Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Kingston proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Liberal-National Government’s unfair plans for $100,000 university degrees.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When I first saw the topic of today's matter of public importance, my first reaction was that this was going to be a short debate, or it certainly should be a short debate, because the claim by Labor of $100,000 degrees is simply untrue. There is substantial evidence refuting Labor's claims. We know that very clearly and we also know that the higher education sector knows that.

But then I re-read the opinion piece in the Australian in August last year by Vicki Thomson, as the Executive Director of the Australian Technology Network. Vicki Thomson was certainly very direct in her message about deregulation and it is worthwhile, in the context of this debate on the MPI, revisiting her opinion piece. It was titled 'Don't be fooled by $100,000 degrees'. Seriously, Senators, deregulation will not spur such fee hikes. She says in the opening couple of paragraphs:

THE vomit theory is part of the global political lexicon: that it is only when you're so sick of saying something that you want to vomit are the people you are speaking to starting to "get it".

So let me repeat what has been said a million times: the university sector is not looking to introduce standard $100,000 degrees and deregulation won't deliver them.

She then goes on in her opinion piece to say:

A far more realistic estimate of how high fees might rise for a standard degree in a deregulated market is $12,000 to $14,000 a year—rather lower than the $100,000 being yelled from certain rooftops.

This would be in line with undergraduate degrees offered by some of the world's top public universities that already operate in a deregulated market, such as the University of California at Berkeley.

So I am going today, during this MPI, to go through the evidence one more time, clearly refuting the claims of Labor that there will be $100,000 degrees.

Let me just start by putting this into some sort of perspective, setting the scene for what I am going to say, and let me put on the table some figures. Labor cut $6.6 billion in funding to higher education while they were in office, including more than $3 billion in their last year in office alone. In April 2013 Labor cut $2.8 billion of funding to universities and students and capped self-education expenses, which risked leaving thousands of Australian nurses, teachers and other professionals out of pocket. Labor left a complicated and unwieldy mess, with large increases in regulation, compliance, reporting and unnecessary red tape and regulatory duplication applying to universities. This meant universities spent an estimated $280 million per year on compliance and reporting. Labor's poor track record is evidenced by the two independent reviews of regulation and reporting in 2013 that the previous Labor government failed to respond to. But there is more.

Labor cut the sustainable research excellence scheme by $498.8 million in the 2012 MYEFO. Labor made no provision for the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy and the Future Fellowships program for research talent beyond 2015. Labor was happy to let Australia's research efforts fall off a funding cliff.

Importantly, under Labor our share of the international education market dropped. Our status as an education nation fell. Export income fell by billions of dollars from its 2009-10 peak because of Labor's neglect, policy weakness and budget handling of what is now Australia's third largest export and its No. 1 knowledge export. The number of international student enrolments fell by 130,000 between 2009 and 2012. This represents a decline in enrolments of 16 per cent over the 2009-13 period. Clearly, that is bad for our economy and for all those people who work in the education sector and the support services such as the travel and accommodation providers that prop up and help our education services.

Labor left Australia's higher education system in decline and now they are standing in the way of us fixing it. So Labor's approach, as on so many things, is to fiddle while Rome burns. It is to shirk real reform and to avoid the tough decisions that need to be made. Thankfully, our government takes an entirely different approach.

Our package of higher education reforms, which includes amendments we have agreed to following wide consultation, provides the framework to restore our status and deliver great benefits for future generations of our students, and I am very proud of that. Our reforms make possible the world-class education that Australian students need and deserve. They create the largest Commonwealth Scholarship Scheme ever. They provide the Commonwealth's support for tens of thousands of students who do not currently get it. They provide pathways into higher education for tens of thousands of students.

The legislation will abolish unfair loans for FEE-HELP and VET FEE-HELP students—that is a 25 per cent fee that is abolished in our reforms. That applies to many institutions around Australia, but it particularly applies to Bond University in my electorate on the Gold Coast. I have had numerous discussions with Bond University, with the students there, with the representatives of the students and also with COPHE, the Council of Private Higher Education. They are all saying that what is desperately needed for the private education sector is the reduction of those fees. That is part of our reforms and that is something that I am very committed to delivering to Bond University and other private institutions in Australia.

