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 Bill (No. 2) 2011. This bill updates the maximum public funds allocated to fund Commonwealth supported places as a result of projected increases in enrolments of Commonwealth supported students in Australian universities. It also provides for an increase in funding in line with indexation, adds an additional year of funding for the 2015 calendar year and implements changes announced in the 2011-12 budget to the discounts applicable when students either pay their HECS upfront or repay their fees early.

The Bradley review of Australian higher education, which was released in December 2008, outlined a blueprint for restructuring the higher education sector. Among the key recommendations was an aspirational goal of 40 per cent of Australians between the ages of 25 and 34 holding at least a bachelor's degree by 2020. The government, in response, pushed this date out to 2025. The coalition has always supported this aspiration in principle.

The main thrust of the Bradley recommendation for our Australian higher education system was that it move away from a restricted supply to a student demand driven system. At the time, Commonwealth supported places were capped by the Higher Education Support Act 2003, preventing the approximately 220,000 additional students that will be required annually to fulfil the Bradley target from gaining a Commonwealth supported place.

A related piece of legislation, the Higher Education Support Amendment (Demand Driven Funding System and Other Measures) Act 2011, which received royal assent recently, removed those restrictions for most Commonwealth places from 1 January 2012. So essentially, once this bill passes, further funding will be provided for these additional students by adding an extra year of funding for the 2015 calendar year.

The coalition does not oppose this bill, but I will in this debate simply make some points and take this opportunity to mention a few of our increasing concerns about the direction that higher education is taking in Australia under this government. The most important is Labor's lack of planning and longer term vision for the future with respect to higher education.

The major Bradley review reforms, including the commitment to increase university participation to 40 per cent of all 25- to 34-year-olds by 2025, are of course worthy, but these initiatives will not pay for themselves. Most of us understand that if universities absorb 20 per cent more students than they currently teach then they will have to increase staff to teach those students and they will need to expand fiscal infrastructure to accommodate extra students. The 2011-12 federal budget was a fizzer for higher education. It failed to show any evidence that the government is taking the challenges facing the higher education sector seriously. The coalition, on the other hand, has taken a very keen interest in precisely what research or projections are being undertaken to understand the impact of this enormous increase in student numbers over the next two decades.

The Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations, Senator Chris Evans, has been unable to advise, or even answer, what the estimated cost in future years of funding university places to achieve the government's targets will be. Worse still, he has not even bothered to commission any work on this by his department or any associated agency or consultant. Neither has he been able to provide any evidence that the government is seriously examining the potential impact of a better educated population on increasing the standard of living, the tax base, productivity and economic growth, or the impact on innovation and research. And what about quantifying the range of potential benefits to our communities and the broader economy flowing from an increase in the number of Australians with a tertiary education? The answer is that the minister has done precisely nothing. It was revealed at Senate committee hearings in June that the government has not commissioned any work on any of these questions.

Equally disappointing is that there has been no attempt to get any indication of the demographic or economic impact of implementing these reforms in each of the states and territories or of what the government's reform might mean for regional communities. A lack of careful planning is characteristic of this government's approach to the so-called 'education revolution'. Yet the government is proceeding, despite having no real grasp of what taxpayers may ultimately be required to contribute to this huge expansion of the higher education sector.

Taxpayers quite rightly have cause to be alarmed. They are concerned not only about reform in higher education but about reform in education more broadly. Take, just as one example, Labor's implementation of the national curriculum. The coalition has pointed out again and again that the whole curriculum process is likely to fall over unless some funding is specifically quarantined to support teachers with the rollout of the national curriculum. The government does not seem to understand that ultimately the development of the curriculum documents is only one component of the curriculum process and that in order for a new curriculum to be delivered effectively it must go hand in hand with a clear implementation process that considers the long-term consequences of national reform.

As an aside, Madam Deputy Speaker, I make the point that the same mistakes were made with the rollout of laptop for students, the Computers in Schools program, where a billion dollars was allocated for that program simply to buy hardware for students and it has now blown out to $2.4 billion. And some schools, particularly in Queensland, are now charging parents for the use of the laptop computers for their children. This was supposed to be a free program of laptops for students in schools. In South Australia, Western Australia, Victoria and Tasmania there are examples of schools charging parents for the use of the laptop computers. In Queensland it seems to have simply become state government policy to allow students to be charged for the free laptop computers. The government, in the guise of the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, the member for Kingsford Smith, changed the guidelines last December, in the dead of night, so that state governments could charge for what was supposed to be a free program. But I digress, Madam Deputy Speaker; thank you for giving me the opportunity without interruption to do so.

The government was forced to the negotiation table over the national curriculum and announced on 14 October at the Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs meeting that $38 million would finally be provided for the professional development of principals as part of the government's National Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality. Yet for the last two years the government has not even been prepared to acknowledge there was an issue. Governments are obligated to fully consider their policy outcomes, including unintended ones, but there is nothing to suggest this government has considered the full effects of the Bradley reforms for higher education. There is no evidence that the Gillard government is taking any interest at all in the long-term planning connected with the implementation of it.

There is one more issue I wish to flag before I conclude. It relates to the reduction in the discount to students that pay their HECS-HELP upfront—that is, the measure which will apply from 1 January 2012 that upfront discount on students paying their fees reduces from 20 per cent to 10 per cent and the reduction for voluntary payments in excess of the minimum falls from 10 per cent to five per cent. This measure clearly penalises those students who pay their HECS debt upfront or early and provides a disincentive for many not to do so in the future.

The coalition notes that the reduction in the discount is expected to save $479.5 million over four years. Yet under further questioning, the government has conceded that it expects only half of the 17 per cent of estimated students who currently pay their fees upfront will continue to do so after this change. So even that figure cannot be relied upon.

I know that members on this side of the House find it disappointing that the government's own figures show that billions of dollars of HECS debts are considered to be at risk of never being repaid; yet the government are doing nothing about it. Instead of doing more to chase up these unpaid debts—which run into billions of dollars—the Gillard government have opted to penalise the students who pay their debt fully, promptly and upfront. It is an extraordinary inversion of logic. This is yet another example of how this government simply cannot get their priorities right in higher education, and when they do act in higher education, as they have over the discount, they get it fundamentally wrong.

I do hope that after the passage of this bill the government will start to listen to concerns of providers in the uni and higher education sector. It is simply incomprehensible, given that Australian government expenditure on higher education as a proportion of GDP is around 0.58 per cent, why they are not making any sort of projections or forecasts in relation to the impact of the Bradley reforms or why this work is not being made a priority. Even though we are concerned about the direction the government are taking in higher education, this is a step in the direction of implementing the Bradley reforms and the coalition does support most of the suggestions and recommendations made by Professor Bradley. On that basis, we do intend to support the bill. I commend most of the aspects of the bill to the House.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the Higher Education Support Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011. I would hate to hear what the member for Sturt had to say about a bill he actually opposed, if that is his fulsome support for this legislation.

I will deal with a few aspects of this bill and then I will deal with what we are doing in terms of higher education and education generally, to address the nonsense that the member for Sturt has perpetrated upon this place today. I will also deal with the consequences of what we know is the coalition's policy with respect to education. The member for Sturt and the shadow minister were given such latitude to wax lyrical in terms of the rubbish he was spewing out today.

This legislation deals with amendments to implement the 2001-12 budget measures and also update maximum payments paid to provide for increases in enrolments in Commonwealth supported places and of course indexation. There are three aspects to the bill. The first is what the member for Sturt referred to—that is, the bill provides for a reduction in the HECS-HELP discount applied to upfront student contribution payments of $500 or more from 20 per cent to 10 per cent.

The second aspect deals with an increase in funding for the overenrolment of Commonwealth supported places that has occurred in 2011—an increase in funding is not a budget measure. The overenrolment in placements is allowed for under the cap on funding for places over agreed targets. The cap on overenrolment was raised from five to 10 per cent in funding terms for 2010-11 as part of the introduction of the recommendation of the Bradley review in respect of demand driven funding systems for higher education from 2012. From 2012 the cap on funding for undergraduate Commonwealth supported places will be removed for public universities and that will have some implications with respect to funding. Funding will be based on student demand and that will make what will probably be the most significant change to higher education in this country for a very long time. I think it will open up the system and allow more young people, mature people and older people the opportunity to go to university as well.

The final aspect of this bill deals with Commonwealth supported places at overseas campuses. It gets rid of the ambiguity in the current legislation about its application to Australian citizens at overseas campuses of Australian higher education providers. It clarifies that Australian citizens will only have access to HECS-HELP FEE-HELP and VET FEE-HELP schemes when they are enrolled on Australian campuses of an Australian provider.

The coalition really have nothing to be proud of when it comes to their record on higher education when they were in office. With respect to their performance, their funding for higher education was $8 billion in 2007. Their enrolments were about 400,000 university places around the country in 2008—20 per cent fewer than will be the case in 2012. Our funding will increase from the measly $8 billion that the coalition put in the scheme to $13 billion by 2012. Enrolments next year will rise to over half a million places, and that is giving people opportunity to achieve their full potential, exercise their skills, talents and ability and go to university.

Many people in my electorate are going to university for the first time. Some people had parents who did not go to high school, and the idea of going to university was fanciful under a coalition government. It was the opening up of the higher education system by the Whitlam Labor government in the 1970s that gave so many people in this place and elsewhere the opportunity to go to university. This government is also massively expanding our funding in this regard.

When it comes to education, the coalition have nothing to be proud of. Their idea of supporting education was to support flagpoles and Simpson and the donkey—that was their idea. When it came to funding, we massively almost doubled the increase in funding education in this country. The member for Sturt spoke about what the coalition were going to do in their criticism of us. Paul Bongiorno on Meet the Press on 14 August 2011 asked the member for Sturt a question in relation to education:

To be clear, you'll look for savings in your portfolio of education?

The member for Sturt responded:

Well, we need to have savings across the budget—

making the claim, once again, that they would do that. At the last election we did not hear a whisper on this from the member for Sturt. The coalition went to the last election proposing to gut education in this country to the tune of $2.8 billion. But they were forced to reveal their true intentions. Their idea in the higher education sector was to put in protocols and arrangements that linked funding to the imposition of Work Choices. They said, 'We will fund you and, if you don't put in place AWAs in the higher education sector, we will effectively decrease your funding.' If you ask the University of Queensland or the University of Southern Queensland in South-East Queensland, they will tell you that is the case. It was in their legislation and we abolished it when we got into power because it was unfair. We want to have a university sector that is demand driven by people aspiring to achieve their potential and go to university. The coalition want to have a university system motivated by the imposition of Work Choices, which is not what this country needs, and a class based attack on the university sector—a sector they are never comfortable about—as shown through their speeches in this place on voluntary student unionism.

The member for Sturt spoke about what the government had done wrong, but he failed to outline the cuts that he would make, whether it was in trade training centres, the Digital Education Revolution where he was so critical of us, the BER or national partnerships for low socioeconomic school communities et cetera. None of that was referred to. There was criticism of us, but there was nothing about what the coalition would do. I think they would go back to the education aspirations of the previous Howard coalition government, which is to impose Work Choices and link that to funding, once again.

