Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (University College London) Bill 2010, which will enable the university to operate as an education provider in Australia for the first time, to be located in my home town of Adelaide. The amendment in this bill will allow the university to offer an industry focused master’s degree to students in the much-needed area of energy and resources by inserting the university into table C of providers within the Higher Education Support Act.

The coalition welcomes University College London to Australia. We are a party of choice and diversity, and we have long argued that diversity among institutions gives students greater opportunity, encourages innovation and increases competition and excellence. Just as Australia is establishing branches, campuses and collaborations in other countries, foreign countries are also looking to expand their investment and their markets overseas. University College London joins a growing list of foreign universities to establish branches within Australia. Students will be able to enrol in a range of programs to address areas of skills shortages identified by industry and government. Through its partnerships with energy company Santos, the university will offer the exciting opportunity for students to undertake world-class learning.

University College London is a very high-quality research institution and education provider. It ranked third in the UK and seventh globally in the Times Higher Education rankings in 2009, and it has had several Nobel Prize winners. UCL has a distinguished history. Founded in 1826, it was the first institution in the United Kingdom to offer access to students regardless of their religious beliefs and the first to welcome both men and women equally. It is no surprise, then, that in 1888, at the age of 19, Mohandas Gandhi attended UCL to study law and train as a barrister. He was just one in a long list of notable alumni to attend UCL.

It is worth remembering and reminding the House that it was the coalition government who first paved the way for overseas higher education providers to operate in Australia. It was a coalition government that first amended the legislation to enable the table C provision for approved overseas higher education institutions. It arose from a proposal by Carnegie Mellon University to establish an Australian campus in 2004, also in Adelaide. The Carnegie Mellon proposal was to offer postgraduate courses in information technology, public administration and business management in Adelaide, and we faced criticism at the time. Some were concerned that opening up the market to private providers would undercut public universities. My colleagues at that time Alexander Downer, Brendan Nelson and Julie Bishop pressed on, and in 2005 the act was amended to provide the framework for all approved overseas higher education institutions to operate a branch in Australia. Subsequently Carnegie Mellon was able to open its first offerings in Adelaide in 2006.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education and Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Dr Stone interjecting

Pat Farmer (Macarthur, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Farmer interjecting

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, I note the keen interest of my colleagues in the coalition in this speech that I am giving to the House today. Both of the members on my side of the House are quite gripped by the speech that I am giving on UCL!

Indeed, without the coalition’s ambitious goal of opening up the market to private higher education providers—enabled through the key policy instrument for reviving diversity, FEE-HELP—I do not believe such initiatives as the one brought before the House today would be possible. While on the subject of FEE-HELP providers, I want to point out to the House yet again that until recently this used to be a varied group with both public and private institutions being able to offer full-fee-paying places for Australian students. The relaxing of caps on both Commonwealth supported places and domestic full-fee-paying places under the coalition government gave universities much more scope than had previously existed to set the mix of courses they offered. We also saw the value in opening up the education market to private providers such as small, locally operated colleges to provide some immediate competition to public universities, and we knew that opening the door for international providers would also contribute to diversity in the sector and drive healthy competition.

Sadly, Labor shackled the public education sector last year by abolishing fee-paying places for Australian students despite promising an ‘education revolution’. It is outrageous that, despite overseas students being entitled to study as full-fee-paying students, Australian students do not enjoy the same privilege. We have argued ever since this decision was taken that the minister’s and the Labor Party’s ideological abolition of full-fee-paying places for domestic students should be reversed. Recommendation 35 of the government’s own Bradley review stated that full-fee-paying places should be reinstated for all university providers, because it seems that, like the Coalition and the sector, everyone except the minister knows that full-fee-paying places actually allow more students to attend university overall. The extra funds from full fees pay for extra places for publicly funded students.

We are already seeing the consequences of this decision, with the recent spike in demand and reports that some universities are unable to accommodate that demand with the government supported places only. It is rank hypocrisy that today the minister welcomes University College London onto Australian shores, knowing that they will be offering Australian students full-fee-paying places while our public universities have had their hands tied.

