House debates

Wednesday, 2 November 2011

Bills

Higher Education Support Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011; Second Reading

12:12 pm

Photo of Jane PrenticeJane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. It amazes me that the Treasurer actually has the arrogance to claim that this tax is a government saving when he knows that it comes directly from students' pockets. It is yet another cash grab.

Further, as part of the bill we are debating today, we see this government making yet another grab and clawing back yet another financial incentive through the halving of up-front discounts. The system for students to pay for their university education is pretty good in Australia—by no means perfect, but it does allow us a considerable decrease in up-front costs to students through course fees. Don't get me wrong: going to university is still a very expensive exercise. However, the arrangement that allows students to pay back their fees once they are working, rather than up front, has resulted in a major increase in tertiary participation rates and enabled many more students to gain a degree when they otherwise may not have been able to.

However, this system does cause a strain. It takes many resources to provide tertiary education and, whilst increased participation is indeed a wonderful outcome, it does come at a cost. Strained resources will see a decrease in quality, and that is the last thing we want for our universities and students. This is why encouraging those who cannot afford to pay their fees up front relieves strain—it provides another source of funding. So today, as a result of this government's ongoing mismanagement of our nation's resources, it now needs to grab cash wherever it can.

This bill reduces the up-front payment discount from 20 per cent to 10 per cent and halves the reduction for voluntary payments in excess of the minimum requirement. Under the current system, 17 per cent of students pay their fees up front, yet under questioning during estimates the government admitted they expected this would halve under the change proposed today.

Education is life-changing, and Australia needs a strong foundation for our universities. Funding plays an essential role in providing that foundation, so I truly hope that the government makes expenditure on this program a genuine exception to their track record of financial mismanagement by keeping within their proposed budget. Having passed the buck on university funding to yet another review—this one conducted by Dr Jane Lomax-Smith—the government will have no excuse if it does in fact return to its track record of poor and reckless financial management.

I am proud of the calibre of Australian universities and the opportunity for our young Australians to access tertiary education. The move to a demand-driven system could be hugely beneficial to both. But if it is not delivered well, if it is delivered in the same way as other mismanaged government projects—as their track record shows with budget blowouts and reckless spending—then there is a high probability that the changes will fail. As Professor Paul Greenfield, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Queensland and Chair of the Group of Eight Universities has highlighted, the focus on participation statistics is laudable but not enough. Such a commendable concern for social equity must be framed in the international sphere where the focus is on quality. A false step with this bill today regarding funding of the changes that have already occurred in the system threatens that quality. I implore the government to ensure that this time they do not drop the ball. This time they need to get it right.

Comments

No comments