The legislation we are debating here today is to implement a demand driven funding system for undergraduate university places. It is extremely important in fast-growing areas across South-East Queensland and places like Brisbane and Ipswich where we have so many young people aspiring to go to university. The Director of the University of Southern Queensland, Doug Fraser, has told me that they are well and truly hitting their Bradley targets. Pro-Vice-Chancellor Alan Rix of the University of Queensland's Ipswich campus has also talked about the need for a demand based funding system. I am confident there is local support from universities in my electorate for what we are doing with respect to higher education funding.

The demand driven system for undergraduate university places was passed by the parliament on 14 September 2011. We are providing additional funds, $3.97 billion over six years from 2010, for the demand driven funding system that the Bradley review recommends. There is an additional $1.2 billion in the 2011-12 budget. That was not mentioned by the member for Sturt. I would like to see just how much the coalition would put in if they were on the Treasury benches. We know they will impose funding cuts, because he belled the cat in his discussion with Paul Bongiorno on 14 August 2011 and said that they would be looking for savings in the sector. The government have taken the view that we need to increase funding in the sector. The 2011-12 budget increased the regional loading for universities by $109.9 million over four years.

We heard ridiculous campaigns in relation to youth allowance by those opposite, who have not faced reality and have not faced the fact that many more young people now get access to youth allowance as a result of the changes. We abolished the inner regional university against remote university student situations, which was a silly distinction. There is a lot of money for higher education in this budget and this legislation deals with aspects of the budget and budget funding.

The student learning entitlement, which restricted students to seven years of Commonwealth support for university study, will be abolished from 1 January 2012. That change is to get rid of university red tape and make it easier for students to navigate the system. It will also make it clear that, if students want to go to university, they will be able to get there. Students at Australian universities will have better access to quality services when they go back to campuses next year as a result of our student services amendment bill, which we hope will be through the Senate this week. Of course, this is all part of our package with respect to improving higher education across the country. Those opposite oppose what we have done in this regard. In fact, they posed and preened and uttered platitudes about their terrible days at university in relation to our attempts to make sure that students at university could get access to sporting and recreational activities, employment advice, legal aid, child care, financial advice and food services. As I said, these arrangements will take place from 1 January next year.

For the first time we are enshrining the promotion and protection of free intellectual inquiry in learning, research and teaching through amendments to the Higher Education Support Act. Those opposite, in their complete and utter denial of reality with respect to good public policy, oppose these types of arrangements as well. They thought that the promotion and protection of free intellectual inquiry in learning was not a worthy and noble thing to aspire to and protect. They thought that we were engaged in a left-wing Marxist protection of university type arrangements across the sector. Universities and other eligible higher education providers in receipt of funding will now have a policy that actually upholds free intellectual inquiry. It is important that we also have established the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, which I spoke on just a very short time ago. That will basically amalgamate the work done by nine agencies into one central agency and provide national consistency and efficiency in registration and quality assurance.

I have talked to rebut what the member for Sturt has said in this place today; I have talked in relation to the bill; and I have also talked in relation to what we are doing. This bill is important because it provides funding and it gets rid of an ambiguity. It also makes it plain that our demand driven system is something that we are very keen on. We are very keen to implement the Bradley reforms, because we believe that every child, regardless of whether they are born in the Torres Strait or in Tasmania, or in Palm Beach or in Perth, should be able to aspire to university and should have the opportunity to advance to provide financial security for themselves and their families. We believe that that distinguishes us from those opposite. If there is one pillar in the Labor Party that we strongly believe in it is the belief in equality of opportunity. University placement, a demand driven system and legislation such as the bill we are debating today, give us that opportunity. I commend the legislation to the House. I think it is important reform and it is part of a whole matrix of reform that this government is committed to, making sure that young people across the length and breadth of this country can get the chance to participate in our economy and community to the fullest extent they aspire.

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (No. 2) Bill 2011. As the member for Blair said, the bill makes a number of important changes to university funding. Firstly, it increases the maximum public funds allocated to Commonwealth-supported university places to account for the projected increase in the number of Commonwealth supported students. This bill is one of several that come on the back of the Bradley review of Australia's higher education system. A key recommendation of that review was adopting an aspirational goal to have 40 per cent of Australians aged 25 to 34 holding a minimum of a bachelor's degree by 2020. This is an ambition that will see around 220,000 additional students each year. Naturally that is going to require an increase in the funding for Commonwealth supported places, and this bill allows for that.

This increase in the number of university students is intended to come about as a result of the government's move to a demand driven higher education system. I have spoken about this change with Dr Stephen Weller from James Cook University in Townsville. He spoke positively of this shift in focus, pointing out that regional universities such as James Cook University have always had to compete for students, and this will encourage the same level of competition among all universities. That can only be a positive thing.

This bill also allows for university funding to increase in line with indexation, extends the act to cover funding for the year 2015, and halves the discounts given to students who pay their HECS upfront or make voluntary repayments. While I do not oppose this bill, I do have concerns about this last provision to reduce the discounts offered for paying HECS off upfront. The government has stated that this is a budgetary savings measure. While I recognise the need to tighten the belt and increase the amount of HECS actually being repaid, especially given the expansion in the overall level of funding, it is disappointing to see the way that this government has chosen to achieve this.

The HECS-HELP system provides students with a fantastic opportunity. It opens up the benefits of tertiary education to anyone who wants to put in the hard work and effort. But the government should be doing its best to recoup this money from those who can afford to pay it back as quickly as possible, and to do this an adequate incentive needs to be provided to students. Many students and graduates are at a time in their lives when they have other financial aspirations, such as buying a car or a house—or just simply getting on with life and not living on a student's wage anymore. Paying off their university debt has to compete with these. Halving the discount for upfront payments dramatically diminishes the incentive to make this a priority.

The government is well aware of this. It has acknowledged that the proportion of students paying their HECS upfront will halve as a result, creating a longer period of time for the recouping of HECS costs and opening the system up to a greater level of doubtful debt. While I support the fact that there is no obligation to pay back HECS when earning a below-average income, this creates a lot of debt that is never paid back. There is less risk of this becoming a problem when students and graduates are strongly encouraged to make voluntary payments when they can afford to. Any business—and let's face it, universities these days are a business, and the government is a business by extension—will know that to get cash in now is better than having your cash flow stymied over a long period of time. While I have mentioned business, this government could and should do all it can to improve its balance sheet, and giving people incentive would ensure that the overall position of the government would be enhanced by early payment of fees—even at a discounted rate.

Another concern I have is that effectively increasing the cost of university for those who pay their HECS ahead of time could potentially reduce the number of students. Of particular concern to me is the impact that may have or could have on James Cook University in Townsville. James Cook University is a source of immense pride for the Townsville community. With the recent visit of the Queen it is a good time to remind the chamber that James Cook University is the only university in Australia that she has personally granted royal assent to, and it has become the foundation of Australian research and education in tropical issues.

The Howard government greatly contributed to this with its support for the School of Medicine, opened in 2000. This was followed by the School of Allied Health. Our latest acquisition was the School of Veterinary Science in 2006. James Cook University has a charter which explicitly states that its courses should reflect and be appropriate to life in the tropical world. Our School of Medicine has become a vital part of both international research in tropical medicine and in training doctors to work in rural and remote areas, successfully encouraging many of its graduates to stay in the region. Most of the registrars in the rural and remote hospitals are JCU medical school graduates. Credit must really go to Tropical Medical Training and Ian Hook and his team for the support that they have given.

In discussing the impact of university funding on JCU and life in the tropics, I would like to take the opportunity to urge this government to match the coalition's 2010 pledge to establish, in Townsville and Cairns, the Australian Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine. With 40 per cent of the world's population living in tropical areas, and with all three of JCU's campuses located in the tropical zone—the Townsville, Cairns and Singapore campuses—JCU is ideally placed to lead Australia's humanitarian and scientific efforts in this most important part of the world. Our nearest neighbour, Papua New Guinea, is a developing nation with very real health concerns. It is often said, and I will say it again, that the closest capital city by far to Townsville is Port Moresby. Our relationship with Papua New Guinea must improve, as must health conditions. But, with cases of drug-resistant tuberculosis and malaria creeping into the Torres Strait, it will not be long before they hit the mainland. Our first Australians were the group of people most affected by the H1N1 virus, or swine flu. We as a nation cannot afford to have these sorts of diseases hit our people who live in remote parts of the Cape and Torres Strait. James Cook University not only have a vision for the future; they have the people to take them there. From medical science to communications, agriscience and engineering, we have an asset here which must be supported in every way.

Australians are lucky to have such a great tertiary education system. Expanding these opportunities to more students is important, and I recognise that the cost of this must be found in savings in other parts of university funding. While I do not oppose this bill, I remind the government that we need to encourage students to pay back their HECS loans quickly and reward those who do. It is just good business sense.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is my pleasure to rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011. I would like to take up from where the member for Herbert left off. This bill is very important to his electorate and I thought he made some very important points about regional universities and campuses that may have gone unnoticed unless I had the opportunity to recognise his contribution in particular.

The member for Herbert was right to say that this bill is important to improving the amount of funding going towards universities. As he rightly pointed out, the bill increases the maximum public funds allocated to Commonwealth supported university places to account for the projected increase in the number of Commonwealth supported students. This is a worthy intention by the government and the coalition fully supports it.

The bill emerges from the Bradley review, which recommended several changes and improvements to Australia's higher education system. One key recommendation, of course, was an aspirational goal for 40 per cent of Australians aged 25 to 34 to hold a minimum of a bachelor's degree by 2020. It is important to have that aspirational target in higher education, without displacing the importance of other forms of tertiary education, including TAFE and technical training and other vocational skills training. Having an aspirational goal is very important and is something I would like to see in today's educational environment.

The member for Herbert made some excellent points about this bill. They deserve to be fully noted by this parliament. It was my privilege to have the opportunity to recognise his important contribution to the debate on this worthy bill.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I sincerely thank the member for Mitchell for his contribution to the debate.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I enjoyed the member for Mitchell's contribution as well. It was very erudite and responsive and quite innovative. I was actually waiting to hear the member for Melbourne's contribution, but I understand the member for Melbourne is a no-show and that the member for Mitchell recognised that I cannot run quite as quickly as I used to be able to. I thank the member for Mitchell for that.

The Higher Education Support Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011 updates the maximum public funds allocated to fund Commonwealth supported places as a consequence of projected increases in enrolment. This is, I think, a worthwhile ambition, and I will talk briefly about the Bradley review and its implications, not only broadly but also specifically for the community I represent. The idea that there is an opportunity to uncap places is a tantalising prospect, and I will touch briefly on the potential of that. The bill also provides for increases in funding with indexation and for further out years funding to take account of the budget cycle—the 2011-12 budget commitments run into the 2015 calendar year. There is also an opportunity for discounts that relate to students who pay their HECS upfront or repay these fees early.

