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

I would like to add a few words on this Higher Education Support Amendment (New Zealand Citizens) Bill, a measure that I am sponsoring in this chamber. This bill is important both for the injustice that it remedies and for the political context that makes it necessary. This bill allows New Zealand citizens who have been long-term residents of Australia to receive financial assistance under the Higher Education Loan Program. This is a reform that both sides of this chamber agree is necessary and overdue. The bill ought to be non-controversial. It ought to have been, however, unnecessary to introduce this bill as a private senator's measure.

Labor foreshadowed such a bill when we were in government. We supported this measure all throughout the last two years when it was put together, bundled with the government's ill-conceived, unfair and unnecessary measures with regard to the university system's deregulation. The problem is that the government has bundled a non-controversial measure together with highly controversial questions. At the same time it has sought to reduce the level of funding to universities by 20 per cent by cutting money to the universities teaching program by 20 per cent. The government has chosen to make the passage of a sensible and comparatively minor reform dependent upon the passage of a highly complex, highly unfair and totally unnecessary set of measures.

Under no circumstances will Labor be supporting legislation that creates such injustices. Yet the Minister for Education and Training continues to spurn our efforts, our offer of bipartisanship, to extend access to HELP to include long-term New Zealand citizens resident in Australia. He could have done that by simply introducing, as a government measure, a separate bill on this question. It would have been dealt with as part of the non-controversial legislation and passed this chamber, in my judgement, in quick order. But he insisted on linking an uncontentious measure to a highly contentious set of changes which has twice been rejected by this chamber and overwhelmingly rejected by the Australian people because they understand just how unfair and how unnecessary the $100,000 degree program is that this government is seeking to impose.

What this minister is doing is seeking to make New Zealand students in Australia hostages to his desire to siphon off public funding for Australia's world-leading university system. What he is seeking to do is to hold hostage the legitimate claims of students from New Zealand by undermining the rest of the university system. We are not going to stand by and allow that to happen, and that is why we have moved this measure—to break that link.

The bill's provisions are clear and are set out in the second reading speech that I have already tabled. Suffice to say that the bill complies with the principle that the beneficiaries of various HELP schemes should be people who will be able to repay their debt because they are paying Australian taxes. The bill imposes strict residentiary conditions that preclude recent arrivals to Australia from New Zealand from applying for that assistance. It opens up access to the HELP only to students who, although they have retained New Zealand citizenship, could be expected to seek employment here after graduation because they are long-term residents.

The bill, as I say, should be non-controversial, but of course the fact that it is not has become lamentable, given the state of Australian politics. This is particularly the case now, because the government has the opportunity to abandon its $100,000 university degree program. It has the opportunity now, as the ministers in this government scramble to get a new chair on the deck of the Liberal ship. We know that the minister for education is desperate to go to the defence department and the Assistant Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham, is desperate to get into communications. They are all desperate to get away from these measures, but the government remains committed to them, as the new Prime Minister stated just this Tuesday.

We know that throughout the period of the last two years he has supported the government measures through the cabinet processes, although there have been numerous media reports about how he really does not support them. There has been a process of white-anting and destabilisation that has gone on for two years. When it comes to the crunch he says, 'Well, I'm really very much part of the Right of the Liberal Party and I'm sticking with the policies'. Just this week, in answering a question in the House of Representatives about university fee deregulation he said that all the policies and all the measures of the Abbott government are the policies that he supports. So we have a new Prime Minister with the same old policies, a new Prime Minister committed to the unfair and unnecessary changes that Mr Pyne and Mr Abbott have been so dedicated to. The opposition will oppose the deregulation of fees. It will oppose the cuts to a teaching program, not just in this place whenever the legislation is returned, if it is returned, but in the broader community. We will oppose it vigorously at every possible opportunity.

There was a phalanx of vice-chancellors, and the minister had made assumptions that they were marching in lockstep with him. They have all now melted away. All of them have melted away because they understand the folly of the proposals that were before them. It has always been understood that the chief argument the minister relied upon was that there was a funding crisis in the university system, but we simply know that that is bogus. The only funding crisis, which I reminded the Senate earlier, is that confected by a government that does not want to pay its bills.

The structural changes the government is seeking to impose upon the universities would see cuts to the university teaching program of over $20 billion over the next 10 years. That is the effect of a 20 per cent reduction in government support for the teaching program. A 20 per cent reduction means a $20-plus billion cut over a 10-year period. The minister knows he cannot get the measure through the chamber. There is no evidence that there has been any change in the attitude of senators, despite various efforts to dragoon former public servants to do the lobbying on behalf of the government. There is no evidence whatsoever, but there is a change in attitude.

Of course everyone knows that the system is not, in any sense, facing a crisis. It is not in imminent danger of collapse. What universities are requiring, which I think they are entitled to, is funding certainty. They are entitled to know that the threats and intimidation that this minister has made, whether it be to the research program or to the claims that he is going to reduce the funding, only to find that he has to repay it a year after the threats are made, has to come to an end. We know that the change in leadership in the Liberal Party does provide the opportunity to do that, but we do not see any evidence that that is actually what is going to happen. There is an opportunity to avoid the havoc that the government's plan would inevitably inflict. I asked the question just last week and the Leader of the Government in this chamber said that they were sticking with the plans to introduce these changes from the beginning of next year. We have not seen this legislation, but the government remains committed to a policy position that has received widespread condemnation across this country.