The reforms that we have proposed have been widely supported by the sector. I think that that is something that seems to pass by Labor members. They do not seem to grasp the fact that the sector quite widely supports the reforms that we are proposing and Labor are standing in the way of the education sector going ahead. Many of the university leaders have stressed that failure to pass these reforms in their amended form would have very damaging effects for Australia's higher education sector. The university sector has embraced these proposed reforms and failure to pass them is certainly going to lead to a backlash from all parts of the sector. I would certainly like to avoid that.

Universities Australia chief executive officer Belinda Robinson said on 28 January this year:

Our appeal to Senators as they return to Canberra is not to ignore the opportunity they have to negotiate with the Government in amending and passing a legislative package that will position Australia's universities to compete with the world's best.

Professor Sandra Harding, the chief of Universities Australia and vice-chancellor of James Cook University, said late last year:

We shouldn’t underestimate the size of these reforms or the need or urgency for these reforms … The status quo isn’t an option.

Professor Peter Lee, chair of the Regional Universities Network and vice-chancellor of Southern Cross University, said in September last year:

… deregulation of student fees [is] the only way that the sector could maintain quality and access and remain internationally competitive, as significant, additional government funding is unlikely, irrespective of political party composition.

I could go on at length. There are absolutely dozens of quotes that are out there. They all agree that deregulation is absolutely vital. But what is Labor's response to this? I think the silence is almost deafening from the other side of the House. Their only response is to talk about $100,000 fees.

Pat Conroy (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are putting us to sleep.

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, you need to wake up and listen because you will actually learn something. Now that I have your attention, let me continue on. The Labor Party are very good at running its little scare campaign, so let me address some of that scare campaign. Firstly, the government does not plan, set or endorse any particular level of fee. That is the whole point of deregulation. It is not up to the government to decide the cost of degrees. Secondly, the fees already published by many universities—

Opposition members interjecting—

I am sure those on the other side of this House are able to read exactly the same figures that I can. The fees already published by many universities are far below what the scare campaign is claiming. The University of Western Australia has set fees for 2016 which are less than half of what the scare campaign is claiming. Those on the other side of the House are absolutely aware of that. Thirdly, if the fees are too high, universities will have empty lecture theatres. The competitive nature of deregulation will ensure that there is competition and that that will keep the fees low. So I am sure that the House will loudly reject this MPI, just as the Australian people ultimately reject Labor's continuous carping. (Time expired)

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Vocational Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great pleasure to participate in this debate in our usual engaging but respectful manner from this side of the chamber. We have come to almost the final business of the House this week. I am looking at how things have developed since we have returned in 2015 and reflect on how we started the week. It started with a fairly significant activity on the other side of the chamber around the leadership of the party.

Government Member:

A government member interjecting—

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Vocational Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member is quite right, I well remember the issues for any party dealing with leadership. The interesting thing out of the whole process was that we ended up with the same Prime Minister; however, what was significant and important was that we were told we had had pretty poor quality government up to that point in time, but good government was about to start.

I thought, 'This'll be interesting!' On Monday the higher education bill was on the Notice Paper to be debated. I thought, 'Clearly, that's going. Clearly, that bill is about to be pulled because we have now been told that we're going to have good government.' Sadly, on Thursday afternoon it is still there. Mind you, they keep pushing back the debate on it, but it is still there. Why is it still there? Obviously, the government has not realised yet—although it baffles me why it would be the case—that the potential for students to have significant increases in the cost of their university education is roundly rejected by the community.

The member who spoke previously in this debate spoke about the sector. She said that the sector supports the decision; the sector has expressed support for deregulation of fees. What she failed to mention is that by 'sector', she means a range of vice-chancellors. I do not think she is talking about the people who will carry that lifetime debt—the students.

I attended in Albury, only last week, a fabulous forum for regional universities organised by the member for Indi, who has a direct interest and profound concern for regional universities. Representatives of students there were expressing their absolute objection to the fact that these reforms will see them carry a lifetime of debt, well beyond what was envisaged by any of us who have the privilege of sitting in this place. It is the wrong way to go.