The key outcome of the Bradley review as it relates to the community that I represent is the ambition for a greater level of student participation and academic attainment. That is very worthwhile and it is something that certainly drew me into public life. I very much believe your postcode does not determine your potential, but too often people from communities where post-secondary education is not the norm might not consider it to be a legitimate ambition for them. In my own family, my brother and I were the first in memory who attended tertiary education. For many communities, particularly in the greater Frankston area and the Dunkley electorate, which I represent, higher education is often viewed as a distant thing. It is a distant thing not only because it is an experience that might be unfamiliar for a number of our households; it is also physically a distant thing. I often reflect on the fact that, if someone in my electorate in the Mornington Peninsula or greater Frankston area wanted to study fibre-optic engineering, they would have to travel to the Bundoora campus of La Trobe University—for those who do not know the geography of Melbourne well, for a 9 am lecture tomorrow, best they leave now. But our community is viewed as being in that greater metropolitan area that is often misunderstood when it comes to questions about living away from home. That simple example about a particular course of study available at a particular campus of a particular university within the greater Melbourne metropolitan area may as well be light years away. That is of concern.

The Bradley review sought to recognise the aspirational goal of having 40 per cent of Australians between the ages of 25 and 34 holding at least a bachelor's degree by 2020. The government subsequently pushed the ambition of that date out to 2025. That is an ambition and an aspiration the coalition supports, but ambition is not enough; you need to put the architecture and the infrastructure in place. This bill goes some way towards that. What the bill does not do and what I think is desperately needed is to build up the appetite for people who might not see a bachelor's degree as an achievement for them and to have those people realise it is an opportunity for them. To do that there is a need to build up aspiration and ambition, but also to make interesting and engaging courses of study relevant to those people and to the community that they are a part of available in a reasonably accessible way. That is the challenge that we face on the Mornington Peninsula, in the greater Frankston area.

Last night, on adjournment, I touched briefly in my remarks on the tertiary education provision plan for outer south-eastern Melbourne. I pay tribute to Peter Hall, the Minister for Higher Education and Skills in the Victorian government, and also to Professor Kwong Lee Dow. I was fortunate enough to speak with Professor Kwong Lee Dow and those supporting this examination about the kinds of challenges my community faces. The data on this is quite compelling. The data shows that, in terms of post-secondary education, participation and attainment for our region is about half the Victorian average. About half the average is about half the ambition that this bill seeks to support. So there is an awful lot of daylight between where we are now, where we could be to just match the Victorian average and where we need to be to achieve the goals that are set. The answers to how you close that gap are in part touched upon in this bill. I think the uncapping of places is a smart way to go. It allows universities to respond to student demand and not to have their course offering contained by a centrally determined program about which courses will be funded through government support and which ones will not be. That needs to be backed up by the demand of students to take up that opportunity.

One of the things that Kwong Lee Dow correctly identifies in his report is the availability and accessibility of courses of interest. I declare a pecuniary interest as Chairman of the Monash Peninsula Community Advisory Council. I declare that interest because often that role puts me as an agitator within the Monash family. Madam Deputy Speaker Burke, you would know from your location that Monash has some fine facilities: the Clayton campus, Caulfield and others are fantastic. The one on the peninsula, though, looked like it had a grim future. We were able to turn that around by focusing the campus on health and wellness programs. The former Howard government provided, from memory, about 230 extra places in that health and wellness group, dealing with such things as occupational therapy, physiotherapy, speech pathology, allied health and those kinds of courses, which was further added to by Monash, recognising that it needed to beef up the student load and the offer at the peninsula campus. That has been a fantastic success. There are more than 3½ thousand students studying at that campus in Frankston, but increasingly it is people from outside our region. The gap that needs to be dealt with is the academic appetite of the region within which that campus is located.

What the bill needs to recognise is that to get a higher level of participation you need to be able to incite, encourage and inspire people to take up those courses wherever they may be available. As Kwong Lee Dow rightly identified, being able to get to them matters a great deal. Campuses such as the peninsula campus of Monash have extraordinary infrastructure and have all of the success and achievement of the Monash University behind it and breathing through it, but we need to go further. We need to have that participation rate lifted in the greater Frankston, Mornington Peninsula region to at least the state average and then to hopefully resemble some of the ambition that the Bradley report and this bill seek to support. We need to make sure there is something there that attracts our local students.

I have put out a proposition and I have said that we need to turn Monash Peninsula into a higher education base. We need to introduce small business courses, because the local economy is crying out for competent, vocationally relevant, academically trained and fit-for-purpose business graduates to help run the small businesses that are in our region. We also need to look at expanding the arts offering, and certainly some of the allied health and the connection with wellness programs, and even insights around substance dependency and things of that kind. There is a very relevant need to build the skill base there as well as the broader arts courses of study. We need to get into science and look at taking the allied health and science based competency at that campus and expanding it into broader fields of science so the people can see that that is relevant to their career and life ambitions. We also need to look at engineering as a competency that is valued and very much in need in all economies and show that it is also an area of study that people can relate to. Families, in particular, know what an engineering degree is about. Families, in particular, might not know the vast range of community development work that is part of occupational therapy, but yet occupational therapy is the banner of the course. If a young person was talking about doing occupational therapy, they really should take their parents along to the campus at Monash Peninsula to show them what a vast array of opportunities this may open up. That lack of awareness within the broader family group may also be an impediment to participation. It may also undermine aspiration. It will certainly not help achieve the aspirational goal of having 40 per cent of Australians between the ages of 25 and 34 holding a bachelor's degree by 2025. I submit that this is a useful and constructive step in the right direction, and it puts in place some of the tools that are needed to achieve the higher level of a bachelor qualification for the Australian public. But it needs to be supported by specific strategies to lift aspiration and improve accessibility. We need to make sure that young people think about higher education, even if it is not the experience of their family or social group, and understand how it can contribute to improved livelihoods and opportunities down the track. We need to make sure they have within reach courses of study that are relevant to their ambitions—ambitions lifted and inspired by us talking and engaging with young people and making sure that the courses of study available to them are within reach.

In coming days there will be a very constructive series of steps which I hope will really lift opportunities on the peninsula. I hope Monash University Vice-Chancellor Ed Byrne and the chancellor and all the council will embrace what the academic leadership of the university has suggested, and that is that it is time to think about different models for Monash in different regions so that they can better respond to the specifics of the regions where the university operates. Monash, as a leading Group of Eight university, needs to continue to be world class and it needs to continue with its research. But it also needs to recognise that it is embedded within, and is part of, these regional communities and needs to carry the expectations of the communities that host Monash campuses.

For our case, that means revisiting some of the ENTER scores. For our case, that means considering a model like the University of California, where the campus in LA is slightly different from the campus in San Diego. The campuses are all under the UC banner but they are all quite specific and responsive to the communities they work with, support and service, and they also offer different experiences and different courses. I would like to think that that could be Monash's future. I would like to thank that the peninsula campus will set up the greater Frankston-Mornington Peninsula area as a learning environment for higher education that is vocationally focused, where degrees give people the tool kit they need to go out into the workforce for fulfilling careers and to support the local economy. I want them to see that the investment of time and personal effort will provide them with rewards, and that the building blocks for that successful future are within reach.

We have fibre optics, but students have to leave home early to get to their classes on the other side of Melbourne at the Bundoora campus of La Trobe. That is not good enough. I would like to think that the Monash University campus, and the infrastructure that is there, could reach out to other highly valued and successful providers such as Chisholm to offer a far richer range of higher education that responds to the needs of the local community but more particularly lifts the eyes of young people in our region to see that tertiary education is there for the taking, that if you apply yourself this delicious world of opportunities is available, that your postcode does not determine your potential and that other things are needed to achieve the ambitions that Bradley outlined.

This report gives me some encouragement about what we could do together with Monash and Chisholm to service the greater Frankston-Peninsula region. I aim to engage with the minister, Peter Hall. I know he has some resources available to support regional campuses. I would guide him towards thinking that targeted investment and a slight adjustment to the current model are needed to bring about a higher level of aspiration and participation. Just doing more of the same and not tackling these underlying impediments to this goal will not see us achieve it. But I think we can see a way forward, and I hope all levels of government can get behind that.

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011. This bill seeks to update the maximum public funds allocated to fund Commonwealth supported places, or CSPs, due to a projected increase in enrolments at Australian universities. In addition to this, the bill provides for an increase in funding in line with indexation, adds additional funding for 2015 and provides for discounts applicable when students pay their HECS upfront or repay their fees early.

By way of background, in March 2008 a major review into the higher education sector, known as the Bradley review, was initiated with the aim of developing a long-term vision for higher education. The expansive Bradley review mapped out a broad vision for the restructure of the higher education sector and identified a number of issues, including the need to have a future skilled workforce where 40 per cent of Australians aged between 25 and 40 will hold a bachelor's degree or above by 2025 and also the need for a demand-driven funding system for undergraduate places.

In order to increase the higher education participation level to 40 per cent, 220,000 additional students will be required each year, which is a significant increase. Over the past 30 years or so, the Australian university sector has been regulated by how many places each higher education provider can offer. The move towards demand-driven funding for undergraduate places and the removal of the restriction on the number of CSPs that Australian universities are able to offer is a positive move, although I note that the number of enrolments for medical students remains capped.

The Bradley review target of 40 per cent of 25- to 34-year-olds to be degree qualified by 2025 is particularly important to the Gold Coast. The Gold Coast is a region with a low participation rate in higher education, as illustrated by data from the 2006 census, with only 18 per cent of the Gold Coast population aged between 25 and 34 being degree qualified compared to the national average of 29 per cent. There is an 11 per cent difference in those figures.

By removing this cap and restriction, public universities will be given the freedom to decide the number of undergraduate student places they will offer and for which degrees they are offered. Decisions about undergraduate student places will be based on student demand and the needs of employers in a given discipline rather than rigid government stipulations. With private higher education providers comprising only six per cent of the higher education sector, private institutions such as Bond University on the southern Gold Coast can, and should, play a much more significant role in changing Australia's higher education scene. In a genuine demand driven system, Commonwealth support should follow the student irrespective of whether the student is enrolling in a public university or other approved higher education institution like Bond University.

As I stated previously today, the Gold Coast has low participation rates in tertiary education. Bond University and other Gold Coast universities are taking action to address low participation rates locally. They take part in the state low SES schools initiative by providing academics to work with local schools in tutoring in science based subjects, as well as assisting young people with advice on tertiary education. In addition, Bond University has an annual scholarship program in place that compares favourably to programs of the Go8 universities. A total of 10 per cent of Bond University's fee revenue is redirected to fee scholarships and a range of corporate and foundation funded scholarships are being developed in addition to this. These scholarships are awarded on the basis of individual merit. They support access and equity to students who might otherwise not be able to afford a place by helping them gain admittance on the basis of merit.

The Bradley review recommended that, to support the expansion of the system, Commonwealth supported places should be uncapped and made available to private providers. Bond University says the difference between the tuition cost and the CSP funding should be the student contribution, which could be funded through FEE-HELP. Parents who have struggled to put their children through a private school no doubt appreciate the Commonwealth funding which flows in support of private school places. However, support for private places stops at the university level if a student chooses a private university like Bond. This is an obvious anomaly which I believe should be addressed.

I have previously brought this issue of the government refusing to support private providers, like Bond, with Commonwealth supported places to this House. Not allowing students to use their CSP funding at a private higher education provider in this way denies choice in a true demand driven system. I know how important a demand driven higher education system is to Australia and have worked closely with Adrian McComb, the Executive Officer of the Council of Private Higher Education, and Chris Hogan, who is an Associate Director of Information and Planning at Bond University, on both this issue and other issues which relate to the growth of this sector.