The Prime Minister talks about the need for there to be a change in attitude on the questions around innovation and creativity in terms of shaping the future. He has denounced the government's failure to be able to get its message across, its failure in terms of economic leadership, its failure to explain that the policies which are inflicting pain and suffering are actually in the public's interests. He has not actually changed his attitude on those things, but has simply said that there needs to be a better way to explain the nasty medicine that people should take.

We know that the talk about changes in regard to innovation policy is something universities are particularly interested in given the central place that universities play in our national innovation system. The Prime Minister needs to do a little bit more than mouth silver-tongued rhetoric. This is a government that has actually cut $3 billion from the innovation budgets. The biggest changes that have been affecting start-ups for instance has been the abolition of Commercialisation Australia and the slashing of funding for the entrepreneurs and commercialisation activities, all of which the current Minister for Small Business has endorsed. I am told that the Minister for Small Business is also likely to lose responsibilities for these areas. Just as the Minister for the Environment has lost control of the water program, it would appear the Minister for Small Business is to lose control of the start-up program.

We do know that Mr Turnbull is worried about one thing, that Australia's economic policy has been heading in the wrong direction for the last two years. Shuffling the deck chairs will not remove the stain that is upon this country, because it is the government policy that needs to change. It is the government of Australia that needs to change not just the person that appears before the cameras at night trying to explain these unfair and unnecessary changes.

The Prime Minister will need to do far more to inspire and allow young Australians, through the university system, to reach their aspirations, to develop their talents, their imagination and their abilities. Taking $20 billion out of the university system will not do that. Taking $3 billion out of the innovation system will not do that. If the Prime Minister is serious, he will understand that we have to do far more to restore programs and capacity and to not undermine our science and research effort, to not undermine our ability to generate new knowledge, new understandings and new ways of thinking. If we are to be an innovative, creative economy, it has to be built upon partnership with government, with the support that government programs bring. It will not be built upon imposing $100,000 degrees on students, saddling students with crippling debt, or by loading up taxpayers with a loan scheme which is now out of control. The vocational education system is open to widespread rorting by shonks, which seems to go uncontrolled by this government. The government has been in office for two years and has had the opportunity to do something about it.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is something you introduced, Kim.

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

You have had two years to fix it, Minister. Do not look backwards; look forward.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are fixing it!

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

You are not fixing it. You know about the reports in today's newspaper about the exploitation, the abuse, the standover tactics and the extraordinary criminal activity of these people, which you have done nothing about but rub your hands in glee and say, 'It's all down to the market.' What a joy it is that the rip-off merchants can get their way under this government. What we have here is a government that is committed to allow the rip-off merchants to take people out, take advantage and load their greed and avarice on the taxpayer. This is a government committed to the development of these types of rorts and the shocking abuse of students.

What has happened? The consequence of this is the fundamental undermining of our education system by a government that sits on its hands, allows a world-class education system to be undermined by the $100,000 degree program and allows the shonks and the rorters free rein. It allows the shonks and the rorters to roam free. That is what is going on here. The desperate rhetoric of those opposite will not change the simple fact that you have let them get away with it. You have had two years to fix it and you have done nothing. What you are trying to do is to run these very simple games, which everyone can see through. You are attempting to wind up our support for this measure so that you can get through your lousy policy of imposing $100,000 degrees and 20 per cent cuts on students and universities, undermining the quality of Australian education because of your negligence to do anything about it.

If the government were serious about science, research, innovation and high-quality education, they would have taken steps rather than trying to impose these neo-liberal strategies, which are built upon false assumptions about the way in which the market works. The government have constantly bungled this program and will be given an opportunity to continue to do it, even it means they will change the personnel but not the policy.

My colleagues and I say to senators in this chamber: the bill before us today, a small measure, is an opportunity to fix a problem we all know exists. Unlike this government, we are in the business of getting things done, not just making the situation worse, which is the catchcry of this government. Changing the personnel will not change the policies. This is a government that is committed to maintaining unfairness and injustice and making the situation so much worse. We urge the Senate to support these measures.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am astounded that, with two minutes and 55 seconds left on the clock, Senator Carr had run out of bluff, bluster and rhetoric. He had run out of the capacity—

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

No, Senator Collins. I will make sure that I nail Senator Carr in his hypocrisy, Senator Collins—have no fear of that. I will make sure that we nail Senator Carr in his hypocrisy and yours as well. We just heard from the Jeremy Corbyn of Australian politics, I think. Senator Carr is the great unreconstructed left-winger. If Mr Corbyn could be the love child of Senator Carr and Senator Rhiannon, who I see over there, that is probably what Jeremy Corbyn would be.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Birmingham, come back to the point.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To be serious for a minute—

Senator Fawcett interjecting—

Senator Fawcett says he thought I was being serious. Senator Fawcett, Mr Corbyn is a little too old to be the love child of Senator Carr and Senator Rhiannon, but I think philosophically he certainly is.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Birmingham, we might get back to the question before the chair.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Everything that the previous government touched when it came to policy reforms was completely half-baked, and we are, indeed, as a country paying a price for that. In the education space, that is crystal clear as well. When the former government decided to provide for demand-driven systems for undergraduate places at university or funding of diplomas and advanced diplomas through VET FEE-HELP, in both instances they never considered the full implications and ramifications. What this government has had to do in these areas is come in and deal with the half-baked reforms and half-baked policies of the previous government and attempt to fix them up.

