Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I appreciate the opportunity to make a contribution to this second reading debate on the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill. Having listened to the opposition leader's speech and those of his colleagues to date on this bill, I am keen to make that contribution because there is a lot to correct. What is most disappointing is that we are seeing yet more of the politics of envy and division—the politics of the Rudd, Gillard and now Shorten era where we talk about the rich and the poor and no-one in between. It is frustrating to hear that every day, but even more frustrating to hear appalling scare campaigns and claims that students will not be able to afford tuition costs.

It is audacious for the opposition leader to talk about a 'debt sentence' when it comes to university education. He was at the heart of Labor-Greens decision making over the last six years, which started when the Howard government left office with big surpluses, money in the bank, a Future Fund and a Higher Education Endowment Fund. Consider what the Labor government left us. The member for Batman smiles about that. If you want to hear about a debt sentence, member for Batman, I will tell you about a debt sentence: $191 billion of achieved deficit, and $123 billion of deficit forecast in the forward estimates dead on its way to $667 billion. We borrow $1 billion every month just to pay the interest on that debt, and, if we do nothing, paying our interest rises to $3 billion every month. So you can laugh about that and think that is really funny. You can think about your leaders talking about a debt sentence. The only debt sentence we have in Australia today comes as a legacy of your government and your reckless spending over the last six years.

Like a thief in the night, Labor has made a conscious choice to steal the prosperity from future years by living unsustainably today and leaving future taxpayers to mop up the mess. There was no thought about the quality of life for taxpayers. Mr Rudd, Ms Gillard and Mr Shorten thought only of the daily media news cycle, the next announceable—let the next generation worry about the mess that they are left. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to spare us the glib lines about a 'debt sentence' when it comes to higher education, because Mr Shorten and the Labor Treasurers have bestowed an appalling debt legacy on our country.

The previous speaker, the member for Cunningham, talked about selling the higher education reforms, and that is exactly what I have been doing with my colleagues, every day reinforcing the strategic nature of the government's higher education reforms. One such occasion was on 21 August—almost a fortnight ago—at a forum which was coordinated at Launceston College in my home town. The member for Kingston, shadow assistant minister for higher education Amanda Rishworth, flew in from Adelaide and joined me on the panel. We also had Senator Peter Whish-Wilson on the panel, telling us that Greens Party policy was to give everyone free university degrees. That demonstrated once again that the Greens have dealt themselves out of the rational debate, whether it is on higher education policy or a range of other policy areas. As Group of Eight universities have recently pointed out, the total additional funding required to provide a free university education in the next 15 years would be almost $133 billion. What an irresponsible and reckless statement from Senator Peter Whish-Wilson and the Greens!

When it came time for the member for Kingston to respond, she ran the same Labor lines that she and the Leader of the Opposition ran earlier today in this debate. She claimed, as other Labor members have, that university fees would double and triple, with many above $100,000, but she provided not one skerrick of evidence. It would not have escaped the member for Kingston's attention on 21 August that the legislation at that point had not even entered the parliament and that not one university in Australia had yet set its fees. Yet, Ms Rishworth, Mr Shorten and their colleagues falsely claim to know what the fees are going to be. 'They will double and triple,' they say, but they do not present a scintilla of evidence to back up that ridiculous claim.

The Provost of the University of Tasmania also joined us on the panel that day at Launceston College. We only have one university in Tasmania, and the provost was a voice of relative reason when it came to some of these claims. On fees he said:

Any change to our fees can't be predicted at this point in time. There is no legislation, we have no details.

He went on to say:

We'll make changes that are very responsible and ones that we hope don't put you off a university career.

He was talking to the people in the audience, the year 11 and 12 students, who are being scared senseless by this mendacious claim run by this mendacious opposition. He was saying to them, 'Yes, there is scope for some fees to rise and some to fall. But the scare campaign about a doubling, tripling, quadrupling of fees is frankly malicious.' The government, by the way, is not increasing fees or telling universities what they can charge because that would be inconsistent with deregulation. What the universities charge is up to them and what students choose to pay. The member for Fraser, Labor's shadow Assistant Treasurer, has backed deregulation. He said on page 106 of his book Imagining Australia: Ideas for our future:

Australian universities (should) be free to set student fees according to the market value of their degrees. A deregulated or market-based HECS will make the student contribution system fairer …

He is absolutely right, and members opposite should look to their own shadow Assistant Treasurer when it comes to policy in this area. They should read Dr Andrew Leigh's book. It has some common sense in it. He makes the point that no rational university will price itself out of the market, otherwise it will lose students to other institutions. This is particularly the case when it is confronted by the competitive pressure of 40 universities and 140 new entrants into the system who will be providing pre-degree courses. Instead of scare campaigns, I would encourage those opposite to look at more considered analysis. The member for Fraser went on to say in his book:

Universities will have a strong incentive to compete on price and quality.