Locally, the Gold Coast's two largest universities generated more than $1.6 billion towards the Gold Coast's economy in 2010. Two studies detailing the economic benefits of Griffith University and Bond University show both institutions contribute significantly to the Gold Coast community. Griffith University injects more than $1 billion annually into the local economy and accounts for more than two per cent of local employment. Privately operated, not-for-profit Bond University injects $600 million and 2,200 regional jobs. Importantly, these economic impact figures do not include development of human capital provided by the education of graduates or the flow-on effects of research and development conducted by the universities. Griffith University and Bond University together have over 20,000 students enrolled and many of the graduates remain on the Gold Coast after graduation, which increases the human capital and knowledge base of our community.

I have said many times before in this place, and wherever I get the opportunity, that I believe that the Gold Coast is well placed to become an education centre of excellence, particularly for the mining and the resources sector. I want to see the Gold Coast universities develop their programs, particularly in engineering and also in science at the bachelor's, master's and doctoral levels. If we look at Australia skills needs into the future, it is very clear that we need more students graduating in the disciplines of science and specifically engineering. I call on the universities to look at demand into the future in those areas and to make sure that they are taking appropriate measures now to cater for our growing needs. In order to ensure the growth in our education industry we need to encourage participation in higher education. Australia's future economic success will rely heavily on a skilled workforce. I support measures to develop and maintain a future skilled workforce.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tertiary education brings invaluable benefits not only to those who pursue a degree but also to the entire nation. Our Australian universities are world class. Our top-performing institutions consistently rank in the top 50 in the world. Our Group of Eight research intensive universities are at the forefront of research and innovation. I am proud that my electorate of Ryan is home to the University of Queensland whose breakthroughs are world renowned.

Professor Ian Frazer's HPV and cervical cancer vaccination is just one of many discoveries that will undoubtedly change lives and, indeed, the world as we know it. University of Queensland students are fortunate to have this amazing mind as part of their university, to have direct access to the leaders in their fields. University of Queensland graduates will remember being taught by Professor Frazer and there are opportunities for research scholarships and thesis supervision by researchers across all fields that are breaking new ground. The 2010 Australian National University poll of public opinion has found that the feeling about the benefits of science and research is overwhelmingly positive—85 per cent feel that science has made life better for people.

I also take this opportunity to congratulate Professor Zee Upton, a scientific research in my electorate of Ryan who recently won the Queensland Life Sciences Industry Excellence Award. Science and innovation are a big part of our universities and Professor Upton has absolutely excelled in her field. Professor Upton is an internationally renowned biochemist, inventor and tissue engineer best known for her research in growth factors, extracellular matrix proteins and wound repair. Since completing her PhD in 1994, Professor Upton has attracted over $14 million in research funding, produced 65 publications with 1,100 citations and has achieved 10 patents—all working for a better future. I am also delighted that another researcher in the electorate of Ryan, Dr Cherrell Hirst AO, was also one of the three finalists, and I take this opportunity to congratulate Dr Hirst for her very impressive work. Work and research such as that conducted by Professor Upton and Dr Hirst has been greatly supported by our universities, and with our young and fertile minds being taught around the nation by academics of this calibre the future is indeed bright.

The changes to the system that we are seeing today come as part of the Bradley review's recommended aspiration of 40 per cent of 25- to 34-year-old Australians holding at least a bachelor's degree by 2025. Given the benefits of higher education, the coalition supports this goal in principle. However, a big part of any reform is to ensure that it is fiscally responsible.

We are here today to discuss the change to the maximum public funds allocated to fund Commonwealth supported places as a result of projected increases in enrolments of Commonwealth supported students in Australian universities. This comes as a result of moving to a demand-driven system for Australian university placements, which is estimated to cost up to $3.97 billion to implement. While I welcome the move to a demand-driven system, I cannot help but worry about the cost given this government's record of poor and reckless financial management. We have seen cost blow-out after cost blow-out across all projects in all sectors under this government and with the current state of the world economy Australia simply cannot afford another budget blunder in the implementation of this change to higher education.

The surplus is gone. But, on top of that, with regard to higher education this government has milked all other avenues of additional funding dry. It started with the election of the Rudd government, which abolished full-fee-paying places under which students could have chosen to pay up front in order to get their degree. Contrary to the propaganda promoted by left-wing student unionists—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, the member for Ryan! I have allowed a great deal of latitude but, if you are going to speak to the bill, speak to the bill.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is about funding.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, but it has nothing to do with the funding under this bill. I have allowed a great deal of choice about universities and what they are doing. Come back to the bill.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am talking about Commonwealth supported places.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, the member for Ryan will not debate with the chair. The member for Ryan will be relevant to the bill.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Full-fee-paying students who are not taking up a position that could otherwise have gone to a Commonwealth supported place could have provided their own funding that gave the university the ability to provide the resources needed for their place provided they met appropriate academic criteria. By abolishing full-fee-paying places, the Rudd government simply took away an avenue for a student to gain a degree, and a source of funding for universities to spend on resources to teach more students.

On top of that, the Labor-Green coalition has recently reintroduced what is essentially a student tax with the abolition of voluntary student unionism.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Ryan had the opportunity to debate that under another bill—

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and she did. So she will return to the bill before her or I will sit her down.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. It amazes me that the Treasurer actually has the arrogance to claim that this tax is a government saving when he knows that it comes directly from students' pockets. It is yet another cash grab.

Further, as part of the bill we are debating today, we see this government making yet another grab and clawing back yet another financial incentive through the halving of up-front discounts. The system for students to pay for their university education is pretty good in Australia—by no means perfect, but it does allow us a considerable decrease in up-front costs to students through course fees. Don't get me wrong: going to university is still a very expensive exercise. However, the arrangement that allows students to pay back their fees once they are working, rather than up front, has resulted in a major increase in tertiary participation rates and enabled many more students to gain a degree when they otherwise may not have been able to.

However, this system does cause a strain. It takes many resources to provide tertiary education and, whilst increased participation is indeed a wonderful outcome, it does come at a cost. Strained resources will see a decrease in quality, and that is the last thing we want for our universities and students. This is why encouraging those who cannot afford to pay their fees up front relieves strain—it provides another source of funding. So today, as a result of this government's ongoing mismanagement of our nation's resources, it now needs to grab cash wherever it can.

This bill reduces the up-front payment discount from 20 per cent to 10 per cent and halves the reduction for voluntary payments in excess of the minimum requirement. Under the current system, 17 per cent of students pay their fees up front, yet under questioning during estimates the government admitted they expected this would halve under the change proposed today.

Education is life-changing, and Australia needs a strong foundation for our universities. Funding plays an essential role in providing that foundation, so I truly hope that the government makes expenditure on this program a genuine exception to their track record of financial mismanagement by keeping within their proposed budget. Having passed the buck on university funding to yet another review—this one conducted by Dr Jane Lomax-Smith—the government will have no excuse if it does in fact return to its track record of poor and reckless financial management.

I am proud of the calibre of Australian universities and the opportunity for our young Australians to access tertiary education. The move to a demand-driven system could be hugely beneficial to both. But if it is not delivered well, if it is delivered in the same way as other mismanaged government projects—as their track record shows with budget blowouts and reckless spending—then there is a high probability that the changes will fail. As Professor Paul Greenfield, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Queensland and Chair of the Group of Eight Universities has highlighted, the focus on participation statistics is laudable but not enough. Such a commendable concern for social equity must be framed in the international sphere where the focus is on quality. A false step with this bill today regarding funding of the changes that have already occurred in the system threatens that quality. I implore the government to ensure that this time they do not drop the ball. This time they need to get it right.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment Bill (No 2) 2011. It is uncontentious that the health and vigour of the higher education sector is of critical importance to Australia in many ways. It is critical to the enrichment of the lives, the opportunities and the earning prospects of those who study at universities. It is critical to the carriage of programs of important research in a whole range of areas. And it is critical to our national competitiveness and our national economic performance. Therefore, all Australians, and certainly all members of this parliament, have a strong interest in the performance of the higher education system, and particularly of our university system.

The bill before the House today builds on the recently passed Higher Education Support Amendment (Demand Driven Funding System and Other Measures) Act 2011. The aim of both pieces of legislation is, to a degree, to increase the amount of flexibility available to universities and make it easier for universities to respond to student demand. To that extent, we on this side of the House support that broad direction. But we also make the point that there is much more that could be done to bring flexibility to this sector and that there would be considerable public policy benefits from doing so.

In the brief time available to me, I want to: firstly, illustrate the general principle as to the importance of the university sector; secondly, note that this bill forms part of a reform process which goes some distance towards improving the position of universities, to which extent it is to be welcomed; and, thirdly, make the point that there is much more that can and must be done if we are to maximise the capacity of universities to contribute to our national life, our national economic performance and our national competitiveness.

Let me start with the proposition that the university sector is of critical importance to our nation. If you look at the submission made by Universities Australia to the Bradley inquiry—it is now over three years old, but the broad dimensions still remain valid and are worth highlighting—it was pointed out that the university sector is worth in excess of $15 billion. There are around a million students and around 100,000 employees. The submission makes the point that the education sector is a very substantial generator of export earnings. Of course, the importance of the sector to our nation goes well beyond simply the generation of export earnings. It is of critical importance to national innovation and to national economic performance.

Over the years we have seen some fine examples of the commercialisation of Australian innovations based upon their initial development in the research sector. I think all Australians look with pride at the performance of companies like Cochlear, which is a world leader in the hearing implant devices sector. In a related area, the communications sector, many mobile phones around the world embody technology which was developed, as it happens, not by universities but by the CSIRO. But the same general point remains—that the research activities carried out in Australian institutions are of enormous economic importance.

It is evident that scientific and technical research is critical to the performance of many industries central to the Australian economy, including agriculture, mining and manufacturing. It is also evident that, as our economy transforms, it is increasingly important that we are world-competitive in the quality of our thinking, in the quality of our innovation and in the quality of our research. We must be a knowledge economy if we are to survive and prosper. We will not compete successfully on the basis of low-paid jobs, and if we seek to do that then we will be competing against many countries which have the capacity to offer employment at much lower rates than is consistent with Australian expectations. Therefore, we need to survive and prosper in the world based upon our capacity for innovation and clever thinking, and the university sector is critical and central to that.

The importance of the university sector passes through all the career stages of individuals in the university system—education at the bachelor's degree level for those starting out on their careers, research work conducted by postgraduate scholars, and research and teaching work done by full-time academics. So the role of the university sector is absolutely critical in building a highly skilled population and in underpinning an economy which prospers based upon innovation.

The second point I wish to make is to acknowledge that this bill and the legislation that went before it, particularly the Higher Education Support Amendment (Demand Driven Funding System and Other Measures) Act 2011, do go some distance towards improving the position of universities, which had become increasingly difficult. Particularly since the arrival of the Rudd-Gillard government, universities have faced very significant constraints on their ability to manage their own resources and to raise their own revenue. One of the early actions of this government was to create even greater difficulties for universities by abolishing their right to offer undergraduate full-fee-paying places.