It is critical that Australia not remain insular within this international environment. Unlike Labor, who talk big, only the coalition truly understands that universities need flexibility over student places. This joins a long list of policy failures in the education portfolio, including the youth allowance fiasco, which the government has finally decided to deal with this week after leaving students hanging since last year. The mismanagement of these legislative changes has been breathtakingly bad. First, the minister abolished Commonwealth scholarships despite the warnings of the coalition that, without having an alternative in place, students might be left with nothing. Second, the minister has made no effort to negotiate with me, as education spokesman, to attempt to address the coalition’s concerns. Third, the minister has come into this place and berated the coalition, claiming it is all our fault and refusing to accept any responsibility when the truth is that this is entirely a mess of her own making.

The coalition does not control the legislative agenda. We did not make the decision to abolish Commonwealth scholarships without having what everyone knew would be a contentious piece of legislation in place. We have offered to consider splitting the scholarships to ensure students have funds to start this year—an offer the government continue to ignore. The coalition is standing up for our constituents, who are truly concerned about these changes; and, while some of the neediest students have had to put their university ambitions on hold, the government refuses to budge. In fact, the member for Farrer, who is in the chamber, would know exactly the response of her constituents to the government’s changes to youth allowance and their failure to split the scholarships from the youth allowance.

I challenge the minister to answer this question: where is a rural student meant to find the 30 hours a week of work for 18 months to qualify for the independent rate of youth allowance under Labor’s changes? I am sure the minister has flown over a few country towns. Where is the work for these young people? The coalition is committed to the development of a robust, high-quality higher education sector that is internationally competitive. We believe this underpins Australia’s cultural, social and economic development.

As we know, higher education is becoming increasingly competitive in a global context. Australian universities, to remain competitive globally, need to be exposed to different forms of educational methods if they are to remain internationally relevant and not get left behind. The entry of foreign universities such as Carnegie Mellon University, Cranfield University and the University College London will support Australian universities in comparing their methods and specialties with other institutions that are well regarded internationally. It is worth mentioning here that for a university to establish itself here in Australia it needs to meet the same accreditation, quality and accountability requirements that exist for our own higher education providers. It is important to note that Australian universities are not deprived of any funding by doing this. The introduction of not only this university but also, hopefully, more foreign universities in the future will increase diversity and choice within the Australian higher education sector.

Some still ask us why we support the introduction of foreign universities into Australia. It is because it will make Australia more competitive and increase our standing in the global higher education marketplace. We hope Australia continues to be seen as open and receptive to different educational pathways, including the establishment of branch campuses of foreign universities. It will elevate the international standing and attractiveness of our country as a preferred choice education destination and it will attract students from around the world who are seeking a high-quality education experience in a safe and unique environment through either an Australian provider, of which we have many, or an internationally recognised university. With those words I commend the bill to the House.

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is again a privilege to rise and speak on another higher education bill brought to this place by the Rudd government. I have spoken on almost all of the higher education bills in the first term of the Rudd government because I have a particular interest in higher education and our higher education system. My interest, of course, stems from a range of reasons. Firstly, I am interested in contributing to what the Rudd government is doing, and this is one of the great reforms that we are introducing. The Rudd government is setting the higher education sector up for challenges of the future. Therein lies the second reason for my own interest. Deakin University is one of the key institutions within my region. It brings high-tech, knowledge based industries to our region. The third reason is my personal interest in the higher education sector, particularly through my time at the University of Ballarat. I am very pleased today to be able to speak and put my efforts into supporting some great Labor reforms.

The Higher Education Support Amendment (University College London) Bill 2010 provides for an amendment to the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to add the University College London as a table C provider which can offer assistance to eligible domestic students through the Commonwealth’s FEE-HELP assistance scheme. It is anticipated that this bill will commence on 1 September 2010. In order not to disadvantage any existing students wishing to seek FEE-HELP assistance for units of study they undertake with the University College London during semester 1 of 2010, this bill has a retrospective provision that commences from 1 January 2010.

This comes as a result of a request from the institution itself. In 2009 the University College London made a request to the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations to be included as a table C provider. I think this application by the college is a big tick for our higher education system. It shows that some of the world’s best and most regarded higher education institutions want to be integrated into the Australian system. The University College London is, of course, ranked fourth in the 2009 UK tables of higher education, which I think is a fantastic contribution that they have made.

