David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to bring to the attention of the House a few basic issues that seem to have been lost in the rhetoric. First of all, I would like to talk about why this legislation, the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014, is being brought in and what is different from its previous iteration—namely, what amendments have been put in place because of discussions with the university sector and with members in the other house. But I would just like to start to point out the hypocrisy of some of the members opposite and their scaremongering about fees.

Members on the other side talk about a place where university fees were in some utopian age where the government paid 100 per cent of student fees. I would just like to bring to the attention of the House that that is not the reality, and it has not been since 1989. We are changing things because the university and research sector is calling for these changes. The reality is that, since HECS was introduced in 1989, we have gone through a period where there have been vast numbers of students entering tertiary education who were not there before. Back in the mid seventies and eighties, there were much lower numbers of students at university, and the government did fund all the fees, but now we have a different system altogether. We have a demand driven system which has meant that hundreds of thousands more students are in tertiary education, and the growth of those numbers far outstrips the available funding.

As the head of the AT Network, which educates 150,000 students, says, universities have been in slow decline in funding since 1989. They have had their base funding cut away in a thousand little cuts, but I might just remind the House that, in 2012-13, members of the other side, when they were in government, had the audacity to cut $6.6 billion out of tertiary education and move it over into the Gonski initiatives. So it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, yet again.

Secondly, the universities, almost in unison, want deregulation, as they see that their slow decline in funding is going to result in quality receding and their specialisation and their abilities being hidden in a very competitive market. The higher education market generates about $17 billion for the Australian economy, and it is hypercompetitive. Universities are growing in the subcontinent of India and in Asia, in Korea and Japan—all over the place. For us to maintain our quality product, the universities are saying, 'Please deregulate us,' with certain caveats: with deregulation and competition, diversity and subspecialisation of universities, rather than enrolling droves of people in undergraduate degrees that do not lead to quality or to employment as a secondary phenomenon—which is what we will continue to be. We are trying to fix that situation.

Many amendments were argued for last year, and with this bill we can see five key amendments that address the issues that the higher education sector, members of the Senate and the crossbenches argued for. The new legislation changes the interest fee back to the CPI rather than the bond rate. There is an interest rate pause for people's HECS debts if they are carers of children under the age of five, so when they are child-rearing at home and not working, their debt is not growing.

The legislation introduces a structural adjustment fund, particularly for regional universities, to cover the costs of transition and provide time to adjust to the new way the market would work. There is also going to be a dedicated scholarship fund for those particular universities, some of them in the regions, with high numbers of low-SES students. This dedicated fund will be in addition to the Commonwealth scholarship scheme that will be administered by the universities.

We have responded to criticism about the possibility of domestic fees matching the international fees, by stating in the legislation that domestic fees must be lower than international fees. To strengthen that, the ACCC will monitor university fees.

After a review concluded that the demand-driven system has given opportunities to hundreds of thousands of people who would not have gone to university under a system with a fixed number of students at university, the aim of this legislation is for the demand-driven system to continue. To fund increasing numbers of students in this demand-driven system, an initiative is to expand Commonwealth assistance to students doing diploma courses, advanced diplomas and associate degrees. We estimate that that will be 48,000 students a year and cost $371 million. Expanding Commonwealth funding to bachelor degrees at the non-university higher education providers will deliver assistance to another 35,000 students. That will cost $449 million. We are spreading the opportunity even wider from what it has been with the demand-driven system. How liberating is that? Those 80,000 students that were going to receive no help from the Commonwealth government will now get the opportunity to share in the benefits of Commonwealth-assisted higher education.

As I mentioned, the dedicated low-SES fund will be in addition to the Commonwealth scholarships that will be set up by the universities. Twenty per cent of the fees that they charge will have to be rolled into Commonwealth scholarships. We are also removing loan fees, which are quite considerable. That was a 25 per cent fee for FEE-HELP loans. There was a 20 per cent fee on VET FEE-HELP loans—and they are being removed. That will help a lot of people in that education demographic doing VET training courses. There will be alternative pathways to higher education through diploma, advanced diploma and associate degrees.

This legislation will also deliver certain funding for the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy. That will be 100 new research scholarships—PhDs; $26 million for research on dementia; $42 million for research on tropical diseases; and $24 million for the Antarctic Gateway Partnership. All of those will be funded with certainty. I must say the previous government left things in limbo there too. More students at university will be the reality. I know people on the other side, in their arguments, referred to $100,000 degrees and made all sorts of outrageous claims. But if you look at the actual peak bodies of the universities—whether it is the RUN group, Universities Australia, the Group of Eight, the TAFE directors or the Australian council of private education providers—they are all in support of the deregulation as long as we put these amendments in—and they have been included. So much for the $100,000 degrees!

The University of Western Australia has announced that the average cost will be $16,000 per year. Their most expensive degree, a 5½-year degree doing business law: $74,000 to $75,000—and that is for a 5½-year degree. Some of the other fees quoted from the council of private education providers are nursing from $11,000 to $14,000 per year and education degrees at $10,000 per year.

Sydney University is looking at expanding their Commonwealth scholarships sevenfold from less than 1,000. That is a vast increase in the number of scholarships available at a major metropolitan university. If you multiply that around the country—in Adelaide, Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne—a lot of students that would have received no assistance will be eligible for these Commonwealth scholarships.

There are a lot of sensible adjustments that have been incorporated in this legislation. As I mentioned, the critical thing for people to realise is the universities are encouraging us to go ahead with this deregulation. We have a huge industry which is and was suffering from a slow drain long before this current government was responsible for administering education. It is a competitive world. The previous ALP government stripped $6.6 billion out of universities. This is a lifeline that the universities want. There will be many more students able to access Commonwealth help. All the lies and scaremongering have to be called out for what they are.

See this speech in context