Prior to the act of earlier this year, which will come into force on 1 January next year, universities were also under very severe constraints in relation to the number of places that they could offer and receive funding for. In essence, the number of places that they could offer was centrally controlled. This was poor policy. It was outdated policy. It greatly limited the managerial freedom of universities; it limited their incentive to bring to bear innovative and clever thinking in the way they conducted their own affairs; and it made it very difficult for the fundamental principle of competition to apply between different universities, because there were very few rewards for coming up with, for example, a degree program which better suited the needs of students than the degree programs of competing institutions. Because of the legislation passed earlier this year, from 2012 universities will be able to determine the number of students they admit to undergraduate courses, with the exception of courses in medicine.

The bill we are debating today adds to this new regime by updating the maximum public funds allocated to Commonwealth supported places as a result of projected increases in enrolments. It also provides for an increase in funding in line with indexation, as well as adding an additional year of funding for the 2015 calendar year. The reforms in the bill passed earlier this year, as well as in the bill before the House today, are consistent with the recommendation in the Bradley inquiry that we move to a 'student demand driven system'. It might be thought rather curious that a full-scale review was required to arrive at the recommendation that we ought to move to a system that was driven more by student demand than it presently is. The mere fact that a major change in thinking was required reminds us how institutionalised the instinct towards detailed centralised control has become in the university sector, as in so many other sectors. Nevertheless, it is plainly a sensible principle. I should also note that the bill before the House this afternoon makes changes to the HECS-HELP upfront discount and the HELP voluntary repayment bonus, reducing the discounts that apply in each case.

The third point I wish to make is that, while the direction in the bill passed earlier this year and the bill before the House today are to be supported, there is much more that could be done in this direction of increasing the freedom available to universities to manage their own affairs. We must remind ourselves that Australia is in a fierce international competition for people of talent and ability. Similarly, there is fierce competition between nations and their effectiveness in making the best use of the talents and capacities of their existing populations. In that competitive process the university system is a national asset of critical strategic importance. To maximise the capacity of universities to perform well, it is important that they are given the greatest possible managerial flexibility. In that regard I would like to commend the work of my predecessor as the member for Bradfield, Dr Brendan Nelson, during his time as Minister for Education, Science and Training in the Howard government.

I think it is instructive to look at the US system of higher education. The US is widely recognised as having the best research universities in the world. A very interesting book has been written by a man named Jonathan Cole, the former provost of Columbia University, entitled The Great American University: Its Rise to Preeminence, Its Indispensable National Role, Why It Must Be Protected. I cite this book not just because I hold a degree from Columbia University myself but because it is relevant to the broader policy issue of how we best unleash the potential of the Australian university sector. In his book, Dr Cole notes that 40 of the 50 top universities in the world are in the United States, according to a research based assessment from the Shanghai Jiao Tong University. Since the 1930s, roughly 60 per cent of all Nobel prizes have gone to Americans, and a very high proportion of leading new industries in the United States, perhaps as many as 80 per cent, are derived from discoveries at US universities. Dr Cole has this to say:

These universities have evolved into creative machines unlike any other that we have known in our history—cranking out information and discoveries in a society increasingly dependent on knowledge as the source for its growth.

If we are honest, when we compare our university system with the US system we will see that there is much that we can learn. The US system is highly decentralised and competitive whereas our system remains heavily centrally controlled—notwithstanding some of the welcome changes in the bill passed earlier this year and the bill before the House today. The United States higher education system has multiple tiers, and there is a recognition that only a minority of universities in any system can be world class. By contrast, in Australia, following the dreadful reforms instituted by John Dawkins when he was Minister for Employment, Education and Training, we persist in pretending that all 39 universities are equal and all can be world class.

Our system is too heavily dependent on government funding, and universities are not given sufficient freedom to go out and earn additional revenue. Returning to the Universities Australia submission to the Bradley review which I cited earlier, it is interesting to look at a chart that compares funding to universities in Australia and the United States as a share of gross domestic product. While that chart notes that public funding in the US is greater than ours, what really stood out to me is that private funding in the US for the university system is greater by a factor of 119 per cent than private funding in Australia for the university system. That is a very significant difference. I would suggest to the House that the success of the system of great research universities in the United States is at least in part a consequence of the much greater managerial flexibility afforded to those charged with the management of those institutions and their greater capacity to earn private income in addition to public funding.

The reforms in the bill before the House this afternoon—building on those in the bill passed earlier this year, now the Higher Education Support Amendment (Demand Driven Funding System and Other Measures) Act 2011—to the extent that they allow universities a greater degree of freedom, autonomy and capacity to plot their own course, are welcome. I do note, however, that that extent is still rather modest and limited. There is a great deal more that can be done if we are to pursue a policy framework which allows our universities to maximise their capacity to contribute to our national wellbeing, to contribute to our national economic performance and to contribute to the personal wellbeing of those who are lucky enough to attend them. If we are truly to unleash the capacity and potential of the university sector, we need to go considerably further than the reforms contained in the bill of earlier this year, and the bill before the House today advances things.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011. It is always a pleasure to follow the member for Bradfield, and I thank him for his contribution. I will pick up on the point in his speech where he spoke about people who are lucky enough to attend tertiary or higher education institutions. As I have previously stated in this place, I did not have the good fortune to attend a tertiary institute, but, like many in this place who did go and who like to comment on all subjects that come into this place, I feel I cannot pass up the opportunity to speak on behalf of the many people in my electorate who do attend tertiary institutes.

As I said, I did not go to university and I am not a product of student politics as many of my colleagues in this place are. Some may say I come from the real world, which could be seen as an advantage in these debates. In previous debates in this place I have seen the passion and the fire within my colleagues from both sides of the House born of their time in student politics many years ago. My primary goal in this debate is to speak to the interests of young people in my electorate. I did not support the student taxes being implemented by this government and will have more to say on that later. This bill has particular importance to my electorate of Swan because it is home to the largest university in Western Australia—Curtin University. Curtin University works closely with many organisations in the local community, including schools and other educational institutions. In fact, only last Thursday I was pleased to see Jeanette Hacket, the Vice Chancellor of Curtin University, at the Clontarf Aboriginal College in Waterford. It was particularly pleasing to see Vice Chancellor Hacket there as it was a very special event—the opening of Clontarf's new boarding facility by none other than Her Majesty the Queen. Many people attended that day to see the opening and participate in the walk around with the Queen. The Premier of Western Australia, Colin Barnett, and the MLA for South Perth, John McGrath, also attended. It was good that the event was not rained out. There were many other dignitaries, including my old friend Robert Isaacs, who is not only a graduate of Clontarf but also a long-time friend and supporter of this institute, and he enjoyed his role on the day. Gerard Neesham, who is well known in this place, also dropped in and we all know of his role in the Clontarf education program. I also happened to be at the college the day before for the presentation by the National Australia Bank of $100,000 for the civil-construction education program run by the college. With the Queen at the college to open the boarding house, it was a wonderful day for Clontarf, a college which contributes so much to the community. For the crowds who gathered and witnessed the dignity and grace of the Queen during her visit to Clontarf, it will be a day they will never forget.

I will be meeting again soon with the vice chancellor and I look forward to continuing our discussions on higher education changes and the proposals they have for improvements to the Bentley campus. One of the topics I will also be raising is my ongoing campaign for an aquatic centre in Karawara, a suburb next door to Curtin. Members would be aware of my aquatic centre campaign, as I have raised it in this place before. An aquatic centre in Karawara would be well utilised by Curtin students, who currently have no facility. Currently, 34,000 students use the Curtin University Bentley campus, many of them living in the surrounding suburbs of South Perth, Como, Bentley, St James and Manning. There may well be an opportunity to involve the university in potential discussions about this project. The community response to this proposal has been overwhelming and I will soon be collating the results and formally presenting them to the new Mayor of South Perth, Sue Doherty. I will continue to work with the university to ensure students get the best out of their education and our higher education system stays strong.

As the shadow minster outlined in his speech, the bill updates the maximum public funds allocated to fund Commonwealth supported places as a result of projected increases in enrolments of Commonwealth supported students in Australian universities. In addition, it provides for an increase in funding in line with indexation, adds an additional year of funding for the 2015 calendar year and implements changes announced in the 2011-12 budget to the discounts applicable when students either pay their HECS up-front or repay their fees early. As previous speakers have mentioned, the Bradley Review of Australian Higher Education, released in December 2008, outlined a broad vision for the restructuring of the Australian higher education sector. This review included a recommendation for an aspirational goal of 40 per cent of Australians between the ages of 25 and 34 holding at least a bachelor's degree by 2020. The coalition supports this aspiration in principle. The government needs to remember to focus also on trades. As an apprentice and trades trained person, I am particularly aware of how important trades are to our whole economy. The review also proposed a move away from restricted supply to a student demand driven system.

The coalition will not be opposing this bill before the House. However, I take this opportunity to raise a few areas of concern that I hope the government will address. One such area is a potential lack of long-term planning connected to the implementation. It appears that no studies or projections of any kind have been done by the minister's department. Without an estimated cost over future years or estimates of infrastructure projections to accommodate the extra students, the government is implementing this plan blindly. And we know this is a government with a track record of not properly planning its education schemes and getting disastrous results. After the disastrous blowouts in the school halls and computers-in-schools programs, it is concerning that this government is implementing another education policy without sufficient planning. This government displays a continued disregard for the Australian taxpayer. The national curriculum continues to be a problem area for the government. I recently raised the fact that the curriculum totally ignores the Forgotten Australians, who were important enough to have an apology in this place but who do not rate a mention in the curriculum.

The government has also failed to provide any indication of the potential impact on Australia's tax base, productivity and economic growth, as well as the impact on research or any indication of the demographic or economic impact of implementing these reforms. Again, this indicates poor planning from a government known for policy disasters. The bill we are debating today will see changes to the HECS-HELP up-front discount and the HELP voluntary repayment bonus, which were announced as part of the 2011-12 budget. From 1 January 2012, the up-front discount on students paying their fees reduces from 20 per cent to 10 per cent and the reduction for voluntary payments in excess of the minimum falls from 10 per cent to five per cent.

It is not surprising that a government addicted to taxing, spending and debt is now taking steps that will encourage university students to take on more personal debt and delay paying for the costs of attending university. Under questioning at Senate estimates, the government admitted these changes would encourage more student debt, confirming its expectation that only half of the 17 per cent of students who currently pay their fees up-front will continue do so after this change. Madam Deputy Speaker, you might ask yourself why this government would want to do this. Surely, a government that claims to have the interests of young people at heart would not want them to acquire more debt while they pursue their education? The almost half a billion dollars raised from this change provides us with the government's motive. The coalition strongly supports a fiscally disciplined budget in stark contrast to what this government has delivered.

Whilst we welcome new savings measures, it is important to note where we have come from and why the government has been reduced to skimming money out of this program by reducing the discount that encouraged students to stay out of debt. This is a government that took little time to squander the strong financial position it inherited from the Howard government. After almost four years in power, the government is shown by bills such as the one we are debating today to be struggling to keep its promise to the Australian people to balance their budget. Perhaps if the minister had bothered to conduct the long-term planning necessary for the implementation of such programs in the past, the government would not have found themselves in such a poor fiscal position.

