is essential to Australia. Veterinarians ensure the safety of the food we eat and export, care for the health and welfare of livestock, and are necessary to help identify and respond to a serious disease outbreak.

The Australian Veterinary Association understands that this legislation is bad for Australia and that it is particularly bad for regional communities. Once again, I call upon my National Party counterparts to oppose this bill. The reason that vets are particularly impacted by this legislation is that veterinary qualifications require five to seven years of university training. The courses are expensive and vets have lower earning potential than other similar professions, with a starting salary of $47,000.

In conclusion, the proposals embodied in the higher education bill that is before us would entrench intergenerational poverty, lock people into living the lives that their parents did and smash opportunities for young Australians. This government wants to make university harder to get into, shifting debt onto students and taking away the opportunities for ordinary Australians to pursue higher education. I strongly urge senators to oppose this bill.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will make a brief contribution on this very important bill. The legislation that we have before us today is not something that can or should be taken lightly. It represents a massive change to the way we fund higher education in Australia; and, once we go down this track, I believe there is no turning back. There are a lot of factors that I have weighed up in coming to a decision on this very important issue and, in good conscience, I cannot support the second reading of the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014. I will outline the reasons for that briefly, shortly. But I will say this about the education minister, Mr Pyne: he has been a consummate professional in the way that he has articulated a very difficult case for the government, as has his advisers, such as Dr John Markwell, who has been nothing short of outstanding. But I cannot in good conscience support this bill for a whole range of reasons.

Firstly, I acknowledge that universities need more funding. I do not believe the current system is sustainable, unless current and future governments make the commitment to properly fund our university sector. The previous government planned to take $6.6 billion from the sector. I acknowledge that not all of these cuts have come into effect—although, over $4 billion has, and that has hurt the sector deeply. The government has said that it will cut funding by a further 20 per cent on average and that, in terms of the budget, the measures in this bill will save $4 billion, including $1.1 billion over three years from cuts to course funding. In my view, this is not an argument for deregulation per se. I believe that higher education, like health and social security, is an area where government should be spending money, provided it is spent wisely. Higher education is a clear and obvious pathway to a more productive and prosperous Australia

Governments should be investing in our future. Cuts to education are simply a false economy because, while we may save money in the short term, you can guarantee we will end up paying a lot more in the long term.

Secondly, while I am not opposed to some reforms in the sector, changes of this magnitude should have been an election issue. The Prime Minister, when he was opposition leader, in an address to Universities Australia at a higher education conference in Canberra, on 28 February last year, said:

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.

Masterly activity appeared to be the policy of the government in respect of higher education. Instead, we have some quite radical reforms for this sector. I note that a number of amendments have been proposed and negotiated by the government. Those amendments will change this bill significantly and ought to be considered closely and carefully. But I still have a threshold issue, which is that more and more Australians are disillusioned with the political process. In a debate on the issue of submarines earlier, I quoted Hugh Mackay, the social researcher, psychologist and writer who, back in 1998, wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald: 'With trust in the political process being eroded with every principle, every broken promise and every policy backflip, the level of cynicism has reached breaking point for many Australians.' I suggest that they were halcyon days. Back then, John Howard, who did break his promise on the GST, to his absolute credit had the courage to go to the people and run an election based on the GST. He won the election and had a clear mandate for that reform. He articulated his vision for reform to the electorate. He won the election and deserved to get the GST changes through.

An incident having occurred in the gallery—

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

Order! Remove the intruders from the gallery.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can assure you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I had nothing to do with those demonstrators.

An honourable senator: Anything to get on TV!

No. I do not think that that intervention from the gallery was in any way helpful. As I have said, this legislation makes significant, essentially irreversible, changes to the sector. It is not consistent with the government's election commitments and it is not something that has been taken to the people as part of an election campaign. The reason I referred to Hugh Mackay, the social researcher, is that there is a great deal of disillusionment in the community. People are worried about a whole range of measures. Let us start with the Gillard government. Prime Minister Gillard promised on the eve of the 2010 election that there would not be a carbon tax under any government she led and then introduced one. I suspect that if she had said anything different at that time she would not have won the election in 2010. I also wonder how the coalition would have fared at the last election if it had said that there would be significant changes to higher education, that the submarines would not be built in Australia and that the ABC would be cut—that applies to a whole range of other measures. I think that is a real issue that we cannot and must not ignore.

I am concerned about policies that seek to shift public debt to private debt. There are some burdens that governments must carry, and I believe that higher education funding is one of them—again, providing the spending is wise, prudent and targeted. During my many meetings with representatives from universities and higher education providers one thing that kept coming up was the lack of certainty faced by the sector. It has been faced with cuts from both sides of politics and many institutions have reached the point where they simply feel there is no alternative than to go down the path of deregulation.

There has been a significant failing on the part of the opposition in this debate to date. The ALP has said many times that it would not support the government's legislation—fair enough—but it has not put forward a credible alternative policy of its own. It has said it is committed to public funding but it has made no announcement as to how much it would or would not commit to in government. That has made this debate far more difficult than it should be. If the higher education sector is really in financial trouble, and I believe it is, then things need to change, but the only clear policy we have on the table is the one put forward by the government, with some significant amendments by my crossbench colleagues. If we do not like the scheme put up by the government then what other solution can we put forward? There needs to be a viable alternative in this debate. I think we also need to put on the table, and have a debate about, the demand driven system and whether that system is sustainable and viable in the long term.

Australia has an excellent history of making higher education widely available, beginning with the reforms of John Dawkins under the Hawke-Keating government. The introduction of HECS, a world renowned scheme, and the consolidation of higher education providers meant that more Australians than ever could have access to affordable high quality education. I should note that I went through law school in the late 1970s, courtesy of the Whitlam government's free tertiary education, for which I am very grateful. In the mid-2000s, then Prime Minister John Howard introduced some deregulation into the sector by allowing universities to increase their fees by up to 25 per cent. Full-fee-paying student places for international students were also introduced, which allowed universities to enrol students beyond the government mandated caps. The next major change was introduced by the Gillard government, which uncapped university places and opened up the sector to greater numbers of students. Given the time, I seek leave to conclude my remarks.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You will automatically be in continuation, Senator Xenophon. Thank you. Order! It being 2 pm, we move to questions without notice.

Debate interrupted.