Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Service Economy, Small Business and Independent Contractors) Share this | Hansard source

The minister asked if it was 2.05 per cent. That figure is reflected in the Intergenerational report, but, if you have a look at the latest productivity growth figures, the series that is now available, it is 2.6 per cent per annum—that is, labour productivity growth over the period. So there is a big comedown from 2.6 per cent to 1.75 per cent. The problem is it is falling further; it is at about one per cent per annum. So Work Choices has not produced the sort of productivity growth that the government predicted it would.

Why is higher education, university education, so important? It is worth reading two books by Richard Florida; the first is The Rise of the Creative Class and the second is The Flight of the Creative Class. Richard Florida estimates that the creative class around the world consists of about 150 million people in areas such as science and engineering, and in professions such as artists, musicians, architects, managers and professionals—these are overwhelmingly university educated people. It is his contention—and I find it very persuasive—that it will be the ability to generate, attract and retain the creative people which will determine the prosperity and tolerance of different parts of world, not necessarily of countries but of regions or parts of countries. Those areas or parts of countries that are able to attract and retain such creative people will be affluent and tolerant; those that are unsuccessful will fall behind. I think that is a very sensible set of observations and predictions about the future.

In terms of Australia’s capacity and performance in nurturing creative people and retaining creative people in this country, there are some very chilling statistics. The OECD, in the report Education at a glance, reveals that since 1995 Australian government investment in tertiary education has gone backwards in real terms by seven per cent, whereas for the rest of the OECD it has gone forward by 48 per cent.

I note in parliament that the present education minister complained about the OECD statistics. I do not think you can have it both ways: we have the Treasurer, the education minister and the Prime Minister coming into parliament citing the OECD all the time, but when the OECD develops a set of statistics that the minister does not like she complains about it.

This government has greatly underinvested in higher education. One of the problems is the increases in HECS that have been implemented by this government. There was a first-round increase in HECS in 1997 and a very substantial increase in HECS of 25 per cent authorised from the beginning of 2005. Many universities immediately increased their HECS fees in 2005; others hoped that they would not have to do it, but all universities, I am advised, have now increased their HECS fees by the full 25 per cent.

In the education revolution, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for education have already foreshadowed areas where we believe that some HECS relief will be required. One of the effects of HECS has been that there has been virtually no growth since the change of government back in 1996 in the number of commencing undergraduate Australian students. When the minister talks about undergraduate students she brings foreign full fee paying students into the calculation. But when it comes to Australian HECS subsidised students there has been virtually no growth. The problem that that results in is that we are not doing well in generating the sort of creative talent that we need.

The minister says, ‘Because it’s a HECS system, the HECS fee increases will not have deterred anyone.’ That is not true. That is like saying, ‘If I double, treble or quadruple HECS, as many young people will still go to university.’ That is not the case. The minister has boasted that she has just about squashed out all of the unmet demand. It is like the price of bananas: you put up the price of bananas by enough and you will squash out the unmet demand. But the objective is to get young people through a university education in this country. This government is failing to do it. At least today, in that part of the bill, there are some positive indications. I think the principles of greater flexibility for our public universities are very encouraging and ought to be at least properly debated in the Senate. (Time expired)

See this speech in context