We just heard Senator Carr go on a rant about the 'out-of-control loan scheme of VET FEE-HELP'. Of course, the out-of-control loan scheme of VET FEE-HELP was introduced in 2012 by the previous government. Complaints about it in those early days were received by the previous government, by the regulator and by the department of education. What happened in response to those complaints about the operation of the loan scheme that the previous government set up and Senator Carr criticises so widely? Absolutely nothing. Senator Carr then comes in here and wants to shout, bellow, point the finger across the chamber and say, 'What's the new government doing?' Of course, in all of that shouting and bellowing and in all of that criticism suggesting that our reforms are not enough, did Senator Carr have one policy suggestion? Did he have one proposal of what he might do or what the Labor Party might do? No—because it is all empty rhetoric. It is all just a lot of shouting and bellowing and ranting and raving from Senator Carr and the Labor Party on this topic.

Let us have a look, in relation to VET FEE-HELP, at what this government has done to fix the problem created by the previous government. I agree that the problem is an out-of-control loan scheme, which was set up by the previous government. I agree it is being rorted by shonks and fraudsters and it is giving the majority of good, high-quality vocational education and training providers out there a bad name. This government has taken action. On 1 April this year, we banned inducements and we banned the offering of free laptops, free iPads and cash giveaways—et cetera.

I see the media reports in relation to that continued practice today and I assure Senator Carr that there will be action coming against those providers named in that media report. It is absolutely my intention that, if need be, we will execute one to educate many. If we have to execute more, that will be exactly what occurs. I see Senator Carr and Senator Marshall wryly smiling. Of course, I used a little left-wing rhetoric in that regard, which I know would appeal to the two of you very much and I am sure it would appeal to Senator Rhiannon as well. We have banned those inducements and we have banned withdrawal fees.

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

Come Saturday, we will see who is executed!

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not think that is terribly likely, Senator Carr. We have band withdrawal fees—

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

You won't be in this job!

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be very happy to be still in this job, because I am very passionate about this job. I am very passionate about cleaning up the mess that you left and making sure that we leave this place as a much better environment.

We banned those inducements. We have banned withdrawal fees. It was apparently the case that some providers were charging students up to $1,000 to exit from a course, so we have banned those withdrawal fees. It took effect from 1 July this year. We have banned advertisements that talked about VET FEE-HELP being free or government funded or that suggested that you will never earn enough to pay it back. That is because we want people to know that it is a loan. It is not a grant and it is not a giveaway; it is a loan. It goes on your credit rating and it impacts on your capacity to borrow for a house, a car or anything else and you are expected to earn enough from that training to get a job and to be in a position to pay it back.

Importantly, and particularly importantly given today's media stories, the reforms we put in place from 1 July make a registered training organisations responsible for the actions of their brokers. No more will anybody be able to say, 'Well, it wasn't one of our employees who did this awful act and who was out there targeting vulnerable people and engaging in some terrible behaviour.' That is because the RTO will be responsible for the actions of those brokers. The consequences for RTOs if the brokers to the wrong thing could well be the loss of their status as a VET FEE-HELP provider and the loss of their registration as a training organisation, as well as fines, penalties or otherwise. I am determined that if we have to put people out of business to fix this system, then that is exactly what we will do.

We have applied a two-day cooling-off period, which will take effect from 1 January, between enrolment and being able to apply to the VET FEE-HELP loan. This, of course, is about trying to stop door-to-door activities and trying to stop people being targeted in the supermarkets, because there will have to be at least two points of contact from the individual before they can get the VET FEE-HELP loan. They will have to be enrolled first and a there is cooling-off period before the loan application can be signed and made.

We will be banning, from 1 January, the up-front levying of the full debt load in one hit, regardless of the student's progression. Once again, we are changing the incentive. Under the program that Labor set up, the incentive is far too loaded towards simply enrolling people: getting a signature on a piece of paper, having them enrolled and having them signed up for the loan, so then you can slug them for the entire $15,000—or whatever the cost of a course is—up-front and in one hit. That practice will end under this government. We will be making sure that there must be four separate payments and that the incentive changes from one of just signing somebody up to one of actually having people who will progress through the course and that will ultimately deliver qualified people who are there for the right reasons.