Quite a lot of work has been undertaken by the department to sort through the issues of quality assurance. The University College London has worked with the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations to make sure that they meet the same quality and accountability requirements that private higher education providers in Australia are required to meet. The University College London will continue to be required to meet the quality and accountability requirements and will be audited by the Australian Universities Quality Agency every five years, in compliance with the act.

This is a pretty straightforward bill. There is nothing particularly controversial in it. I will not, therefore, take up my full allotment of time. But I would like to take this opportunity, as we are discussing a bill of this nature, to mention that there is going to be further internationalisation of higher education institutions, and I think that is fantastic for Australia. This is particularly important in light of recent episodes which have captured state, national and international headlines with regard to the Indian student situation.

International commerce and student education is now big business in our region, in Australia and across many countries of the world. I believe the overseas students who come to our shores add significantly to the richness of our culture as well as to our local economies. In the Greater Geelong area, we have thousands of students who come to study at Deakin University, which now has a growing international reputation. About 25 per cent of the 32,000 students who study at Deakin come from overseas. Many of these people come to Geelong to study, and many of them stay on afterwards. This adds significantly to our culture, but it also adds significantly to our communities—for instance, by contributing in many ways to sporting clubs.

Our region and Australia have some wonderful opportunities in developing a massive export industry by marketing the quality of our higher education system to the rest of the world. This is one of the great industries of Australia, and it has really grown up over the last 30 years. We have a great higher education system that has real quality to it, and it is contributing to the international debate on quality in education. We also have qualities in Australia that enable us to be world leaders with respect to international education, particularly in terms of our wonderful landscapes and communities. Our education providers paint Australia in a fantastic way to many international communities, and I continue to support Deakin University and others in developing a fantastic export product, which not only builds our economies but also builds our role internationally. This bill is just a small piece in Labor’s reform agenda for higher education. I commend the bill to the House.

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a small piece of legislation but it is for a good purpose, and it has the support of the opposition. It is an opportunity for me to address a number of issues related to education—as other speakers have done. An interesting aspect of the Higher Education Support Amendment (University College London) Bill 2010 is its retrospectivity, which accommodates any students who wish to commence in the first semester, taking account of the fact that the legislation may not have completely passed all processes in that time. It is not often I find myself voting for a piece of retrospective legislation, certainly not in the area of taxation, but this is a positive move and should be recommended. As the minister said in his second reading speech, this legislation provides eligibility for FEE-HELP for students attending University College London as a type C provider. FEE-HELP assists eligible domestic students studying for all higher education courses, ranging from diploma to PhD by providing a loan for all or part of their tuition costs. That has been welcomed by students to help them get through these processes.

It is also interesting that University College London is a non-profit organisation established under UK law and has been approved to operate as a higher education provider in Australia by the South Australian government under the National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes. There is a point in there that is part of a culture I have never been able to understand—that is, the reference to ‘non-profit organisation’. I have never been able to see why, if a profit based education entity is giving a high standard of service and charging fees for the purpose, there should be a difference in the entitlement of a student to receive the support that this parliament provides. I know that there were times when our side of politics would have liked to have addressed that anomaly, but it has always been opposed vigorously by the Labor Party. There is this hang-up somewhere that, if a body is ‘for profit’, it offers a lesser service or in some other way is not to be trusted. Nevertheless, it is a minor issue and not really managed under this piece of legislation.

The member for Corangamite informs the House that this new university in the legislation before us is highly rated in the United Kingdom. I am delighted to see that the first enrolments will probably be for a Master of Science in energy and resources. To my mind this qualification is to be applauded, as we have seen a decline in enrolments in this type of tougher university course. It is one that Australia so desperately needs to carry us forward. It is very discouraging to read that the LNG plant for the major Gorgon gas project will primarily be designed overseas. Chevron, the promoters of that scheme, said in the newspaper that the capacity to do the work just does not exist in Australia, yet it would of course represent a very substantial amount of additional economic activity for the country.

