Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Hansard source

Here we are again with this Higher Education and Research Reform Bill. It is just as bad as the first one—the Minister for Education has brought it back to the House after it was thoroughly defeated by the Senate. I am speaking against this bill because it continues to be unfair to students and prospective students looking to study at university, and it is bad policy for our country. It also creates uncertainty for many in our community, whether they be universities or students, and it is just an ideological frolic of the Minister for Education. It is not just an ideological frolic and unfair—it is a broken promise. The minister and the Prime Minister said that the current arrangements for university funding would not change. They said that before the election and indeed even after the election. The minister went on television saying that there would be no increases in HECS fees. Well, this bill clearly shows a broken promise. But it is more than that: this bill is a monument to the failures of this government.

The first bill was ill conceived, with virtually no consultation, and was dumped on the Australian public on budget night. It was incredibly flawed. But this new policy is equally flawed. Of course, we have those on the other side—39 of them, to be precise—that will say it was merely a victim of poor salesmanship from the minister and the Prime Minister. But we know that it is much deeper than that, that the policy is flawed, not the salesperson. With the government at Christmas time so desperate to try and have a win, they spent $15 million of taxpayers' money to spruik a reform package that had just been defeated in the Senate. It had been rejected by the Australian people and rejected by the Senate, but we saw the desperation of this government, spending $15 million trying to convince the Australian people that this was not what they thought it was, that it was not bad policy; it was good public policy.

This bill in its current form is, as was the former legislation, unfair and very poor policy for Australia. The Labor Party could see this first up. That is why we have been continuing to campaign against these unfair changes. The Senate saw this legislation was unfair, rejecting it, and the Australian people saw it: like many on this side of the House and, I am sure, on the other side of the House, I had many, many people—constituents, families, people in the electorate—talking to me about how unfair this legislation was.

The minister would have us believe that the government has compromised, that this is a new package. But the bill before us today does a number of things that really punish those seeking to have an education, to obtain a university degree. But it also punishes the community in Australia and it punishes universities. This bill slashes the funding for Commonwealth supported places in undergraduate degrees by 20 per cent and, in some instances, up to 37 per cent. It cuts $1.9 billion out of our universities, but it also provides the opportunity for universities to move that cost onto students, which will lead—as we have seen—to $100,000 degrees for undergraduate students. We have seen $171 million worth of cuts to equity programs supporting our brightest who may not have the opportunity to go to university—support needed so that they can achieve their dream—$200 million worth of cuts to indexation of grant programs, $170 million worth of cuts to research training, fees for PhD students for the first time ever in this country's history and $80 million worth of cuts to the Australian Research Council. We can see that this bill is no different. Tinkering around the edges does not change it. The substance is still there. This package is still grossly unfair. It is as flawed as the one that was defeated in December. No amount of weasel words from the Minister for Education can change that.

The bill has already been defeated once. The minister would have you believe that it was just a fear campaign that spoiled his moment in the House in December. But what the Minister for Education refuses to acknowledge is that the defeat of the first bill was the will of the Australian people. Countless phone calls, emails and letters to Labor members and senators have been coming in thick and fast. Australians right across the country have voiced their fundamental opposition to $100,000 degrees. The Australian community have already assessed these reforms and found them wanting.

Labor has led the fight against this unfair package, not as a fear campaign but because the legislation will punish and deter everyday Australians from disadvantaged backgrounds, from middle-class backgrounds—those that have the smarts but do not have the money to obtain a university degree—not to mention those coming from migrant communities and mature age individuals who would seek to improve their lot in life by getting a university degree. Labor will fight these unfair reforms, and our fight has continued over the summer. This time, in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, I hope that those on the other side will see the light and get rid of these unfair reforms.

The bill, much like its predecessor, if passed will slash the funding of Commonwealth supported places by 20 per cent and, as I have said, in some instances by a lot more. This cut automatically puts universities on the back foot and forces them to charge students the difference between what they are getting paid and what they would be getting paid after the cut that will be made by the government. This will be just to break even. And, once universities have been deregulated, the increase in fees will be a lot more. Far from giving universities greater freedom and flexibility, this cut of 20 per cent condemns universities to make up the difference, slugging students for the same cost of a degree.

Once universities are deregulated, then they will be free to set their own price, and the financial pressure on students and families right across the country will automatically prevent many from ever obtaining a university education. The Minister for Education remains on the fence about whether the 20 per cent cut is in or out. Well, it is in this bill before the House tonight. It is an appalling cut to our universities and will have a big impact on students. Our universities and our students deserve better than this. The minister needs to stop using this cruel and unusual cut as a bargaining chip in his war on Australian university students and clarify once and for all whether this cut is in.