The reality, as the shadow minister outlined, was that in any other—

Government members interjecting—

Let's just look at the evidence. Let's just stick to the facts. First of all, there are universities who have put out the actual amounts that they will be charging under the deregulated scheme for a range of courses, and the shadow minister gave just one example from Western Australia. To become a lawyer and get legal qualifications at university will cost $95,000. That is a fact for you. Here is another fact. In the UK, where they deregulated, they put a cap of £9,000 on fees. Out of 123 universities there, how many universities charged less than the maximum cap?—two. So, given an opportunity, when they had a 20 per cent cut to make up, the university sector has not shown, historically, any inclination to lower their prices. In fact, in our current scheme, the universities are deregulated to some extent in that they can charge less than the maximum that is set. They could actually decreased their fees now, if they would like to. I would invite members opposite to come to their dispatch box and describe to me the rush of universities who have decreased their fees below the maximum. Since Brendan Nelson brought that deregulation in, where is the rush of universities charging less? It is a furphy, and this bill should be pulled. New government, good government— (Time expired)

Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must admit, I was looking forward, in this debate on a matter of public importance, to the last contribution from the member for Kingston before she goes on leave. I thought that the member for Kingston, being one of my favourite members of the Labor Party, would give us a measured, sensible debate today. What did we get? We got a shrill, empty, dishonest contribution. I feel that, as she goes off on leave, her final contribution in this place is going to leave a sour taste in her mouth because it was so empty and shallow.

What we are seeing today is scaremongering. For those younger people around the country watching this debate—who are getting geared up this week to go to the next round of engagements for O week—the member for Kingston's contribution would certainly not have left them feeling particularly comfortable about their future.

My second favourite member of the Labor Party, the member for Cunningham, I thought might have improved the debate, but unfortunately she let me down today, as well. I was actually terrified that the member for Charlton was going to make a contribution.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are getting close! When you get down to the bottom you have a choice of two Conroys; it is a bit of a toss which way you go.

What we have heard so far from the Labor Party is simply not true. What the Labor Party is supposed to stand for is taking from the rich and giving to the poor. What they are actually standing for here now, is taking from the poor and giving to the rich. There was a famous statement a few months ago from Cate Blanchett about free university education. There is no such thing as free education; we have a redirection of taxpayer funds. But the Labor Party would like to take from people who are paying their taxes—people who are not attending university, people who have left school and have gone into a trade, who are working in the mines, in the local councils or on the farms—so that they can subsidise people from the leafy suburbs of the capitals to go to university at their expense, at the sweat of their brows. The Labor Party would like those taxpayers to be handing their money over to the privileged few so that they could get a university education scot-free and earn up to three times the salary of those other workers.

At the moment, students, through the HEC Scheme, are paying about 60 per cent of their contribution, and what is being asked is that they pay 50 per cent. Those hard workers that are paying their taxes are still going to pay 50 per cent of the contribution of their fees, and the rest of it will be paid back when they earn over $50,000 per year. I might say that many of the people I represent would only dream about earning $50,000 a year. We need to get this into perspective.

These reforms were to bring our education system, our university system, through to the 21st century so our grandchildren and children will not be going to the university of Shanghai, the university of Jakarta or the university of Port Moresby to get a better education than they would in Australia—because our system was not keeping up with the rest of the world. And do you think the Labor Party, who pride themselves on being the party for education, would get on board with these reforms and say, 'Yes, we need to do this; I know that when we were in government we ripped $6 billion out of the sector, but we'll now work with you to build these reforms'? What the Labor Party did was remove the possibility of country students getting an education, with their isolated child allowance going, so I now have parents in my electorate who have to decide which of their children get an education and which do not.

The Labor Party should be backing these reforms, with the Commonwealth scholarships, so that all people can get an education, not just the privileged few who get to earn the big dollars and work in the white-collar sector, having been subsidised by the hard work of the blue-collar sector. I am terribly disappointed about the tone of the debate we have seen here today. No-one from the Labor Party is talking about the reforms, better education for their children and grandchildren or bringing the sector back on track. (Time expired)

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The previous contribution just showed how out of touch the country MPs—the Liberals and the Nationals—are with what working people in the bush actually care about, because what the cleaners and the council workers want is for their children to have the opportunity to go to university. They are people like Gamal Babiker, who came here as a refugee, who took on a job as a cleaner. He said that these reforms are the worst decision of this government to date. He said these reforms are the worst decision because he wanted his kids to have the opportunity that he did not have when he first arrived in this country. He wanted his children to be able to go to university. He is the proud father of three children, two of whom did decide to go to university under the current system, where they ended up with a small HECS-HELP debt that was affordable for them to pay off through the taxation system.

Another absolute furphy of the other side is the suggestion that working people are paying and subsidising the elite to go to university. When people go to university and they get a job and they earn more money, guess what? They pay more taxes. They pay more taxes to this government so this government has the resources to then fund the next generation of university students. We still have a progressive tax system in this country, and that is how we ensure that those on the higher incomes help out those on the lower incomes.