Importantly, in addition to that, we will be putting in place minimum standards of educational qualifications—year 12 standard or equivalent—to make sure that those who are signing up for those courses actually have the capacity to do them. That is because VET FEE-HELP only applies to high-level vocational education qualifications—to diplomas and advanced diploma courses. We want to make sure that the Australians who sign up for those courses are the people who have the capability to undertake those courses and complete those courses to earn the qualification. It is all about shifting the incentive, as I say, from just signing people up to knowing that you actually have to sign up people who can do the course, who intend to do the course and who are capable of completing the course.

We will be applying new infringement notices that will hit providers with fines for breaches of all of these standards and guidelines from 1 January. We will have the power to remit the debt and recoup costs from providers, plus penalties, from 1 January. We will make it easier for students who have been unfairly targeted or unfairly treated in any way to get their debt waived. Importantly, we want to do that in a way where it is not the taxpayer who has to foot the bill, which is largely the case under the arrangements that the previous government established. If the debt is waived because the provider has done the wrong thing, then the provider should pay. Not only should they pay for that waiving of the debt but they should pay a penalty for doing the wrong thing as well. Our reforms will ensure that that is the case. We are going to raise the bar on the standard of providers who can access VET FEE-HELP too. From 1 January, only those with a proven history of operating for at least three years and in doing so offering high quality, high-level VET courses will be able to be approved for VET FEE-HELP.

I will not accept coming into this chamber and being lectured by Senator Carr, who sits there, cries out and says that we are negligent and we are not doing anything about it. We are doing a lot about it. We are doing an awful lot about it.

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

If you are doing so much, why is still it continuing? You are all talk!

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carr, you know an awful lot about being all talk because—as I pointed out—you made not one suggestion in your contribution. You were all complaint and no action.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have got the fixer. What is he fixing?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are fixing your mess. That is what we are fixing. You established it; we are fixing it. The reforms we are introducing are not all in place.

Senator Kim Carr interjecting—

Senator Carr, when I bring legislation—

Senator Kim Carr interjecting—

Senator Carr, listen for a second. When I bring legislation into this place to fix this, I look forward to your contribution containing—

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

That's it? That's it?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So what are you going to do? What are your policies, Senator Carr? There have been absolutely no suggestions from you—no suggestions whatsoever. The challenge for you, Senator Carr, is: when I bring legislation into this place—this next tranche of reforms—make some suggestions. Have some policies. Have an idea of your own. You created this mess and you have come up with not one single idea of how to fix it yet. You are devoid of any ideas, Senator Carr. The Labor Party is devoid of any ideas. All you can do is moan and bitch and whinge and carry on but you do not have a single fresh idea. You do not have a single idea or policy to fix this. Have the courage to come in here and tell us what else you would do in addition to all of the measures that we have already outlined and that we are pursuing. Those started with the new RTO standards on 1 April and the banning of certain practices on 1 July. Other practices will take effect and change from 1 January. I emphasise, Senator Carr, that you say it has not been fixed yet. Well, not all of the measures that I have announced have taken effect yet either.

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

You're a 'gonna'.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, there's no 'gonna' about this—unless, of course, you are going to block it in the Senate or play silly buggers. So, assuming we have your support—which I trust we do, given your lofty rhetoric—

Senator Kim Carr interjecting—

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Birmingham, it would be appropriate for you to make your comments through the chair. I ask for a little order from those on the opposite side of the chamber, too.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker—President, sorry.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there going to be more change?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are the only one who has served in the other place.

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

You're going to the House as well!

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This government has also provided additional funding to the Australian Skills Quality Authority—an organisation which I note the previous government established. We get complaints from Senator Carr about how that organisation operates and about some of its failings.

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

It's a toothless tiger!

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'A toothless tiger', he says. Guess which government set up the legislation for that toothless tiger?

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

What have you done about it?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Guess which government appointed not one of the commissioners, not two of the commissioners but all three of the commissioners? It was your government, Senator Carr, that did so.

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

What have you done about it?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What have we done about it? Well, we have new standards for training organisations that came into effect this year. We have provided $68 million in additional funding to the organisation. We provided another $18.9 million in compliance funding for VET FEE-HELP activities in particular. So, Senator Carr, you ask, 'What have you done?' I have spent the entire session trying to explain to you what it is we have done about it. Senator Carr, what we are doing in this space, as we are doing right across government, is cleaning up your mess. What I find remarkable today—

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Birmingham, I remind you to speak through the chair.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to speak through the chair. I would have thought you might have reminded others about interjections occasionally, too.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have indeed asked for order from those on the opposite side.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To some extent.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He has run out of steam!

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don't tempt me, Senator Collins! It is quite remarkable, Senator Collins—

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Birmingham, through the chair.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through the chair, it is quite remarkable, Senator Collins, after all the bellowing from Senator Carr about all of the problems that he does not have any solution to fix, that the one thing he thinks is the priority issue to bring before the chamber, the one matter he thinks is the most important reform to bring before the chamber, relates to New Zealand people. It relates to the access for New Zealanders to our higher education system. The government supports this policy. We are happy indeed to have this passed. It has been part of legislation that Labor has voted against not once but twice. We are very happy with the policy proposal of Senator Carr, but why on earth it would be his priority to bring it forward as a sort of political stunt rather than as a package of reforms, as the government has proposed, is beyond me.