But we have seen a cut in funding not just to the undergraduate funding but also to the postgraduate funding. The cut to the money that universities get to support PhD students is also an appalling attack on the research capability of this country. We know that PhD students do not get a huge amount of income, but they contribute considerably to our economic and scientific capability. They provide input to our intellectual capacity as a nation. This cut to students, which leads to universities charging PhD students for the first time to do their degree, is very poor public policy indeed. We know that students under this package will face not only increasing undergraduate costs but PhD costs. What incentive will there be for students to take a career in academia or research? We will become a poorer nation, not a smarter nation, if this bill is supported.

Deregulation remains the central plank of this bill. The deregulation of university fees, allowing universities to charge undergraduate students what they want, is still at the core of this bill and still at the core of the unfairness of this bill. We only need to look as far as the United Kingdom or the United States of America. If we take the United States of America, national student debt has now reached $1.3 trillion. This is evidence of the devastating result of fee deregulation. That debt hangs around the neck of those students, preventing students in the United States of America from getting capital to start a new business, to raise a family or to buy a house. This is not the type of system that we want here in Australia.

The experience in the UK also demonstrates that this is fundamentally flawed. A report from Britain's Higher Education Commission, Too good to fail: the financial sustainability of higher education in England,warned that the deregulation system introduced there in 2012 'represents the worst of both worlds, where all parties feel they are getting a bad deal' and where the government is effectively funding universities to write off student debt rather than investing directly in teaching grants. Is that the sort of system we want here in Australia? We have a proud history of education in Australia with a well-performing system, but of course the government wants to continue to take us down the ideological path that has been proven, time and time again, not to deliver for the country.

Another major stumbling block for the government in pushing through their deregulation agenda is the level of debt expected to never be repaid, or doubtful debt. As noted in the evidence to the Senate Standing Committees on Education and Employment, Professor Bruce Chapman of the ANU lamented:

The problem, as I see it, is that doubtful debt is a cost to the taxpayer but the universities are essentially controlling what that cost is going to be because the doubtful debt is a direct function of the loans that are outstanding and if the universities control what those fees are then that they will ultimately be controlling the levers that determine what that doubtful debt is and what the taxpayers pay. It is akin to a blank cheque being handed from the government to the universities on the matter of doubtful debt.

These sentiments were echoed by Professor Chapman's colleague, Dr Timothy Higgins, when he added that doubtful debt 'will go through the roof'.

So, quite frankly, this legislation not only is unfair and not only is a broken promise but also is bad policy when it comes to government debt. As highlighted in the UK Higher Education Commission report Regulating higher education,there are serious concerns in the UK around the effect that deregulation has had on global reputation and quality standards in United Kingdom universities. The report goes on to call on the UK government to prioritise legislation to provide students with greater financial protections and to secure the UK's international reputation for excellence in higher education. Clearly, this is the evidence that the government is working on. The evidence is starting to show the concerns around deregulation and the problems with deregulation. Instead, here in Australia we have a government that continues to pursue an ideological path that is not in the interests of our universities, not in the interests of our students and not in the interests of the Australian taxpayer.

We know what the government can be like at times when they cannot get their legislation through. We have seen the Prime Minister often not listening to the Australian people. Not listening to his backbench and not listening to the Australian people got him in the trouble that he saw himself in today. We have seen that, when it comes to higher education, the government will threaten to get their changes. We were reminded in The Australian today that the government is prepared to axe research programs supporting 30,000 scientists and employing 1,500 staff as retribution if this package fails to get through the parliament. If that is not threatening behaviour to our universities, I am not sure what is.

The National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy is a government funded program designed to foster collaboration between the research sector and industry. Described as the backbone of research by Universities Australia, Labor stands appalled by the minister's short-sighted tactic of holding Australia's research sector to ransom in pursuit of his ideological agenda. It is no secret that these programs are structurally unrelated to the government's proposed higher education changes, with any cut to research as a result of the blocked package of this bill being nothing more than retribution and payback. It is a desperate attempt by the Prime Minister and indeed the minister in their desire to get a win. We understand they need a win on the board and we understand they need something to hang their hat on, but it should not be at the cost of students, universities and the betterment of this country in terms of our research capability.