So there are two furphies that we have seen put forward by this government in this debate, the first being that working people do not want their children to go to university—a furphy—and the second being that people who go to university and then earn the extra dollars do not contribute towards the tax paying the next generation of people going to university.

The third furphy is the suggestion that Labor cut $6.6 billion out of higher education. ABC Fact Check has come out and said that the minister was wrong, incorrect; he lied. But, of course, why would we believe the ABC? They are only the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, who are here to make sure that we are held accountable!

Higher education is fundamental in this community, and access to higher education is key. It should be a goal of any government to ensure that demography is not destiny, that your background and the circumstances of your birth are not a barrier to excellent education. Which university you go to should be about your ability and not your ability to pay. It should be about your mark and your brain and not the size of your bank account or your willingness to get into debt.

The final point I will make today is about the fees and the absolute denial of this government, the denial of the members opposite, about the fees going up. When you put on the table, as you have, a 20 per cent cut in student funding, guess what happens? The fees go up. If you deregulate university fees and cut funding for those student courses, fees will go up. If we are serious about having the next generation of engineers to build the Bushmaster; the Hawkeye, if you ever sign the contract; and the next LAND 400, the tanks, if you ever get to signing that contract—if we want to have the engineers to be able to do those manufacturing contracts—we need to get the students and give the best and brightest students, not the ones who can afford to pay, the opportunity to go to university.

One-hundred-thousand-dollar degrees will occur if these reforms go through because this government is cutting funding and giving the universities at the same time the opportunity to increase fees to make up the difference from the funding that this government is cutting. If good government started this week, start by dumping this toxic reform. Listen to the crossbenchers. Listen to your community. Listen to the people working in the universities. Listen to what they are saying about the students that are enrolling. It is time that the students were put first. It is time that young Australians were put first so they are not the first generation to be saddled with generations of their own debt and not to have the opportunity to go to higher education.

Fiona Scott (Lindsay, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with much pride that I rise today to talk about these university reforms. With regard to the contribution from the previous member, I would like to point out to them that many peak bodies and many experts within the higher education sector massively support these new reforms—firstly, Universities Australia; secondly, Regional Universities Network; the Australian Technology Network; the Innovative Research Universities; TAFE Directors Australia; Council of Private Higher Education; and the Australian Council for Private Education and Training. These are some of the peak bodies in our country that are supporting these changes.

I would also like to ask the Labor Party about their good friend David Gonski. David Gonski is the Chancellor of the University of New South Wales. Maybe they do not give a 'gonski' what Gonski says anymore. On the deregulation of university fees, David Gonski told The Australian on 2 September last year:

I think that the government are correct in this and I think that there is a real chance that the deregulation of fees—rather than making universities richer and so on—that they could produce further monies from doing that to be ploughed back to make them even greater,” he said. “To improve the student experience, have higher teacher-student ratios, etc.”

Mr Gonski added that it was his hope that “if you have deregulation that is good for the industry, that it doesn’t cause undue harm to students, financially’’.

David Gonski supports this deregulation. But I stand here today as the member for Lindsay. As the member for Lindsay, I support the University of Western Sydney, the university that is within my own electorate of Western Sydney. Professor Peter Shergold has made a massive contribution and has chaired the minister's Quality, Deregulation and Information Working Group. I understand that Professor Shergold has made significant contributions in working with this group and providing assistance to the minister in the area of deregulation of higher education. He has been significant in this.

The University of Western Sydney is an innovative and robust university that works with people right across the community. The University of Western Sydney has further gone to China to work with the Beijing University of Chinese Medicine—an agreement that will bring $20 million to the people of Western Sydney. Together with the regional cities program, we are seeing massive investment into the community, where our university will be the bedrock.

Our university will be one of the most essential pillars to create jobs for the people of Western Sydney. And what do you want to do? You want to stop jobs for the people of Western Sydney. You want to stop people from getting state-of-the-art education. You do not want to see any university in the top 20 of the world. You guys are completely delusional.

Professor Barney Glover, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Western Sydney, said:

The University of Western Sydney, like the rest of Australia's higher education sector, needs certainty regarding the policy, funding and regulatory environment in which it operates. This is critical to ensuring we are able to compete internationally, but also pivotal to enabling us to help drive the development of Western Sydney, Australia's third-largest economy.