Senator Carr thinks this is the priority issue, yet he complains about other areas where he thinks vulnerable Australians are being targeted, which they are with bad loans, and where he thinks the taxpayer is being ripped off, which they are with those bad loans, and where he thinks the government is not acting. Yet we are, with many actions. Senator Carr has not one single idea of his own on what to do. His only idea applies to New Zealand citizens. His only idea is about making it easier for more people to access student loans. That, of course, is exactly what the previous government did before, when they set up the demand driven funding system for bachelor places and undergraduate places at universities, when they set up the VET FEE-HELP scheme. All of those policies of the previous government were about making it easier for people to access student loans. Then he comes here and complains about the blow-out in those student loans and complains about the failings of those student loans. Yet the only legislation he offers to this chamber, the only reform he offers to this chamber, is to expand access to student loans to New Zealanders as well. The hypocrisy is really quite astounding.

This government supports the concept of extending the Higher Education Loan Program to New Zealanders—to those who have been in Australia for a long time, meeting specified conditions. The previous government, of course, proposed this measure. But, not unlike many ideas that the previous government proposed, they never actually did anything about it. Now they come in here and say they want to do something about it. We affirmed our support for this in a joint statement with Prime Minister Key in 2014. And not once but twice we have actually tried to legislate for the measures that are before the chamber—not once but twice. And not once but twice the Labor Party voted against those measures. The Labor Party that comes in here and tries to sincerely say, 'We think this is important,' voted against those measures.

The passage of this bill would not itself actually give effect to the shared desire to extend HELP loans to this special category of New Zealanders, because to do so requires the money to cover it to be appropriated. Of course, this bill does not appropriate money. But not having the money, of course, has never been a concern for the Australian Labor Party. The Labor Party is always very happy to do things without knowing where the money would come from or having the money. The Department of Education and Training has said that, assuming a start date of 1 January 2016, the estimated cost of this would be around $12 million over the period 1 January 2016 to the end of the 2019-20 financial year.

To reject this bill will not necessarily prevent this category of New Zealand students from getting access to HELP loans, precisely because this bill will not have the effect of giving them access. Once again, it is a half-baked policy proposal from the Labor Party, the likes of which are reflected in everything they did in the education space when they were in government—in their failure to set up the demand driven scheme for universities in an effective way that would drive the right incentives for behaviour in universities and in their failure to set up the VET FEE-HELP scheme in an effective way that would ensure that training providers and organisations were incentivised to attract quality students, deliver quality training and give those students quality qualifications. Instead, everything the Labor Party proposes is half-baked in its approach and in its measures.

This legislation is no exception to that rule. And of course the hollow rhetoric we heard from Senator Carr earlier on the subject of VET FEE-HELP is certainly no exception to that. Despite being responsible for the problem, despite having done nothing about the problem when becoming aware of it in government, he still offers not a single solution but only empty criticism.

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

The Greens support the Higher Education Support Amendment (New Zealand Citizens) Bill 2015. It brings some equity to the loan scheme, which is obviously problematic in itself, but fairness always needs to be striven for. It removes the unfair treatment of long-term residents of Australia who, just because of where they were born—in New Zealand—are New Zealand citizens. Despite what the previous speaker, Senator Birmingham, has said—obviously feeling a bit anxious about his future—we know that his government, the former Abbott government, failed New Zealanders. However long they have lived in Australia, New Zealanders have been denied financial assistance under the HELP scheme. Senator Birmingham just cannot get away from that. He tried to dodge it in his speech. He has become quite expert at that. But that was certainly the essence of it.

I would even say that this bill is a small step towards internationalism, something the Greens have long supported. It is a step in the right direction. However, it does accept that the concept of education is a private good, not a public one, and that still does need to be challenged. Yes, it is fixing up an inequity, but we always have to get back to basics in education, and we should be talking about public education for public good. The debate on this bill is a reminder of what Australia has been subjected to under Mr Pyne's leadership with regard to higher education. It has been very destructive. He has twice attempted to bring in deregulation, a policy that Australians are now well aware just should not be happening in this country. I will come back to this in more detail.

We have a new leadership in the Liberal Party. Deregulation has become so discredited. What has been happening in our higher education sector has made people so angry. It has put so many students and their families under stress about how they would even pay if these changes came in. This should have been right up there under the new Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, as something where he would clean the slate. But there has been not a word. Again, in so many areas, under the leadership of the new Prime Minister, it is business as usual, and this is an area in which he really should have had the sense to at least open this up and acknowledge that it needs to be revisited. But it looks like this policy will be continued.

And let's remember that the essence of deregulation was ripping money out of the public purse in the 2014 budget, the budget that enraged people around this country for over a year because of the damage and destruction the Abbott government was inflicting on people, not just in education but in so many sectors. In relation to education, the plan was to take $5 billion out of higher education and dump the costs onto students. That in essence is what deregulation is about. And yes, that is how neo-Liberal governments work. It is about leaving it up to the individual and ending up with a destructive two-tier system for our education.