Unfortunately, this cut in support for university students comes on top of the recent changes to the Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2010. Many young people find it hard to pay their bills, whether they are at university or out in the workforce. As members would know from my previous speeches, supporting young people is a focus of mine in Swan. I recognise groups such as Youth Focus, involved in the prevention of youth suicide; the Esther Foundation and many of the junior sporting clubs within my electorate.

The Greens-Labor dominated government have further, and unnecessarily, added to the burden of young people at Curtin University and around the country by introducing a new student tax. I know from speaking to students in my electorate that most students find it difficult to pay for the expenses of being a student. More than 75 per cent of students work a part-time job to support themselves while they complete their studies. Members will be aware that in my role as the deputy chair of the House of Representatives Health and Ageing Committee, I recently tabled a report I initiated into youth suicide. The report, Before it's too late, contains 10 recommendations aimed at reducing the rate of youth suicide in young men and women through early intervention programs.

One of the areas identified as a pressure on young people is financial pressure. Just last week, I had a student in my electorate—one of my constituents—contact me to request assistance to pay an outstanding fine he had incurred from his local library. He made it clear that any measures that increase the financial burden on young people are unwelcome. Unfortunately for this constituent and his classmates, university students now face unwelcome extra burdens forced on them by a government that is desperate to plug their budget black hole—a government that is pushing a 1970s ideology.

This new student tax is particularly unfair given the high number of students who do not use the services that the tax funds and who feel misrepresented and ripped off by the political campaigns run by student activists who take advantage of the poor transparency of a student union's expenditure budget.

The decision reflects a Labor-Greens government which puts ideology ahead of standing up for young people. Once again the Labor Party is imposing a new tax on an unsuspecting Australian people. And it is clear that the Australian people do not want the student tax. I was recently advised of election results at the University of Western Australia, where an incumbent guild which had strongly campaigned for the student tax lost power in a landslide election defeat. The incoming president has indicated strong opposition to the Labor-Greens student tax. I wish him and his team all the best for what will be a tough year ahead. I am sure that at the moment the paper shredders are working overtime!

Whilst there is a ray of light at the University of Western Australia, it is a rare result. Most student unions are dominated by activists from extreme ideological backgrounds. These are activists who do not represent the average student. This is reflected in the make-up of the delegates to the National Union of Students conference each year—a body which the government has refused to guarantee will not receive money from the student tax. The National Union of Students organisation continues to suck money away from students to fund the activities of activists who have little connection or regard for your average student. And let us not forget that this tax comes on top of the flood tax, the carbon tax and, of course, the mining tax introduced in the House today. All these new taxes are a result of the massive deficits run up by this government. Now we—all Australians—are paying the price.

In conclusion, while the coalition will not be preventing this legislation moving to the third reading stage, we do raise these points in the hope that the minister is listening carefully and will take due action to address them as the legislation moves into the other place. Australia needs a higher education system that is equipped to cope with our changing demographics and a modern economy. The future of this country depends greatly on getting this right.

The legislation updates the maximum public funds allocated to fund Commonwealth supported places to match the projected increases in enrolments of Commonwealth supported students in Australian universities. The legislation also provides for an increase in funding in line with indexation, and adds an additional year of funding for the 2015 calendar year.

More important than this, though, is the fact that we need to look after our young people and younger generation. So, I welcome the Bradley review's recommendation to increase the number of university educated Australians. However, the government should not get into the habit of conducting policy through a crystal ball and should put together the appropriate plans to ensure the adopted recommendations of the Bradley review can be implemented correctly. Thank you.

Wyatt Roy (Longman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak to the Higher Education Support Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011. It is the hope and promise of a better future which motivates many Australians in their daily lives. As policy makers of this country we need to be ensuring that there is a better, brighter future for all Australians. Australia has enjoyed the benefits of a profitable mining boom, which has contributed both to employment and to Australia's economy, particularly in my home state of Queensland. Yet, we know there are some truths facing this nation. Currently there are two economies: the mining boom and everyone else. We also know that this boom cannot last forever, and that it is imperative that we now begin to turn our thoughts to life post the current mining boom.

As a nation we will face significant challenges over the next several decades. The nation will face the challenge—and I make the point that this is a challenge not a problem—of an ageing nation along with the challenges associated with the economic restructuring post the mining boom. Higher education will form an important plank in restructuring our economy and our nation. Research and education will be vital in achieving higher productivity, better efficiency and new industry, ensuring that this country will have a high productivity economy, rich with opportunity, where individuals are employed in innovative industries, earning higher real wages.

The Bradley Review of Australian higher education recommended an ambitious goal of 40 per cent of young Australians holding bachelor degrees by 2020. Yes, this is ambitious, but in preparing for a better future this is a goal that we need to be actively working toward. This bill updates the maximum public funds allocated to fund Commonwealth supported places as a result of projected increases in enrolments of Commonwealth supported students in Australian universities. It also provides for an increase in funding in line with indexation, adds an additional year of funding, and implements changes to the discounts applicable when students pay their HECS upfront or repay their fees early. Let me outline some of the challenges that my local community is facing and that we as a nation are facing with regard to higher education. Unfortunately, at the moment, the promise of a better future is not easily achieved for some Australians, including for many in my electorate. My electorate is one where most young people have not traditionally been enabled to gain training or higher education in order to prepare for their future. Recently I met with Robert Craig, the head of the Caboolture campus at Queensland University of Technology in my electorate. In my discussions with Mr Craig, it was made evident to me that one of the biggest hurdles to locals achieving a pathway to tertiary study is simply convincing them that they could and should. A mere 13 per cent of individuals in my electorate go on to tertiary study; in fact, the participation rate is so low that my region is ranked a low 144th out of 150 electorates across this country for university attendance. I can empathise with this notion. I am the first person in my family ever to finish high school and go on to tertiary study. Sadly, my electorate has a six per cent unemployment rate, with Caboolture experiencing a 10 per cent unemployment rate. In some cases there is an intergenerational pattern of unemployment which presents a severe impediment to young people participating in the workforce. It is for these individuals that the opportunities of higher education are so vitally important.

We are here today to discuss the Higher Education Support Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011 and changes to funds allocated for Commonwealth supported students in Australian universities. In my own electorate, I have seen the positive impact that universities can have on a community. I believe that it is vitally important that students continue to have opportunities to undertake higher education, particularly those for whom it is not financially viable to pay university fees upfront. That is why the coalition supports this bill in principle.

As Liberals, we believe that we should have a society that is based on opportunity, on empowering people, and on giving individuals a hand up. The potential for universities to contribute to our country's future is also important at a local level, and we want to see universities enabled to continue to invest in communities such as my own, where a university education can make an enormous difference in a person's life. Let me share with the House the evidence that I have seen in my community. Over the last few years, the Caboolture campus of the Queensland University of Technology has significantly invested in the local community, opening doors for young people—particularly young people who, due to significant obstacles in their lives, would never have had the chance to set foot on a university campus let alone to gain tertiary qualifications.

It has been my pleasure to support and to be involved with a community program run by QUT to create pathways for students to enter university. The Applied Skills for Year 11s program teaches high school students study skills, writing skills and speaking skills to overcome the barriers of entry to university. Speaking to last year's graduates from this program, I was impressed to hear that many of them who would not have previously considered university, or even realised that it was possible to attend, had aspirations for further study and many bright hopes for their futures. This program and the skills that it offers give young people the chance to actually believe that university is a possibility in the future for them. But this program and others like it are only possible if universities are adequately funded and enabled—which this bill seeks to address.

I welcome the move toward a demand driven system for funding for Commonwealth supported places based on the recommendations of the Bradley review of Australian higher education and the projected increase in university enrolments. But it would be remiss of me to fail to raise my concerns about the cost of this project and its management. This government's unsuccessful track record in implementing projects speaks for itself. Between pink batts, solar rebates and overpriced school halls, there cannot be much hope for this project to stay within its estimated cost of $1.13 billion. Given the scenes we are seeing around the world, the chaos and confusion that is brewing as a result of poor fiscal management and a global financial crisis, we in Australia cannot afford for this project to be another mismanaged Labor initiative. Now is the time for fiscally responsible management. We on this side of the House have a strong record of both effective fiscal management and investment in tertiary education. It was of course the coalition that introduced the Higher Education Endowment Fund, a significant fund designed to fund universities into the future from the interest earned on that fund.

As policymakers in this place, it is up to us to ensure that we prepare this nation for the significant challenges it will face over the coming decades, so that we can meet from a position of strength the challenges associated with a national economy restructuring itself in the face of an ageing population and a move away from the current mining boom. As policymakers in this place it is up to us to ensure that we have a society based on opportunity, on fair reward for hard work, where individuals are empowered and offered a hand up rather than a hand out, and where we as a nation can have hope that tomorrow will be better than today. A vibrant and inclusive higher education sector will be a key plank in achieving this.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Higher Education Support Amendment (No. 2) Bill 2011 amends the Higher Education Support Act to increase the amount of money available in the Commonwealth Grants Scheme and for Commonwealth scholarships. These are worthy ambitions, which is why we support the bill in principle. However, this bill also cuts support to students and their families by reducing the upfront discount for those paying their higher education fees in advance.

The fees were first introduced in 1989 as the Higher Education Contribution Scheme, or HECS. In 2005 the name was converted in the Higher Education Loan Program or HELP. In both cases, the fees were introduced to ensure students contributed to the cost of their education, which up until 1988 had been provided at the full expense of the Commonwealth. University fees have been around for as long as there have been universities, so the idea that students would pay for their tertiary education is by no means a new one. Early Australian governments, however, recognised that the cost of tertiary education was often a disincentive that prevented many young people from reaching their potential, and this came at a cost to the nation through lost activity and lost productivity, in particular, in research. The fact that cost prevents young people from reaching their potential and from coming back to regional areas to practice the skills that they have learnt is something that is very real in regional areas.

The government responded by providing a greater number of scholarships which covered the cost of the university fees. In this regard both the Curtin Labor government and the Menzies Liberal government deserve accolades. The Curtin government of the 1940s significantly increased the number of scholarships available for Australian students and notably made scholarships available to women for the first time. The Menzies government supported and expanded this investment in Australia's knowledge base and in the 1960s increased our learning capacity by expanding the number of and funding for Australian universities.

By the early 1970s three-quarters of students attending university were receiving Commonwealth scholarships. It was actually achieving what it was set out to achieve. And many of those were bonded, linking employment obligations following graduation with the scholarships. This allowed government to manage its required workforce in professions such as teaching. However, this changed in January 1974, when the Labor government under Gough Whitlam abolished university fees under the pretext of trying to increase participation by lower income earners, something that we have seen again recently through the youth allowance debate. However, many commentators consider that this attempt was not particularly successful, and this may have been in part because most university students were already receiving scholarships.

Free university education remained in place till 1989, when fees were reintroduced under the HECS system. In its initial form each student paid the same fee, which could be paid upfront or deferred as a loan. Those paying upfront received a discount, while those deferring payment would have to repay their debt through the tax system when their income reached a level of around $30,000—currently in the area of $45,000. Under that and the current system, student fees deferred as a loan were paid by the Commonwealth government to the educational institution and the government was to be repaid by the student over time. Interest on these loans was limited to CPI increases. In 1996, the single level of fee was changed to a three-tier system reflecting the value of the courses provided, with the high-cost courses such as medicine, dentistry and veterinary sciences attracting higher fees.