You guys want to stop this. These reforms will provide the university with the autonomy and certainty which will allow it to thrive in the marketplace.

I am also pleased to note that these reforms in the amendment will also enable the University of Western Sydney to better target their programs and courses to meet the specific needs of students in greater Western Sydney.

These are reforms to a community that lives today anywhere between a 180,000 and 220,000 job deficit. We want to see jobs in Western Sydney. We want to see smart jobs in Western Sydney. I will fight for jobs for the people of Western Sydney. That is what is important. All you guys opposite want to do is to stop this country from getting ahead. You want to stop us from being globally competitive. You want to stop our education sector from being able to get onto its feet and show that we can be a thriving sector.

We need to see our service industries move to the top of our economic charts. We want to see our education being even more exported internationally. We want to see our own local students grow up to be wonderful professionals within our community. That is what the University of Western Sydney is doing. That is what this deregulation is about. I would hope you will get your heads out of the sand and start supporting the communities you represent.

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you to the shadow minister for moving this very important MPI. Might I say what a fantastic shadow minister we have in Amanda Rishworth, the member for Kingston, who, I am very sad to say, we will not be seeing for a little while, but I am very happy to say that it is for a very joyous reason. So congratulations to the shadow minister and all the best for your leave, member for Kingston. It is going to be a wonderful time. I hope you are banking that sleep, too.

The member for Kingston has moved this MPI today because, of course, she understands the importance of defending higher education against attacks by the Liberal government. That is something the member for Kingston has been doing for quite some time. I have been giving a bit of thought the 1990s lately, because this time feels very reminiscent to me of the 1990s.

Up in Queensland, as you might have heard, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott—or you would know, of course, being a Queenslander—that we had a state election very recently, which had a very good result for the people of Queensland. It reminded me of a time in the late 1990s when we had another great result for the people of Queensland, and Labor formed government under Premier Peter Beattie, a fantastic Labor Premier. Another thing that is reminiscent of the 1990s—a less happy thing—is that Pauline Hanson has run for parliament in Queensland. You will probably remember that a lot of us were protesting Pauline Hanson in the late 1990s when she was in this place saying such terrible and divisive things in her maiden speech and in others. She has tried to stage a comeback—as though it were the 1990s again—and I am very pleased to have seen Shane Doherty reporting very recently now on Twitter that she has lost the seat by 184 votes, which can only be a good thing. I am not often pleased to see a Liberal-National Party member elected, but in this case I think we should all be pleased about that.

Another thing that is very reminiscent of the 1990s, of course—and I am sure it feels eerily familiar to the shadow minister as well—is fighting Liberal-National governments that want to make it harder for working-class and middle-class kids to get a higher education. The first time I voted was in the 1996 federal election. Unfortunately, my vote did not carry the federal election the right way, I will admit that, but I think I have been trying much harder ever since. One of the first things that then Prime Minister John Howard did when he became Prime Minister was to try and make it more difficult for working-class and middle-class kids to go to university. So we saw differential HECS arrangements, much greater HECS arrangements. People of my age were carrying much more reasonable amounts of debt after receiving a higher education degree because people of my age had the benefit of their HECS scheme introduced under Prime Minister Hawke in the 1980s. But people only a few years younger than me are paying off their higher education debts well into their 30s. If today's coalition government has its way, people will be paying off their higher education debt for their entire life. They will have lifelong debt if they choose to go to university.

Why do people go to university? The HECS scheme acknowledges that there is a private benefit to going to university. There is the benefit of job satisfaction from being able to get a job in your chosen field, if, in fact, your chosen field requires a higher education. There are plenty of ways for people to get job satisfaction that do not require a university degree. But some people want to get a university degree and they do get private satisfaction from that. And they do tend to get a higher remuneration, by and large, if they get a university degree. The beauty of our progressive income taxation system is that if people earn significantly more money than other people then they pay a higher marginal tax rate. We have this wonderful taxation system in this country where people who do obtain that private benefit make a contribution in return.

Not everyone who gets a university degree does go on to make a lot more money. Some people decide to go and work in the community sector or in the not-for-profit sector. Those people tend to already take a penalty for their decision to make a contribution of an altruistic nature to their community. The penalty that they pay is in the form of lower remuneration. For example, if you go and work for a not-for-profit organisation, you tend to get paid less than if you go and work for a for-profit organisation because of the way that not-for-profits are run. It is not an ironclad rule but, by and large, it is the case. So those people who go and get a law degree and who work, for example, for a community legal centre or those people who get a social work degree and go and work for a not-for-profit organisation already take a penalty. (Time expired)

Matt Williams (Hindmarsh, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the member for Kingston leaves the chamber, I want to add my adulation. She is one of my favourite Labor members. I do enjoy the chat on the way back on the plane with the member for Kingston. So good luck, Amanda, and all the best. Would you believe there are a couple of my other favourite Labor MPs over the other side?