Senator Birmingham time and time again has been in this place backing that whole policy to the hilt, and it really does reflect very poorly on him. In his speech, he spoke with largesse about how he was astounded at comments being made by the opposition. But the students, the staff and the people of Australia who are so deeply committed to a fair education system are the ones who are astounded. They are astounded by how extreme your government's policies have been when it comes to denying the basic funding that is needed to get higher education back on track. We do need to remember when we are revisiting higher education that there were problems, and I acknowledge that. There were problems when Labor was in government. Coming into the 2013 election, in April—I think it was the 12th or the 13th, a Saturday—the then Minister for Higher Education, Craig Emerson, announced a $2.3 billion cut to our public universities to pay for Gonski—crazy policy. Why do you put something out on a Saturday afternoon? You think it will not be noticed. It was one of the worst pieces of judgement that came from the Labor government.

Let's fast-track to after the 2013 election. There was then a big campaign. The Greens participated in this, and I am very proud to put that on the record. We knew how destructive this government, the then Abbott government that was elected, would be to higher education. But you could also tell that there were people in Labor who were deeply unhappy with those cuts. So we—with students, with staff—targeted Labor, and, to its credit, it reversed its position on that policy of $2.3 billion cuts to higher education. With students, staff, crossbenchers and so much of the Australian public targeting the former Abbott government on this destructive course of deregulation that they have taken, wouldn't you think they would be re-evaluating what their plans were?

But there has been not an iota of it under the education minister, Christopher Pyne, or under the former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott—you would not really think he would. But surely the new leadership would at least, just for their own electoral prospects, think: 'Maybe we need to get smart. Maybe we should listen to the Australian public.'

I think it is worth reminding ourselves of what went down with the 2014 budget in regard to higher education—it was so deeply wrong. Minister Pyne came in with his plan to load up the public with the $5 million cuts and his plan about extensive deregulation. That is when we started to become aware of the cost of degrees and that is where the slogan came from about $100,000 degrees—some would be more, some would be less. I remember it infuriated the minister and infuriated supporters within his own government because it was exposing what deregulation would mean and how damaging it would be. It would mean that many students would not be able to continue with their education and that many people hoping to go to university would not be able to. I do feel very passionate about this. I was the first in my family to be able to go to university. I know what a difference it has made to my life, and I saw it with my generation. It is so deeply wrong that this policy of deregulation is being pushed so harshly.

What did we see when the minister ran into problems of selling this unpopular policy? He continued to back business interests in this and hang out with his favourite vice-chancellors. We heard how he would trumpet about the support that he would have from vice-chancellors around the country—often misrepresenting their position. It is particularly relevant here to look at what he was endeavouring to do with bringing more corporate interest into the education sector. This bill—the one we have defeated twice—had this very concerning aspect of handing over about half a billion dollars of public money to private for-profit providers. The reason these companies are on the planet and the reason that they have been formed is to make profits. I am not against companies making profits in the right places if people are not exploited, but there is no place for companies to make profits out of education.

Education is about the public good, it is about looking to the future, it is about looking at student needs, it is about having well-resourced education systems and it is about ensuring that staff have good working conditions. But that does not go with companies that are out to make a profit. They have to cut corners and they have to look at reassessing—and I am being polite about it—their industrial relations conditions. They have to look at all that stuff if they are going to maximise their profits—and that is what their job is. The two things do not match up.

There was the minister—and I nearly called him the former minister, which is not surprising because we hear that Mr Pyne is hoping to be the defence minister so he can save his seat. Time will tell what he is up to next and where the next round of damage will be that he will inflict, because seriously that is how the conservatives work when it comes to public issues, and defence is another part of that.

That was the first budget. When it came to the 2015 budget we saw that the former Abbott government had not learnt anything. By then they had seen the outrage around the country by the students and the staffers, as I have mentioned. Let us remember that there had been some very courageous actions by students who were really deeply committed to getting the word out there. Again, I congratulate the students who went on the Q&A program and unfurled their banner. Then in November last year five students from Monash University, who were deeply frustrated by the Liberal-Nationals abandonment of even the most basic commitment to educational access, also took action. There were direct actions and some of them were arrested. Again, I congratulate them.

When you have to get decent policies adopted by governments and when you are moving to have widespread progressive change in society, there is a place for direct action. The only reason I am standing here as a woman MP is that our forebears long ago, a century ago, were out there literally rattling the chains, getting arrested and doing some very creative direct actions, and life changed. We see this in so many big areas where society has to change and that is why those students were so courageous in what they did and why I congratulate them.

Deregulation is not an education policy; it is a budget measure. Again, the current education minister tried to hide this, but it was so easy to see. When you are ripping $5 billion out of a budget that is there to fund our public universities and loading up the costs on students and their families, you can clearly see what the intent is. Deregulation is not about improving the equality and accessibility of higher education. That is why we have challenged it so deeply.