The key issue in this system I have outlined is the need to see the HECS or HELP debts of former students repaid. Given the low rate of CPI interest only, there is little incentive for graduates to repay their student loans. A simple look at financial advice columns will tell you that repaying the government this debt is not always the best financial decision of the newly employed professional. After all, the cost of their student loan is CPI when the cost of a home loan might be seven per cent or a credit card as high as 17 per cent. It makes financial sense for these people to prioritise their highest cost liabilities for any discretionary funding. When their income hits a certain level, graduates are required to make repayments as assessed and managed by the Australian tax office; however, there is little incentive to make voluntary payments, which is the target of the bill before the House. That is why the recorded amount held by the government in higher education loans in June 2009 was $11.5 billion and estimated at some $15 billion. There is, however, a nominal value ascribed to these debts by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations which includes an estimate of debt owed or incurred but not recorded. As at 30 June 2009, the nominal value of HECS-HELP debt according to Treasury was $18 billion.

The bill before the House further reduces the incentives for graduates to repay their debt. Under the existing system a graduate paying at least $500 upfront will receive a 20 per cent discount, which this bill will cut to 10 per cent. The government will halve the incentive to pay upfront. In the same vein, the bill will halve the incentive for students and graduates to make voluntary payments to reduce their HECS or HELP liability. Currently, voluntary payments of over $500 attract a 10 per cent bonus which reduces the outstanding debt, but this bill cuts that to five per cent. We certainly need to introduce a simple concept that business has known for decades: waiting for payment is the cost the institution bears. The cost is measured by the value of that money to the creditor and the measure of what else could have been achieved by those funds. This cost delayed payment could be equated to a standard investment like a bank deposit; thus the net value to the government of HECS and HELP loans appears to be in permanent decline. So the payment of these debts to the government is important. The current system does not actually encourage rapid repayment.

On top of this the bill reduces those incentives that do exist for the early payment of the debts. The government, through the changes to this bill, is responsible for the removal of incentives to cause graduates to delay paying off their education loans as long as possible. If that happens, the amount of HECS and HELP debt may well increase as a result of this decision.

While I am here I want to touch on the importance of tertiary education, particularly for those in regional areas. In Western Australia, my part of the world, we have a great need of educational opportunities for young people. Universities and other tertiary education are the best opportunities that we can offer any young person in a regional, remote or even urban area. So often what we do see are young people in regional areas disadvantaged. As we know, they have less opportunity to access higher education. We saw that in getting to the university stage so many of our young people require assistance through the youth allowance process. That is why we have had to fight so hard on the changes made to youth allowance to encourage and enable more young people from regional areas to access a tertiary education. We need these young people who are tertiary educated to come back, in time, to our regional areas and add to the skills and productivity that are so important and drive our economy. We also need to encourage the opportunity and aspirations of young people.

I am looking with a group of very interested persons at a form of university or tertiary education offering in Busselton. There is a group of very dedicated people looking at this. When I go to graduation ceremonies for young people, as I am sure members of this House are now—I went to Margaret River and Harvey High School graduations recently—I meet numbers of great young people who have the most fabulous dreams and aspirations. I believe that is the responsibility of all of us in this place to facilitate their access to what they can achieve through higher education.

We need to get to the point where people in regional areas have equity of access to those opportunities. That is something that I am extremely committed to, and it is something that I know we are extremely committed to on my side of the House. This is why we fought so hard not only on youth allowance but for the equity of opportunity for students in regional areas.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise also to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011. This bill does four things. Firstly, it updates the maximum public funds allocated to fund Commonwealth supported places as a result of projected increases in enrolments of Commonwealth supported students in Australian universities. Secondly, it provides for an increase in funding in line with indexation. Thirdly, it adds an additional year of funding for the 2015 calendar year, and fourthly, it implements changes announced in the 2011-12 budget to the discounts applicable when students either pay their HECS upfront or repay their fees early.

Many of these recommendations, as you would be aware, are largely based on the Bradley review, which was a comprehensive review of the tertiary sector handed to the government in 2008. It largely provides a blueprint for reform of the higher education sector.

The key change in the review is to move our system of funding away from being a restricted system to being a student-demand-driven system so that all students who are eligible are able to attend university. Of course, this move to a student-demand-driven system will see an increase in enrolments in tertiary institutions. That is a good thing.

The aspirational target of the government, and which is outlined in the Bradley review, is for 40 per cent of 25- to 34-year-olds to have a bachelor's degree by 2020 or 2025. That is the aspirational target, and the coalition shares that aspirational target. We will not oppose the particular measures which are contained within this bill and, as I said, we support the aspirational target. But we certainly do have some concerns in relation to the direction which the government is going, and I would just like to touch on a couple of those concerns without wanting to repeat things which some of my colleagues have already said.

Firstly, I give a note of warning in relation to the aspirational target. As I said, while we support that aspirational target of 40 per cent of 25- to 34-year-olds having a bachelor's degree by 2020 we need to make sure that in making this target we do not imply that other pathways are less important than the higher education pathway. There are equally good pathways in apprenticeships or in the TAFE systems. Indeed, for many students the right pathway will be to get a job straight after finishing high school. So while we support the aspirational target for tertiary institutions—for the university sector—I think it is important to note that we also equally need to emphasise that all pathways are good alternatives and that it is up to the individual to determine what the right pathway is for them. Indeed, at the moment we have a great shortage in some of the technical areas and we need to encourage more people to get apprenticeships in some of the trades as much as we need to encourage people to go to university and get a degree.

My second concern is that by setting a target of 40 per cent that we do not lower the standards at our tertiary institutions. I have made comments in the past in relation to some courses where I believe the entry level scores into those courses have already dropped down to quite alarming levels. For example in teaching, which in my view should be a course which is in very high demand—I would certainly like to see that—where we are attracting the cream of the crop of students; I am concerned that some university courses already have entrance scores down to 56. I was informed by a Macquarie University professor today that it is even below 50 in some cases—down to a TER of 40. I am already concerned about that level in terms of the quality of the students we are getting into those courses, and I would be concerned that, through setting an ambitious target of 40 per cent, we might drop the standards further in courses like teaching and other courses where we need to maintain very high standards.

My third and final point—and this is perhaps my most substantive concern about the proposals—is how we will actually get to this 40 per cent aspirational target by 2020 or 2025. How this will actually be implemented is the question. We have learnt on this side of the House that we should seriously question and find out what the plans are which underpin the government's ambitious goals and targets. We have learnt this over the last few years because there have been so many ambitious programs which the government has embarked upon where the planning and the homework simply had not been done. All of the unintended consequences which resulted have come about simply because that planning work had not been done. It had not been properly thought through.

Let me take you through some of those examples. We had the school halls example, where $16 billion was spent on school halls but because the thinking had not been done in how that would be properly rolled out we only got about $8 billion worth of value out of those school halls. The pink batts program everybody knows about. It was the plan to put insulation into everybody's roofs. But because the implementation steps had not been properly thought out we ended up with fires, with houses burning down, with dodgy practices across the country and with elderly people scared to turn on the lights in their houses for fear that there was going to be a fire. We have seen similar things from the solar rebate program. The national curriculum is currently being worked through and again I fear that the proper implementation and proper planning have not been done for the rollout of that. It is one thing to have the right ambition and the right documents, but there are many other steps that need to be done to properly implement this.

The final example that I use as an illustration—and I will not harp on this particular point—is in relation to preschools. I have made points about preschools in this chamber before as the government has set an ambitious goal of having 15 hours of tuition for all four-year-olds. Money has been put aside to support this policy, but this policy has not been thought through. In Victoria, we now have preschools announcing that they have to close their doors to three-year-olds as a result of this initiative for four-year-olds. What is happening is the increase in hours for four-year-olds is squeezing out the three-year-olds program. We need to think through the consequences of ambitious government plans—and this is an ambitious one, to achieve a 40 per cent target by 2020 or 2025.

I notice that Senator Mason, my learned colleague in the Senate, has been asking some questions in relation to this particular bill and what sort of planning has been done. Through the Senate estimates process he asked the minister and departmental officials a number of questions. He asked about the estimated costs over future years. He asked about what infrastructure would be required and what it would cost to build that infrastructure to accommodate all of the extra students at our universities. He asked about the potential impact of a better educated population on increasing standards of living, the tax base, productivity and economic growth, and the impact on innovation and research. He asked about the impact it is likely to have on state, territory and regional communities.

But none of these questions could be answered. It seems that none of the thinking or planning work has been done. Some of those questions are difficult, I admit, but the government should be at least doing some modelling so we get an indication about what it is going to cost, how much infrastructure we need and the impact on regional communities, our cities et cetera. If that work is not done, I am concerned that we, (a) will not achieve the target or, (b) will end up with debacles that have occurred with other programs that the government has tried to implement without fully thinking through the consequences.

Let me finally say that the key thing to getting more people into universities—and particularly more people from low-SES backgrounds which is a government ambition and one which we share—is to improve the quality of teaching in our schools. That is the key thing that we need to do because the barrier for people getting into universities is their final-year high school results and their tertiary entrance results. We need to be doing more to lift the quality of the schools in our communities, particularly in some of the low-SES areas where we need to improve the quality of schooling.

There are a couple of things that we need to spend more time and effort doing, including to increase the quality of the teaching. I know that is a goal of the government, but I think more can be done in that area. We need to aim to attract the cream of the crop into teaching. We need to raise the status of the profession overall. This should be one of the most prestigious professions in our community. I am concerned that over the years the prestige of the profession has declined. That has in part meant that we have not been getting the same calibre of people applying to do teaching courses as we did in the past.

We also need to take practical and sensible measures to move teachers into other career paths if they are not performing. Madam Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, as you would be aware, it is exceptionally difficult to move teachers into other career paths if they are not performing. That is something that needs to be looked at seriously so that we constantly increase the quality of our teaching profession. There are many other things we should be doing in relation to schooling and particularly in relation to schools that cater for low-SES communities that I have articulated in this House in the past.

I hope that the government does hear some of the concerns that we on this side of the chamber have articulated. I particularly hope that the government will hear our concern about the need to plan, to think through very carefully what needs to be done from an implementation perspective before embarking upon any ambitious initiatives. I commend the bill.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to join the debate on the Higher Education Support Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011. In doing so, I want to direct my comments towards the need to encourage more students from regional areas to secure a quality education, whether it be at secondary school or at a tertiary level. I acknowledge the government's 40 per cent aspirational target for Australians to complete a degree that will train them for the future. I reflect on the member for Aston's comments that it is all very well to have these targets, but the implementation of them is going to be the real challenge for the government. I would also like to refer to the comments of the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth in his second reading speech where he claimed that:

The bill reflects the government's commitment to growing Australia's higher education sector and to expanding opportunities for Australians to obtain a high-quality higher education.