Fairness has been a principle mentioned in this debate this afternoon. I want to pick up on a comment that Paul Keating, the former Labor Prime Minister, made in 1995 about fairness when talking about higher education and the necessity to pay for the benefit that we receive from education. He said:

… a 'free' higher education system is one paid for by the taxes of all, the majority of whom haven’t had the privilege of a university education. Ask yourself if you think that is a fair thing.

So often we hear the point made of the remuneration of university students, not only the benefits they receive through the investment by the taxpayer but also their personal benefit. I think that should be not lost going forward in this debate. They do receive, over the period of their life, around $1 million more than those who do not go to university, the many millions of Australians who do not have the chance to go to university.

Other Labor members have come out publicly supporting the deregulation. I can see the member for Chifley motioning 'yes'. We heard from John Dawkins and Gareth Evans. If they are making these statements, if they are supporting deregulation why are we not? I know others have made the same point. Let's go back to what John Dawkins said. He talked about the difference being small and unremarkable reform. He also said that he had to negotiate with the Democrats to make this change. It often happens when we have to make reforms that we have to negotiate with the Senate. Finally, he made the pertinent point that it is a great pity that Labor is sitting on its hands this time. He knows there are tough decisions to be made for reform for the benefit of our nation. If only we had the same vision, the same determination to improve the tertiary education system as we had many years ago with previous Labor ministers.

We also heard today of the scare campaign being destroyed by a number of institutions. The University of Western Australia said that fees for all its undergraduate degrees would be set at $16,000 a year. The University of Technology in Queensland said degrees such as science about nursing would cost just over $30,000. How different is that to the $100,000-degree scare campaign?

Let's move forward a little to what our universities are saying. We know that they want the reform. We know that this is backed by the universities. They want to manage their own operations. They want to set their own fees so they can invest in their universities, so they can invest in their research capability. They can give their universities the best opportunity be world-leading universities, to attract the students from Asia, who are now weighing up where they go more than ever. The Chinese, in particular, are weighing up whether they will come to Australia. The Singaporeans and those from Hong Kong are all weighing up their options much more than they did before because of the increasing competitiveness of universities around the world. And that is why we need these reforms, so we can improve the quality of our universities even further.

We heard the statements made by the various supporters in the education sector of the reforms. But I just wanted to reiterate a couple of the points made for the public record. We heard the peak body saying that the reforms are a once-in-a-generation opportunity to shape a higher education system that is sustainable, affordable and equitable. This is important because everyone has the chance to go to university and they will not have to pay fees back until they earn a decent wage, over $50,000. There is equity, there is fairness in this and these are the right reforms. The Minister for Education, Christopher Pyne, is doing a great job, a visionary job leading these reforms.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a week it has been. This is the opening week of the parliamentary year, and what do we have? It is declared that this week is the 'start of good government'. I know how the whips have been getting people out there: 'You must get out there and talk on higher education because we need to bolster that up. Talk about the universities; they want the money.' I understand all that. But as you guys sitting on the backbench over there know, some of those 39 who did not vote for Tony Abbott—particularly those who are sitting on a margin of five per cent or less—know that in their electorates the idea of deregulating universities certainly has not gone down too well. It is up there with the GP tax, it is up there with cuts to pensions. As a matter of fact, this is one of those things that for the Liberal Party to come out and talk about deregulation is ingrained in their DNA. But this is something that you guys cannot sell to your constituents. And do you know why? Because it is a dog of a policy. It is as simple as that.

Deregulation: just think about what this means. 'We are going to say to all those institutions out there, "You can charge what you like as long as the market can bear it. As long as a student can cough up the money to do the course, you can charge whatever you like".' Market forces for higher education: that is real smart politics, isn't it? Particularly if you believe that education, and higher education in particular, has something to do with the future prosperity of our country.

We believe that higher education and people getting a degree—it is not just that they can earn more money in due course and pay more taxes in due course, it is what they deliver for the future of this country that matters. Guys, take your eyes off that at your own peril because, as I said, your constituents understand this. Either you are impervious to what is occurring in your electorates, or you are choosing to ignore it to support your leader. You know that is true.