He said that any concerns about fees are 'readily alleviated.' This is a member of Labor's own frontbench. Professor Ian Young, the Vice-Chancellor of ANU, said:

The deregulation debate here has resulted in what I think are highly unlikely claims of enormous fees that will saddle students with debt for life.

Professor Scott Bowman, the Vice-Chancellor and President of Central Queensland University, said on 2 July 2014:

If premium universities now do start to lift their fees substantially, then the regional universities and UNE in particular, if it holds its prices, might find that it can compete on price and retain its student load.

These learned gentlemen and the Provost of the University of Tasmania know, as does the member for Kingston, deep in her heart, and her Labor colleagues that those universities who raise their fees too high will have no students. It fails the common-sense test that fees would double, triple or quadruple. It is a ridiculous scare campaign with no evidence behind it. The member for Kingston also stated in her speech earlier today that these higher education changes will 'abolish opportunity' and 'quarantine university only to those who can afford to pay'. She said that low-SES students will be dissuaded from doing a degree. What an appalling addition to her scare campaign.

The Provost of the University of Tasmania said to that crowd of year 11 and 12 students at our forum, 'We are not going to change what we do for students and I hope you are not discouraged from engaging with us by the present debate.' In other words, do not be scared from going to university by these mendacious claims. In fact, the provost said this to his audience about the beneficial impacts of tertiary study: 'You will be happier. You will earn more income, the vast majority of university graduates are in the top 40 per cent of income earners in the country and you'll live longer. There's a big incentive for you.' He is right.

The member for Fraser, Labor's shadow Assistant Treasurer, has written on this subject as well, stating that under a deregulated income 'there is no reason to think that it will adversely affect poorer students'. That is from Labor's own frontbench. The member for Kingston, both at the Launceston forum and in her speech in the second-reading debate, also tried to draw a parallel between our system and the US system, knowing full well that she is not comparing apples with apples. Unlike the US system, Australian students remain protected by the HECS or HELP scheme, under which no Australian student needs to pay a cent up front to go to university. That is the fact of the matter. By contrast there is no HECS in the United States.

The member for Fraser, my doctor of choice, said, 'Under HECS, every Australian, regardless of financial circumstances, can invest in a university education.' The member for Fraser is right. Students here can borrow their full share of the cost of their education through HELP and do not need to repay anything until they earn in excess of $53,345 a year, and then only at two per cent at that level of income. If they are earning below $53,345 they pay nothing. If their income dips below that level—for example, if they are working part-time or are on maternity leave—then their repayments pause until their income again exceeds the $53,345 threshold. Those opposite also know that students only pay 40 per cent of their degree, with taxpayers paying the rest, and that all these reforms ask is that the cost of a degree is shared fifty-fifty between students and taxpayers. What a remarkable gift that is from the taxpayer—particularly the 60 per cent of taxpayers who do not do a university degree and subsidise those who do.

Another prescient observation from the member for Fraser, who said on p. 103 of his book: 'Government alone cannot provide all the additional funding necessary for our universities … More money is required from all sources, including students.' Professor Ian Young, Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University has said:

Through HECS we can ensure that academic ability, not financial background, is the only barrier to university entry.

The member for Kingston and her colleagues also falsely claim that funding for higher education has been cut, yet the budget papers show that funding for higher education has increased under the Abbott government, opening up thousands of higher education opportunities for Tasmanian students. Contrary to Labor's claims, higher education funding goes up from $8.97 billion in 2013-14 to $9.465 billion in 2017-18. I am not sure how they get 'cut' from something that goes up by that amount. The budget papers also show that under Labor funding of higher education and research was cut by $6.65 billion. That is a clear example of Labor's duplicity.

So hang your head in shame, Leader of the Opposition, member for Kingston and your colleagues, because your fraud is revealed for all of Australia to see. Hang your head in shame, Senator Helen Polley, for your cruel and deceptive campaign in northern Tasmania to mislead our senior people that pensions and pensioner concessions have been cut and for your attempt to scare current and future higher education students. Pensions and pensioner concessions have not been cut. Higher education funding has not been cut. The government's Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014 will provide education opportunities for thousands more young Tasmanians through access to HELP for undergraduate, diploma and trade courses. It is time that Ms Rishworth, Senator Polley and their colleagues looked to their consciences and stopped using the vulnerable and the young as political pawns to try and score cheap political points.

The truth is that, for the first time, expansion of the HECS-HELP scheme to those doing pre-degree courses—diplomas and associate diplomas—will give opportunity to 18,000 additional students by 2018. My university, the University of Tasmania, has previously applied for hundreds of diploma places, which the government was not able to give them. This higher education reform package now makes it possible for them to have all of the diploma and other undergraduate places that they want.

I believe in the transformational power of higher education—it transformed my life. I came from a disadvantaged background. I did not start studying at university until eight years after I had entered the workforce. This higher education reform package not only spreads opportunity for students but also ensures that no Australian student is left behind and that Australia is not left behind in an increasingly significant global competition. That is why we are expanding the demand-driven system; that is why we are raising funding for universities and that is why this parliament should get behind this bill.

See this speech in context