Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Hansard source

It's an absolute pleasure to rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023 because it will enable me to clarify a few facts which tend to get lost in debates like this, and facts, in the end, are pretty important. We had one member say that no support was provided to universities during the pandemic. That is blatantly wrong. The universities came to the government, and they had one main request. That was that they would continue to get their Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding, no matter what happened to student intakes during that period of time. So we basically guaranteed universities' baseline funding. We delivered that to them in a very short period of time so they had that certainty. So any discussion or any debate that, because we didn't provide JobKeeper, universities then went and sacked members of their staff is just wrong. We guaranteed their baseload funding to them. Not only that, we went one step further. Because international students couldn't come into this country, we said to the universities: 'We're going to provide you with a one-off payment of funding for research.' That one-off payment of funding for research was $1 billion. It was the largest injection of research funding that has ever been provided to the university sector in its history. This idea that they weren't funded is a complete and utter nonsense. I can go even further and say: look at the universities' financial records as they came out of the pandemic—look at the analysis done by the Australian Financial Review. It clearly shows that their balance sheets came out incredibly healthy. Let's get that fact on the table to start with.

The other fact I'd like to address, and it's one which comes to this bill, is the reason we put in place a rule around students failing. This rule was put in place to stop universities churning students through units and courses that they were failing and racking up large HECS debts. The government needs to be honest about what they're doing. The universities did not like being held to account in this regard. The previous speaker mentioned a student might have a death in the family, or an illness, or something like that. We put in place very clear guidelines and exemptions that those students would be exempt from this rule. But what this was about was stopping universities—and they do it to those from low socioeconomic environments and they do it to Indigenous students. They don't put the wraparound services and protections in place so that those students pass their courses. What happens is that those students just continue on and they rack up a HECS debt and fail. So we put this pass rule in place. We were saying clearly to universities, 'You will not be able to continue to charge HECS to these students because they're failing.' What they need to do is bring these students in and say, 'Is this course appropriate for you?' Or, 'We are going to provide the services for you to make sure you do pass.' That wasn't happening. What you're doing by taking this rule out is you're going to make sure you see that happening again. This was about holding universities to account. It wasn't about the students. It was about making sure that the universities look after students properly, and look after Indigenous students from rural and regional areas. It's making sure that they are not put in the wrong courses, do a whole course, fail it and then end up with a HECS debt and nothing to show for it.

So I would say to the government, 'Think long and hard about what you're doing here.' Why do universities not like this pass rule? Because it holds them to account. It's the first time we are holding them to account, and you want to take that away. Do you know who will suffer? It's the students. It's the students from the low socioeconomic backgrounds, it's the students from rural and regional Australia, it's the Indigenous students from rural and regional Australia. To show why that was what we had in mind, it was students from rural and regional Australia and Indigenous students from rural and regional Australia that we gave additional support to at that time and put more money into the sector to support those students. We want them to succeed. Because if you look at the problem with the higher education system—and it's a problem which just isn't alone for the higher education system—the further you are from the capital city, the less the likelihood or chances that you will go to university, or that if you go you will succeed. What the government is doing—and it always does it—is becoming city-centric again. Who's going to suffer the most? It will be those students from rural and regional areas, those low socioeconomic students, and those Indigenous students from rural and remote Australia. What you are doing is acting at the behest of the universities to disadvantage students even more. It is bad policy. The one area where we were actually able to get universities to be held to account, you are now taking away, and they will benefit as a result of it. It is very, very bad policy.

The one thing that concerns me—and I commend the shadow minister for education—is that, with all the assumptions that this change is based on, it sounds like there has been no proper, thorough research done into it at all. As the shadow minister's amendment shows, it all seems to be based on, literally, pressure from universities, rather than doing the research, getting the data and making changes based on the facts. I would say to the government: have a look at it over a period of time. Get your facts right. Make the universities put the wraparound support in place for these students, rather than taking away the one thing which holds them to account on this.

I would also ask the government to look at the impact that the previous government's record investment in the regions has had on participation by rural and regional students, and rural and regional Indigenous students, in accessing higher education and staying longer in education. Have a look at how our regional university centres have worked. Have a look at where the model is working well and where it could be improved, and make sure you look to focus your investment on those regional university centres. Make sure that the provision of higher education is spread out right across this nation. We also have to make sure that, on the fringes of our big capital cities, the universities that are providing for low-socioeconomic students are getting the opportunities that they need, as well.

It is equally important that they look at how students get the choice between vocational education and higher education. The countries that best provide the skills for their companies and businesses, small and large, are ones which get the balance right between vocational education and higher education. One of the things that I really worry about with this new government is that the focus seems to be entirely on getting more and more people into higher education. If you look at the countries that do education well, they get the balance right between vocational education and higher education.

One of the things that we did—and I would hope this government would continue to do it—is build the esteem and investment in vocational education in this nation. That is going to require working collaboratively and cooperatively with the states. We also need to say to the states, when it comes to vocational education, 'You have to lift your game.' We're not seeing the pride in and emphasis on vocational education that we see when it comes to higher education. I would say to the education minister: please do not lose sight, through your university accord—or what there is of it—of the importance of vocational education. If we are truly to provide our country with the skills that it needs for the future, then vocational education is a critical component of it. One of my frustrations, as education minister, was seeing how we could get better interaction and engagement from the states when it came to the provision of vocational education, and providing proper vocational education in the areas where we have skills shortages.

This is one of our nation's great challenges. The previous minister, Michaelia Cash, embarked on a pathway to really improve that aspect of our higher education sector but, unfortunately, the course we were taking continued to run up against resistance from state governments. Now my worry is that the new government will not be putting the emphasis that's needed on vocational education to make sure that we do have those skills that we need going forward as a nation.

In summary, I would ask the government, once again, to seriously think about what they're doing with the change they're making to this pass rule. It was been hard fought to get it through the Senate. It was hard fought because it holds the universities to account, to make sure that they're providing the extra, additional tuition, wraparound services and support that's required for students to make sure they pass their courses. It was designed and built to ensure that students don't do a full degree and fail it, and have a huge HECS debt and nothing to show for it apart from a HECS debt which they would take years to repay. The people who are impacted by this churn are those who are the most vulnerable: rural and regional students, Indigenous students from rural and regional areas and low-socioeconomic students. Look at the legislation that was put through, because it was well thought through. There are exemptions there for when there might be a death in the family, or where there might be an illness. This was about holding the universities to account; it wasn't about trying to do something which would disadvantage students. What you are doing is again setting those students up to fail, and to not have the universities held to account for those failures.

I will finish on this note: any talk about our previous government not investing in universities, especially during the pandemic, is a complete and utter nonsense. We did the one thing that the universities asked for, and that was to underwrite their Commonwealth grants schemes. The second thing we did was to provide the largest one-off payment of research funding that this nation has ever seen. Those over there don't like it. A $1 billion dollar one-off payment in research funding was provided. Rather than welcoming it and saying 'well done', they just won't register that that's what we did, and it shows you how ideologically blind they are in everything they do.

Debate adjourned.

Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.

See this speech in context