You know deregulation comes hand-in-hand with the cost of 20 per cent, on average, to fund higher education. In other words, you are saying you can charge what you like, but we are going to take this money, we are going to do a grab for cash, out of higher education. You are going to put the costs for education on to students. So if universities are going to charge what they like, then students have to pay it. You guys think you can put your hands in your pockets and not contribute to higher education. This is where the mentality of this policy is.

And when it comes to scholarships—I know my old university got out there and Sydney decided to say how many scholarships they wanted to offer. But what they did not go on to say is who is going to fund those scholarships. The other full-paying students will fund those scholarships. Those of you who represent electorates, or purport to represent electorates, must start understanding: it is not just policy that counts; it is necessary to give people a future. If you attack higher education, you are attacking the future of your constituents. (Time expired)

Ann Sudmalis (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very surprised by the hypocrisy that is being generated by the Labor Party in the House this day. We all know that debate is healthy. It makes us examine our directions and focuses us on resolutions. I had the naive concept that the Parliament of Australia's primary function was to make the life of everyday Australians better, to put policy in place that will take us to a strong and prosperous future. I was of the belief that every member in this House had the same motive, and, you know, I really still believe this. But when facts are twisted and distorted for political grandstanding that damage our future, I am both disappointed and disgusted. Talk about unfair.

It was unfair of Labor to leave a debt level for government that is going to take many, many, many years of spending constraint to get us back on track. It is almost as if Labor gave up winning the 2013 election and put expenditure plans in place that would blow out the debt level. Frankly, this is below the ethos of being a good Australian. When you rent a house and then move on to another one, you make sure the lawns are mowed, the bills are paid and the house is clean—at least that is what a good Australian does. It should be the same for a government, but not so Labor. Between 2011 and 2013, Labor announced cuts of $6.6 billion in higher education and research. What were they thinking? Where did the student activists go? Where were the demands to fix this? Nowhere to be seen.

There was $6.6 billion in cuts—let me just repeat that again: $6.6 billion in cuts—to universities under Labor. No lifeline, no options and guess where that leads? A reduction in our research capacity, fewer courses on offer and increasing international competition. This would mean the income so far brought in from foreign students studying in Australia would decline and, worse than that, our students would have to go overseas to get a decent degree. Labor seems to lack all economic credibility. Seriously, is this the outcome you expected, or was it just another instance of an unintended consequence? What a mess. 'Oh, well, the coalition will fix it, they always do. It's not our problem.' It is Labor's problem, and it is Labor's responsibility to work with the government to find a resolution, a pathway. This continual political grandstanding is ridiculous. Labor rips the budget up and the important tertiary education, and then falsely criticises the process of deregulation, which assists our universities to survive. There will be a number of scholarships for students—80,000 of them in fact. These are students who would not normally get to university, and kids, like kids in my seat, would finally get a chance to go to university. It is appalling that this is being blocked. They can get diplomas and other qualifications and they can still get through the system.

Now let us get down to the nitty-gritty of this matter of public importance, this slogan that Labor has made up—yes, I repeat, made up—about these $100,000 degrees. Just exactly where did that come from?

I have investigated a little and done some research and I could not find any university that has actually published a fee of $100,000. I did some material research and a local university said that the prospect of $100,000 degree would mean that they would have to increase their fees by more than 120 per cent—yes, 120 per cent. Does anyone, apart from the Labor Party, think that any university business management would even imagine such an increase? What utter rubbish.

Universities are already very competitive. They have a number of assets: the reputation of their qualifications, their employment post graduation and, you guessed it, the cost of their courses. When will Labor get real? When will they actually tell the truth? In my area I have two Labor members who are both shadow ministers and they combine together to put out press releases against a single backbencher. To me, this means they really know they are on shaky grounds and they know they caused this problem with the Labor policies in the first place.

Instead of spreading mythology, let us list the benefits: increases to tertiary education and increases to the Commonwealth Grant Scheme. HECS is not new; it has always been there. You only have to pay it back after you are earning $50,000. The first speaker today said that universities are not supportive; well they are—lots of vice-chancellors, chancellors and their administration. More importantly, these 80,000 students will have access to many forms of higher education. Let us put our students first. Let us increase their opportunities. For goodness sake, put politics aside and put our youth first.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The discussion has concluded.