The way the funding has worked for our public universities in this country really has been disgraceful. We have seen years of neglect from successive governments. While the average OECD government invests 1.1 per cent of GDP on higher education, public funding in Australia is only 0.7 per cent. In 2011 this meant an annual shortfall of US$3,965 per student at our public universities when compared with the OECD average. We are only talking about the OECD average and we are below that. This underfunding has gone on for too long. Again, this is something that needs to be urgently addressed.

I want to move on to the 2015 budget. The government has gone through all the grief, all the anger that people have expressed in a whole variety of ways about the harshness of deregulation that came out in the 2014 budget. But did it learn any lessons? No. What we saw when that budget came down in May this year was that universities were again set to receive a 20 per cent cut and the government restated its commitment to handing out all those hundreds of millions of dollars, nearly half a billion dollars, to the private providers. So the intent to deregulate was still there. They might have tried to cover it up with, I think it was, $15 million spent on an advertising campaign, trying to sneakily misrepresent what their own policy would do. But their clear policy intent could not be hidden, and that is why the protests continue.

What should happen with higher education? Again, it is not just that Australia has fallen behind because of the problems created by the former, Abbott government and their very destructive approach to higher education; we are also falling behind because of our failure to recognise that there is an international trend towards free higher education. Now, we had it once in Australia. People used to think, 'Wow, we will never get that back again,' but that is happening around the world in an increasing number of countries. We need to get this back into the public discourse, not just for the future of education but for the future of Australia. This is very, very important.

Across Latin America and across Europe, this trend is real. Governments are changing their policies. It is bringing benefits to both individual students and the nation as a whole—economic benefits. Interestingly, the issue is coming up in the US primaries now. Hillary Clinton and other candidates I have heard are starting to talk about free higher education.

Coming back to the bill before us, I would argue that it should be extended to international students. I was at O-week at Sydney university—they have an O-week in the middle of the year, not just at the beginning of the year, these days—for orientation day and, as I was giving out Greens material and working with the Greens students on campus, I was surprised by how many students I met who were from Germany and some of the Scandinavian countries, interested in what we were doing and what we were saying. Because I was giving out material about free higher education, they were telling me about free higher education in their countries and the fact that, when they come to study at our universities, their free higher education continues. So we have the very interesting situation where some overseas students are getting free higher education in our own country. It is, again, a reminder of why we need to look at that issue.

Let us look at some of the countries with free higher education. Germany has actually had free higher education in a number of its states for 30 years, but, since last year, there is free higher education right across the nation. They offer tuition-fee-free higher education to their students. As I said, that policy has been in place for 30 years in most states and now in all states. It is recognised as bringing huge benefits to that country. Often in this place I hear ministers talking about Germany, giving examples of their economic policy, their growth and the benefits that come from certain things in Germany. Well, the foundation of that is free higher education, because the young people of that nation are getting a proper education. They have the choice and they have the opportunities, and they are not burdened with debt. They are not just thinking about what the next career path is. Their minds are open, and that is what education needs to be about. Yes, it needs to be about career paths—please do not misunderstand me; I understand that totally. But it is about more than careers, particularly with the complexities that our world is facing. This is a solution: free higher education.

Scotland is another example. It is absolutely fascinating. They actually set up a government committee of inquiry. This was in the 1990s. There was a recommendation that they abolish up-front tuition fees and improve support for students, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, and they did. That was a very impressive decision they made to address how they brought more disadvantaged students into higher education. So it was not just about making education free but also about how to give the necessary support to more disadvantaged students. I am sure most people in this place have heard stories about how difficult it is for many students, particularly in the big cities, to be able to afford rent and to address cost-of-living issues. Transport can be a big one if you are not living close to the education institution where you are studying. So Scotland addressed both of those issues—very impressive.

In Brazil, free higher education became a constitutional issue, and the Brazilian federal constitution established the right to free public higher education for all citizens. So countries are coming to this in different ways but there is this international trend that we need to look at. Last year, the Chilean government rejected the privatised model for higher education, and that rejection was driven by high-school students and tertiary students across the country. Again, students used a lot of direct action. It became an election issue, to the point where some of the parties changed their own policies because they listened to the students.

That is what needs to happen in this country now. The new Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, needs to quickly remove the deregulation policies and the criticism of those that have dogged the government. The Liberal-National coalition have had major failures in the Senate on a policy that was so central to their budget plans—their plans for higher education. That needs to be removed from Liberal-National policy forever. It needs to be recognised as an embarrassing failure, and they should put it in the bin straightaway. It is also a reminder to Labor that they need to get back to progressive policies on higher education. Yes, this bill before us should be passed, and there are necessary measures in it to address some of the inequity, but there is so much more to do in higher education. We have that opportunity before us. And there is an election coming up; higher education should be a top priority. Let's get that debate going about free higher education.

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak in support of the Higher Education Support Amendments (New Zealand Citizens) Bill 2015, and I would like to congratulate Senator Carr on bringing forward this worthwhile bill that is true to two of Labor's core beliefs. One is fairness and the other is affordable education. Everyone should have affordable education.