We are constantly lectured about the government’s attempts to improve the training and skills of Australians. I do not disagree with that, but I am somewhat bemused by the constant lecturing about how much money the government are spending. Today, in a different circumstance, the minister proudly said that they had resolved the 10 hot spots, but the minister could not tell us one of them. It seems to be the case that the Minister for Education measures excellence by expenditure. There seems to be this argument that if you chuck enough money at it, it must get better. The only evidence of it getting better would be in the number of graduates in higher levels of learning, as is proposed with the University College London. They are very welcome to set the bar so high with their first intake.

It is a matter of grave concern to us, because they are always telling us how much money they have spent, be it in health—an area of grave concern to you, Mr Deputy Speaker Washer—or in other areas, but we so infrequently get the numbers. There was a claim that 8,000 nurses would be attracted back from retirement by giving them more money and that that was a good idea. I understand that the number who have taken up the offer is only in the hundreds. Yet, we are still told about all money and therefore it must be a successful arrangement. This legislation in itself is to be applauded. It resolves some outstanding issues with the creation of the University College London as an eligible entity for FEE-HELP by categorising it as a class C operation.

As I said earlier, there are issues that I have an opportunity to raise in this regard. A very significant area of concern for me I believe I had addressed some years ago during the Howard government with then Minister David Kemp—an issue about which I am rightfully proud given my long career in this place. I approached him in the knowledge that there was to be another issuance of fee-paid places for our universities and I asked whether a number of places, which turned out to be 30, could be allocated to Geraldton in my electorate. There was nothing in Geraldton; no facility whatsoever for university courses. One of the great advantages that flowed from the Kemp decision was that a large number of mature-age, married women became nurses. Quite clearly, 300 miles away from the nearest university, there was little chance of them saying to their husband and young children, ‘I want to go out and become a nurse. There will be a positive outcome for the health system, but I am going to leave home and go and live in Perth to do the course.’ Obviously, they could not do that. I was so proud that the first group of graduates were almost all in that category. So a service and a positive outcome were provided.

The issue I want to address is that then Minister David Kemp said, ‘Yep, Geraldton has 30 places.’ But the universities involved had to go and chase them. They had to service the places. As they committed themselves, a $3 million building was constructed and everything progressed from there, as I described with regard to the first group of graduates. As a consequence, then Minister Kemp looked at other areas—and I think the regional campuses in Ballarat and Bendigo might have been included—and he made some positive geographic allocations. Remember—and I stand corrected only on the figure—that when governments have made allocations to major universities, there is an obligation to distribute 15 per cent to so-called regional campuses. But they had to choose where. At the time, Rockingham, virtually a suburb of Perth in this day and age, was considered regional. If you are running around the place keeping an eye on your campuses, where do you send the money? Do you send it up to Geraldton, 300 miles north of Perth, or do you send it off just around the corner?

I believe fundamentally that there should be, by decision of the department, the minister and government, a continuing allocation of these places on the basis of geography. Whether it slipped away under Howard or under this government, I am not sure, but I have not been able to see evidence of ministerial decisions in this regard. Let me give the example which is enraging me at the moment. As you would know, Deputy Speaker Washer, two iconic campuses in Western Australia were the Muresk Agricultural College and the Kalgoorlie School of Mines, with the latter probably having the higher level of importance. As the university system changed they became the property of Curtin University, which was originally the Western Australian Institute of Technology. It is not surprising that they picked up those sorts of hands-on academic activities.

The reality is that Curtin has now decided that they do not want Muresk and they want to move those people onto the Bentley Campus in the metropolitan area. That has gone to a virtually irretrievable position. Now I am getting rumours as the new representative of Kalgoorlie that they are up to their old tricks there. Their vice-chancellor has this economic drive on—and why you would pay people a bit extra to live and teach in Kalgoorlie? Let us not worry about the fact that it is the ultimate mining centre where you can go into deep mines and into the biggest open pit, I think, in the world. You can see all the processes of mining—not only gold but also nickel down the road and other developments in the region.

My one attitude to life has always been that, unless you have got hands-on experience, you have not learnt much at school, whatever level of schooling is involved. So why would anyone want to relocate the teaching processes of mining out of what is probably the mining centre of Australia, notwithstanding the others that exist? I have made a preliminary approach to our shadow minister for the coalition to promise the people of Kalgoorlie that upon election we will guarantee tertiary training in mining to Kalgoorlie. I would like to think that a similar consideration would be given to Muresk.