In stark contrast to the government's plan that will see the Americanisation of our universities and will condemn students to $100,000 degrees, Labor has a very strong record on higher education, and I think it speaks for itself. I will highlight a number of positive achievements. Under the former Labor government, total budgeted funding for teaching, research and student support at universities was increased by around 100 per cent from 2007 through to 2017—a doubling of university funding in 10 years. Had this funding model gone unchanged the Commonwealth investment in universities would have been $17 billion a year by 2017. This is a good investment in our future. Under Labor, investment in universities rose from $8 billion in $2007 to $14 billion in 2013. Despite the fiction peddled by those opposite, Labor saw a real student funding increase by 12.4 per cent between 2007 and 2012, while at the same time the numbers of students increased by about 190,000.

Labor is also committed to the proper indexation of university funds to clean up the Howard government's neglect of the university sector. Had we kept the Howard government's funding model as we found it, universities today would be worse off to the tune of $3 billion. Labor has much to be proud of when it comes to higher education. There are 750,000 students at Australian universities today, with one in every four of them there as a result of the hard work of the former Labor government. As I said, we put 190,000 more students into university. We boosted Indigenous student numbers by 26 per cent. We boosted regional student numbers by 30 per cent. We helped 36,000 extra students from low-income families into university when compared to the 2007 figures.

Labor wants to build up Australia's higher education sector, and this government wants to tear it down. I echo the sentiments of the Leader of the Opposition by saying to the Minister for Education that if this government is so committed to improving our universities, reverse the cuts already implemented, scrap this legislation and seek a mandate from the Australian people.

Of course, as I said previously, the government is quite desperate to get a win, and this minister, in response to his legislation being defeated in the parliament, has undertaken a confected attempt to try to con the Australian people into accepting his package. Never before, I think, has a government wasted $15 million of taxpayer money to sell reforms that have just been defeated by the parliament. This is a flagrant disrespect for public spending and flies in the face not only of the electorate who, in fact, have footed the bill for the minister's advertising blitz, but also contradicts the Short-Term Interim Guidelines on Information and Advertising Campaigns. Senator Carr has raised this issue very publicly.

I think it is prudent to remind this place and all those who may listen to this debate of the government's solemn pledge on public spending in the lead-up to the last election. It was the Prime Minister who, on 25 August 2013, pledged with his hand on his heart:

We know that you expect us to be as frugal and prudent with your money, which we hold on trust from you, as you would be with your own hard-earned savings.

What the Prime Minister failed to mention is that this government reserves the right to run a campaign of deceit and misdirection at the taxpayers' expense, and should the public dare to disagree with any of it then the government just introduces new legislation.

So embarrassed was the minister of his advertising blitz that he went to ground, blaming Senator Madigan, of all people, for the campaign's very existence. It was not until Senator Carr had written to the Secretary of the Department of Finance, the Secretary of the Department of Education and, finally, the Auditor-General that the truth behind the government's reckless addiction to spending was finally revealed. Yet when Senator Carr asked about the planned advertising campaign in last year's Senate estimates he was met with an evasive answer and sideways glances from the representing minister. Perhaps the Minister for Education needs to stop covering up his intent to run an expensive, incorrect advertising program and to stop wasting millions of dollars of taxpayers' money.

We all know that there has been a second round of advertising budgeted for, and it will likely be upon us once this bill reaches the other place. I would say to the Prime Minister, to the minister and to the government: stop treating the Australian people like mugs. Stop pretending that you know better and that you have the wisdom of all knowledge, and stop spending taxpayers' money on actually misleading the Australian people. The Australian people are smarter than that, and will be able to call you out. No amount of taxpayer funded advertising can ever make this unfair bill palatable to the public or to this parliament. No amount of advertising can erase the fact that this bill is a broken promise; a promise not only made before the election but a promise actually made after the election. Not only is this campaign a waste of public money but is actually based entirely on misinformation.

As Senator Carr pointed out in his letter to the Auditor-General, the government's claim within the higher education advertisements that the Australian government will continue to pay for half the cost of undergraduate degrees for students fails on all accounts: it is neither accurate nor verifiable, and it attempts to mislead recipients of the advertising.

As the minister continues to claim that under his reform package the government will cover 50 per cent of tuition fees for university students, we are actually starting to see the evidence come in that this is completely false and completely untrue. Under the 2016 fee schedule for the University of Western Australia, students in some cases will be forced to pay around 90 per cent of the cost of their degree. The University of Western Australia have introduced an annual student fee of $16,000 from 2016 onward in anticipation of the successful passage of this legislation through the parliament.