I agree with those comments of the minister. I have spoken many times in this place about the poor participation rates at tertiary level of students from regional backgrounds. In my community of Gippsland, we have one of the lowest year 12 retention rates in the state of Victoria, second only to the Wimmera-Mallee area. It has a very poor participation rate at the year 12 level, which is the foundation stone for students to go on to participate at a tertiary level. There are issues in my community relating to aspiration and to the economic barriers to students going on to participate at a higher level. I am not one of those who believe university education is everything, that it is the be-all and end-all, but I do believe that young students who have the potential to go on and achieve at a higher level should be given that opportunity and not robbed of that opportunity by way of economic barriers or aspirational barriers that we put in place in regional communities.

I am afraid to say that in some parts of my community education is not as highly valued as it is in other parts of my community, particularly by people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. There is an attitude among some sections of my community that, 'A year 9 or a year 10 pass was good enough for me and it will be good enough for you,' and it is not necessarily instilled in young people at that time in their life that they can go on to achieve even more in the future. I am a very strong supporter of trades, apprenticeships and those types of training for young people, but those young people who are more academically minded should have the opportunity to go and achieve their absolute best at university level. There are issues not only with aspiration but also with economic barriers that are put in front of regional students as they pursue their academic dreams.

I have had the opportunity in this place many times in the last few years to talk about those economic barriers as we have dealt with student income support. I take the opportunity here today to highlight once again the need to overhaul the system of student income support and make sure that all students who are forced to relocate from a regional area to attend university are given that opportunity. We need to look very seriously at the implementation of a tertiary access allowance to make that happen. The government has only so far tinkered around the edges of student income support. We need to completely revisit the system and look at overhauling the system to provide more support for regional students in particular.

I note the minister has joined us in the chamber and I also note that in his speech he referred to the 2011-12 budget providing $500 million for the regional priorities round of the Education Investment Fund. I urge the government to make sure it does everything in its power to ensure that it receives value for money for taxpayers with that fund. It is in the context of value for money, and with some leeway from the chair, that I want to refer to an education program that the minister would be interested in. It is an education program that is operating in Victoria which I believe does deliver a great deal of value for money and has the potential to assist this government in its aim to increase participation in higher education. I give credit where it is due and it was a former Labor government in Victoria which implemented the program I will talk about.

Last week I had the opportunity to visit the Snowy River campus of the School for Student Leadership at Marlo in East Gippsland. I do not believe many members here would be aware of the program, so I will provide a little bit of background for the minister's interest. The Snowy River campus at Marlo is the second of the Victorian state Department of Education and Early Childhood Development year 9 residential leadership programs. It is based on a successful model which was developed at the Alpine School about 10 years ago. There has also been a third campus developed in western Victoria. More than $3 million was put into this program to establish it and to construct accommodation for 45 students in a state-of-the-art centre on the Marlo aerodrome site.

To understand the School for Student Leadership, it is best to visit the campus. I encourage the minister, if he has ever got the opportunity when he is in Victoria, to go and have a look at the school. It is quite extraordinary. The minister would benefit and the students would benefit from an opportunity to have him at that campus. The Marlo location itself is quite magnificent. It is on the shores of the iconic Snowy River. It is where the Snowy River meets the sea and it also has some great coastal environs around it. The campus offers students quite remarkable opportunities for outdoor learning. They may go caving at Buchan, canoeing on the river and estuary system at Marlo itself, surfing at Cape Conran, mountain bike riding or on overnight hikes, but I hasten to add it is not just a glorified school camp—it is much more than that. It is a residential campus where the year 9 students are drawn from state schools right throughout Victoria and live together on that campus for nine weeks, a whole term. To fully appreciate what is going on there you really need to visit. They have students from metropolitan and country areas thrown together. It is quite a cosmopolitan mix. There might be four or five students from each school, adding up to 45 or so kids for the whole term. The students are encouraged to really learn about the environment but also to learn a lot more about themselves. I refer to the school website, which probably sums it up quite nicely. It says:

School for Student Leadership is a Victorian Department of Education and Early Childhood Development initiative offering a unique residential education experience for year nine students. The curriculum focuses on personal development and team learning projects sourced from students' home regions.

The team-learning projects themselves are quite fascinating. They require students to work together on a project while they are away from home which they then have to deliver back in their home community. Some of the projects the students come up with are quite extraordinary, whether they be school based projects where they try to develop new infrastructure for the school or community type projects that provide these 14- and 15-year-olds with an opportunity to make a great contribution to their home community.

I recently visited the campus—it is not the first time I have been there. I met with the students and spoke to them about their hopes and aspirations for the future. I do have an interest in the program particularly this term because my young daughter is attending the school at the moment. I noticed some changes in my own daughter in just two weeks of being away from home. The students are required to take on some extra responsibilities and they mature rapidly in this hothouse environment. They certainly learn a lot of new skills and they are encouraged to develop their leadership ability and to take more responsibility around the campus. They seem to thrive on the opportunities that are available to them. When I spoke to the students I emphasised the fact that they should make the most of this opportunity. It will be a life-changing experience for many of them and they will grow enormously as young people.

I had the opportunity during that visit to speak to the principal, Mark Reeves, who was instrumental in setting up the first campus at Dinner Plain and has been involved for the past decade. The previous speaker spoke about increasing the professionalism of our teaching community and investing in training. Mark is an example of a passionate educator. He is absolutely dedicated to his role and has been instrumental in helping so many young people throughout Victoria in his role with the outdoor learning program at the School for Student Leadership. He is a very passionate man. He is also justifiably proud of his students and what they have been able to achieve at the School for Student Leadership. He handed me a letter he had received only a matter of days ago from a young lady who had attended the Alpine School many years ago. The young lady, Teagan, said in her letter to him:

I cannot put into words, the level of development, confidence and self awareness the school gave me. What a brilliant program to provide young adults, who are stuck half way between childhood and adulthood, and give them the skills and motivation to strive into the future and aim for exceptional results.

My journey since Alpine School has built upon the skills that were fostered all those years ago. I am proud of what I have achieved but also humbled in the knowledge that my time at A. S helped me to achieve these successes.

...      ...      ...

... I just wanted to drop you a line to say thank you, and to let you know that the program run by Alpine School has insurmountable value to its students.

I acknowledge, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have strayed somewhat from the bill before the House, but there is a link back to what we are talking about.

Many of us come into this place and talk a lot about helping young people achieve their full potential, and this Higher Education Support Amendment Bill (No. 2) is part of the government's effort to assist students in achieving their university dreams. But, as I am sure most members would acknowledge, the university dream does not start in year 12; it is a long education journey, right through from the primary school sector, and one of the milestone years is in year 9. It is a year when some young people find it very difficult to see how school is relevant to them anymore. It does not seem to be that important, or relevant to their own future, and many young people at that year-9 level tend to run off the rails. The private school sector has recognised this in the past and been very active in this space for a long time, organising opportunities for outdoor learning and residential learning experiences for many years. But the students in the state school system have not had the same opportunities, and that brings me back to the Victorian model I have been talking about.

I believe if we are serious about helping young people take advantage of the Commonwealth supported places referred to in the bill, projects like the School for Student Leadership in Victoria warrant further investment right throughout our nation. I congratulate, as I did at the outset, the former Labor government for its role in establishing the campuses in Victoria. I also encourage the current coalition government to continue to maintain these campuses and look for opportunities to expand them in the future. We need to expand the opportunities for more students from the state school system to participate in a program such as this. From an education perspective it is a clear winner. In terms of investing in our future leaders it is a clear winner. From a regional development and economic perspective it is also a clear winner.

I thank the House for the opportunity to speak about this program, which I believe has great potential to be expanded throughout Australia in the years ahead. I will be writing formally to the minister and inviting him to come down to Marlo and experience everything the School for Student Leadership has to offer. And I encourage the minister, if he takes up that opportunity, to appreciate what a great investment this is in our greatest asset, and that is our young men and women of Australia.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank those members who spoke on the Higher Education Support Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011. There have been some very thoughtful and constructive contributions made in the House. I thank the member for Gippsland for drawing our attention to a particular school which has a focus on year 9s. I certainly agree with him that it is a challenging year for students, as they are making their way through their secondary school career, potential decisions about higher education or skills and training and a period of emotional and physical growth as well. Thank you for the invitation, which of course we would consider.

I note the member for Aston emphasised the importance of improving teacher quality. That is certainly something the government have taken very seriously. We have a significant national partnership that is addressing the question of teacher quality. I have been very pleased to see the record levels of investment that this government has made not only in education generally but also recognising how important it is that we do provide our teachers with additional support. They are the single most important person once a child goes through the school gate. Not only their status as a profession but also their opportunities to be able to work more effectively are things we have placed great emphasis on as a government. I want to commend the work of the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership and also thank my ministerial colleagues at the most recent ministerial council meeting of education ministers, where we continued to agree and provide approval for those measures that have been brought forward, including national teacher registration, and a range of important steps around the national curriculum as well.

The bill before the House amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to implement 2011-12 budget measures, update maximum payment amounts and clarify the government's policy in relation to Australian citizens studying at the overseas campuses of Australian higher education providers. The government announced in the 2011-12 budget that it would reduce the HECS-HELP upfront discount and the voluntary HELP repayment bonus. This measure is providing savings of some $479 million to assist in paying for the government's increased investment in higher education.

From 1 January 2012 the HECS-HELP discount for upfront student contribution payments will be lowered from 20 per cent to 10 per cent. The reduction in the upfront discount will affect students who can afford to pay upfront and choose to do so. It will not affect students who fund their university studies through HECS-HELP deferred loans and it will not affect universities' revenue. The HELP voluntary repayment bonus will also be reduced, from 10 per cent to five per cent. The decreased bonus will apply to all HELP debts.

The act will be amended to provide for an increase in funding for overenrolment of Commonwealth supported places. Funding for overenrolment of Commonwealth supported places was raised from five to 10 per cent for allocated places for 2010 and 2011 as a transitional measure prior to the introduction of the demand driven funding system for higher education funding. From 2012 the government will fund all undergraduate Commonwealth supported places provided by public universities. The bill increases the maximum amounts for other grants under section 41-45 and Commonwealth scholarships under section 46-40 of the act to provide for indexation and other variations affecting the 2012 to 2014 years and to include the 2015 funding year.

The act will be amended to clarify that Australian citizens are not entitled to Commonwealth support or access to a HELP loan when they are undertaking their course of study primarily overseas. The amendments only affect students who are undertaking a course of study primarily at an overseas campus. It will not affect students who are only doing a minority of their course at an overseas campus, such as those involved in a formal exchange program or who are accessing overseas HELP.

The policy remains the same as currently indicated in the administrative material provided to the sector by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations—in particular, section 19 of the Administrative information for providers: student support. This is not a change of policy but rather a clarification of the government's policy. Current students will not be affected. Universities that currently have students in Commonwealth supported places at overseas campuses will be able to maintain the status of these students for the duration of their current courses.

With the move to a demand driven funding system and the substantial cost to the government and Australian taxpayers of funding Commonwealth supported places and access to HELP loans, it is important that the government clarifies its policy in relation to Australian citizens studying at overseas campuses of Australian providers. This bill reflects the government's continued commitment to growing Australia's higher education sector and to expanding opportunities for Australians to obtain a high-quality 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.