This bill is designed to address a longstanding inequity for long-term Australian residents who were born in New Zealand. It is something that happened and then it stopped and now it is about time to start it again. Under current laws, people who came to Australia from New Zealand when they were young or who were born here to New Zealand parents are unable to access the Higher Education Loan Program, or HELP, as it is commonly referred to. These people are now forced to pay full up-front fees, regardless of how long they have been living in this country. There are close to half a million New Zealanders who are living in Australia who are unable to access the financial assistance that is available to all other Australians who attend or who want to attend university. More than 1,000 of these New Zealanders are actually living in the area where I am, in the electorate of Braddon. These people have built their lives in this country and continue to make a contribution to this country in a very strong way. They will more than likely go on to be productive, contributing taxpayers to our economy. For this reason, they should also be able to enjoy the same educational support that all other Australians are offered.

In the 2013 budget, Labor announced that we would fix this inequity—the inequity regarding people who were born in New Zealand but who came to Australia to live—to make sure that they could access the same assistance when they went to university. We promised to rectify the problem and the proposed legislation to do so was supposed to take effect on 1 January this year. Notably and importantly, those on the opposite side, who are in government now, agreed with this proposal and that it would start on 1 January this year. But in the intervening time we had an election and the legislation did not progress. So, last year, then Prime Minister Abbott met with his New Zealand counterpart and reiterated the intention of the government to follow through on Labor's plans and rectify the inequity. After the election, Prime Minister Abbott said to the Prime Minister of New Zealand: 'We will follow through on that plan and we will make sure that we fix the inequity.' That was then reflected in the government's 2014 budget papers. So it should have been a simple matter that could have been sorted with a minimum of fuss. But, true to form, those opposite tied an uncontentious bipartisan measure to one of the most toxic and destructive bills that this parliament has seen—that of university deregulation.

It was okay to give up the promise that we had made, the bipartisanship that we had shown, the support that we had given the New Zealand Prime Minister at the time, through then Prime Minister Abbott, that we would get this sorted. Now Mr Christopher Pyne, in his position in the government, has tied it to that of university deregulation—a pretty grubby move. So Labor requested that that bill be split off in order to ensure the timely passage of a measure that had been an agreed measure. The government did not do this. Instead, they decided to hold this equity measure hostage to their vicious plan for the $100,000 degrees. Of course, those opposite have form in this area. Mr Christopher Pyne, in particular, has shown that he is not above blackmailing the parliament in an attempt to ram through his plan to see Australian students paying $100,000 and more for their higher education. Only six months ago, he held a gun to scientific research funding if we in this place refused to pass his odious deregulation legislation. Not too long before that, he had dangled a carrot of extra funding for the University of Tasmania in front of Independent Senator Jackie Lambie in an attempt to bribe his bill through this chamber. Of course, I will always support extra funding for our state university, but I will not accept the premise that this has to be at the expense of affordable education for everyone in this country—and neither did Senator Lambie, to her credit. Just as Mr Pyne arbitrarily attached increased funding for the University of Tasmania to his destructive bill, so he is trying to blackmail the parliament, making this equity measure contingent on the passing of his toxic higher education plan.

Mr Christopher Pyne and the Abbott-Turnbull government have done everything they can to make it harder for young Australians to access university. Clearly, Labor will never vote for legislation that will lumber future students with a debt that may continue beyond their working lives. We cannot support a bill that would create a two-tier education system of haves and have-nots. We will not countenance a plan that will force bright young Australians to reconsider whether or not they can afford an education and whether or not they can afford to be lumbered with those bills beyond their working life. Labor will not be bullied and we will not be blackmailed into accepting some of the most radical and extreme legislation this place has seen. Instead, Senator Carr is offering a solution. The solution is the bill before us here today. This bill will allow access to HELP for any individual who has been an Australian resident for at least the past 10 years, who has resided here for at least eight of the past 10 years and 18 months of the past two years. To be successful, applicants must also have been a dependent child when they started living in Australia. I expect that those opposite will live up to their promise and support this bill, as they have done in the past, but I still fear they may continue with their hallmark record of broken promises.

Thousands of university students have been kept in limbo for more than a year while Mr Christopher Pyne tries to pursue his reckless plan for an Americanisation of our higher education system. Australians do not want an Americanisation of our higher education system. We want those bright young Australians to be able to go to university, without them being lumbered with a debt of at least $100,000 and having to decide whether or not they can go on with their education and contribute in the fields that they so dearly want to and have the intellectual ability to do purely on the basis of whether they can afford to pay the cost. That is not a reasonable ask. It is not a reasonable or acceptable position for young people in this country—the young bright minds that will assist the growth of our economic prosperity in this country. It is not acceptable that that burden is put on them, and we will not support that. What this bill will do is put through and put to rest a commitment that was given by the Abbott government and by Prime Minister Abbott to the New Zealand government. We should just get on and do it. Let us untie it from the shackles of the nasty tertiary education cuts that Mr Christopher Pyne wants to put in. Let us make sure that we allow this agreed position to go through today and let us make sure that we provide that opportunity for those New Zealand people who are living in this country, who have done so for many years and who apply by the rules of this process. I would urge the Liberals to put an end to this limbo, do the right thing, vote for this bill and get it through the Senate. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.