The price hike applies to all of the university's Commonwealth supported places for undergraduate studies encompassing arts, commerce, design and science. But given that the Commonwealth only contributes $1,805 a year for a commerce degree under the government's five-tiered system, the University of Western Australia students will be forced to meet 89.96 per cent of the cost of their degree. Similarly, arts students will be forced to meet 72.66 per cent of the total cost of their degree. This is an increase of 160 per cent, while the University of Western Australia's science degrees will skyrocket by 80 per cent.

The minister has described such fee increases as 'modest'. That shows just how out touch they truly are. But, of course, it also shows that their advertising campaign was a lie. It was a lie and it misled the Australian people. We believe strongly that, first of all, the government should not use taxpayers' money to advertise a campaign for legislation that had failed in the Senate and also that it should not mislead the Australian people. The Australian people will hold them to account.

But it doesn't end there. The Queensland University of Technology have also released their fee structure for 2016. Analysis of these figures reveal that business students at the Queensland University of Technology will be charged 88 per cent of the cost of their degree as a result of the government's changes. Eighty-eight per cent is a long way from the minister's ongoing denial that students will only be making a contribution of 50 per cent of their degree. From these figures, it is easy to infer that other universities across Australia will introduce similar fee structures and then compete on their price signals in attracting the brightest minds to their campuses. Plainly, it is a blatant falsehood for the minister to waste nearly $15 million of public money peddling deceit and untruths.

Labor stand by our belief that these changes will lead to $100,000 degrees and the evidence is in that this will be a reality. It will lead to the brain drain from our regions and will condemn everyday Australians from lower socioeconomic backgrounds from even attaining a university education.

The minister must today apologise to the public for this blatant waste of taxpayers' money, and pledge to abandon any further higher education advertising campaigns.

The government's Americanisation of our university system will—

Mr Tudge interjecting—

I will take the interjection from the member across the table. Of course, one of the things he has failed to recognise is that his government pursued an advertising campaign after a piece of legislation was defeated. It was defeated. It had been voted down by this parliament and the bright sparks over there said: 'I know how we will get our legislation through the parliament. We will start advertising it. We will spend taxpayers' money on advertising it after it has been defeated.' I would say to the minister: go back to the book, have a look at the short-term interim guidelines, maybe re-read them and maybe get someone to have a look at them for you, and you will see that it blatantly contradicts the guidelines.

I will get on to the substance of the bill. The government's Americanisation of our university system will have a significant impact on the shortages of doctors in our region. I have spoken many times in this place about the impact of these higher education changes, but I would like to bring some new evidence that has recently been published. According to the Medical Journal of Australia,the deregulation of Australia's university system will exacerbate the ongoing doctor shortage in rural areas and will in fact funnel more and more students into metropolitan universities opting to undertake medical specialisation.

Of course specialisation is necessary and important, but just as necessary is the need for general practitioners in Australia's regional hubs, small towns and remote townships. Should the government successfully pass this unfair package of reforms, regional universities, students and communities will suffer. Never mind the minister's afterthought of a structural adjustment package for regional universities—this in itself will not help universities actually meet the demands that they will face and we will continue to see them flounder.

It is widely accepted that students who attend university in the regions are more likely to stay in the regions to work and raise a family following their studies. Given the massive potential in Australia's regions—from mining, agriculture, viticulture, construction, engineering and social and medical services—it is astounding that the government is prepared to walk away from this potential through their deregulation arrangements that will affect regional universities.

We have a world-class system of universities here. Despite what the minister will peddle about us having a mediocre university system, we do not. We have an exceptionally good system—one that is getting better and better. It is time that the minister actually stood up for our universities. It is time that the minister stopped cutting money out of the system. It is time the minister stood up for students and actually recognised that students and those looking to study are the economic powerhouse. They are our intellectual infrastructure of the future and instead of punishing them, deterring them and ensuring that the public good that our universities and our undergraduate and postgraduate students make to this country is talked down, the minister should start talking it up.

Of course we have seen the mea culpa from the Prime Minister, and it is time that we heard a mea culpa from the Prime Minister and the minister that they will ensure that this legislation does not go ahead, that they will not Americanise our higher education system, that they will not bring in $100,000 degrees, that they will not cut money out of our universities and that they will not cut the important research dollars that go to our universities to develop the technologies and the ideas of the future. Anything less will show that this Prime Minister has not listened to the Australian people, has not listened to his backbench, and that he should be very worried for the future.

See this speech in context