If Curtin University does not like it then let one of the other universities take it on. That is what happened in Geraldton, when two or three of them went rushing up there—and, of course, 30 becomes 60 and 60 becomes 90 in the normal process of events in a three- or four-year course. In the end I think they then took a backwards step and aggregated the responsibility under one or two of the universities in Perth. If the University College London wants to take over those places in Kalgoorlie, in the absence of a willing Western Australian or Australian university, that is alright with me provided the economic activity and the appropriate teaching environment is retained for Kalgoorlie. As I said, I am not talking about some bright new idea; the precedent was established by Minister Kemp in the circumstances I have described.

When we talk about fees and new university organisations, here is an opportunity for the government to beat the opposition to the point and tell the workers and all those people interested in mining throughout Western Australia, ‘We are going to ensure that the Kalgoorlie School of Mines is retained as a campus in Kalgoorlie by the allocation of fee-paying places to that locality’. This is what occurred in Geraldton and I am aware that a similar allocation at that time was given to the existing places in Albany, another part of my electorate. I am sure that when the announcements came out later the minister had taken that view about a number of regional campuses and made sure they got their fair share and did not leave it to the vice-chancellor moguls, whom the Minister for Education was quoting again today—and I want to make a few comments about that with regard to the Youth Allowance and the university scholarships.

I find it outrageous—and I will write to them individually—that a group of vice-chancellors put the profit of their organisations ahead of the rights of the kids in my electorate, some of whom sometimes have wealthy families, but those families bet their entire wealth on one crop each year. They bet against the weather, they bet against the prices and they bet against the pests. Yes, on paper they might appear to have some money, but to fully fund their kids’ university education away from home is beyond their resources. One has to be very careful about means testing.

I might say—as I have made a couple of comments on health—that we were being lectured today about rich people receiving a subsidy for their private health cover. Of course, the argument is that they will still stay in the process. I can tell this House positively that I know of a prime minister, on a prime minister’s salary, who did not have private health insurance. It was Paul Keating. He boasted about it, so I am not telling any secrets about him. Nevertheless, when his wife had a gall bladder operation she had a private room at Calvary and a doctor of choice—which only goes to prove that if you are big enough you do not need private health cover. But everybody who does not have private health who goes into a public hospital, —as they do—shoulders aside the ones who have no muscle: the pensioners and others whom the public hospital system should take as their priority.

Years and years ago I was at a conference of doctors and I listened to a leading administrator from New Zealand who said, ‘Waiting lists are a part of the management of the public hospital system’ and then went on to complain about the administration of waiting lists and the abuse—and I think this might have come up in the public arena just the other day—with some people being pushed up the queue because they have a friendly member of parliament or because they know someone.

I want to take the last couple of minutes to come back to the issue of the rights of country kids to have the protection of the Howard government’s youth allowance system. It was fair, it allowed them to go out and earn money within their notified period—the gap year—and then attend university with the protection and the assistance of youth allowance in the following year. As the shadow minister has just said, the concept of any person in my electorate—with the exception of the very large centres—getting employment at 30 hours a week continuously for 18 months is impossible. It is just like Julia Gillard writing to those kids and saying, ‘We don’t want you in university.’ Furthermore, if there is an issue of means testing, why not just put that in the legislation? And if it is an issue of finding the money—(Time expired)

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in reply—I thank the members for Sturt, Corangamite and O’Connor for their contributions to this debate on the Higher Education Support Amendment (University College London) Bill 2010. This bill makes a minor amendment to the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to list University College London as a table C provider, which will allow it to offer FEE-HELP to eligible domestic students. The government wants to see more Australians, regardless of their socioeconomic status, attending higher education institutions. FEE-HELP assists students with the cost of undertaking courses of study with providers who charge full fees, thus playing a vital role in increasing the number of Australians who are able to enter into higher education.

The addition of University College London to table C of the Higher Education Support Act will increase the number of providers who can offer FEE-HELP as well as increasing course choices for students. University College London is a university based in the United Kingdom and, in 2009, it was ranked fourth in the world in the UK Times university world rankings. Its desire to be listed, along with Carnegie Mellon University of the United States, as a table C provider in Australia reflects the high quality of Australian higher education. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.