Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2006 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2006 amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003, the Higher Education Funding Act 1988 and the Australian Research Council Act 2001. This amendment bill contains no fewer than nine schedules. It is noteworthy that under this government the public investment in higher education has fallen while in all other OECD nations it has increased.

There are enough studies and research available stressing the impact of higher education on our community. Whether a university degree, a diploma gained at a TAFE college or a trade acquired through the apprenticeship system, higher education is the best means to build a more prosperous Australia. This week we have a report from the Queensland Council of Social Services that shows that lack of education is a key determinant influencing the cycle of poverty, an issue that we discussed earlier this afternoon.

Higher education should not just be equated with gaining a university qualification. Higher education is the path by which all people can move upwards. Yet this government has demonstrated that higher education is not as important to it as it should be. Australia is now the only OECD nation that has been cutting public investment in higher education as a percentage of GDP since 1995. The figures speak for themselves. In real terms this government has presided over a system that has seen its expenditure reduced by eight per cent as a proportion of GDP. The OECD average, on the other hand, has been an increase of some 38 per cent. This falling public expenditure has had its effects not only on university campuses around Australia but also at TAFE colleges.

As I have said on numerous occasions in this place, the current skill shortages in our economy are the responsibility of this government and this government alone. It does not matter whether it is a shortfall of doctors, nurses, engineers, plumbers or carpenters. When you fail to invest in higher education you are failing to invest in the future development of your economy. Now that we have a fully-fledged skill shortage, out come the bandaids from the government. Out come the increases in temporary work visas, out come the Australian technical colleges and out comes last week’s announcement on training. Now in schedule 1 of this legislation we see the increase in nursing places and medical places.

This government is not concerned with nation building. This government cannot see beyond the next election. Even if it can see beyond the next election, it certainly does not have a plan for it. Let us consider for a moment what its current term of government has delivered: legislation about student unionism that does nothing more than suit its ideological purposes and Australian technical colleges that will not deliver any additional tradespeople until 2008. Even now only some five out of 24 are up and running. In fact, this week we have seen the directors of TAFE colleges urging the co-location of Australian technical colleges within the existing TAFE system—an approach that is actually taking place in the Pilbara. We have a government that only takes action after the crisis has occurred.

One of my major concerns about the effect of decisions of this government and the skill shortages relates to the analysis of the labour market. It used to be the case in this country that the department of employment monitored and analysed emerging trends in the workforce. This allowed government to introduce policies and to adjust immigration intakes to take into account changes in the labour market. How is it that we have been caught short on the skill shortages? Is it that the department has not been conducting the analysis of the emerging trends, or that successive ministers have been ignoring this advice? Whichever is the case, there is no doubt that information must have been available that highlighted potential or actual shortages.

Take the case of the additional Commonwealth supported places funded by the Commonwealth Grant Scheme that are included in schedule 1 of this amendment bill. Two hundred additional medical places will commence in 2007, and that will increase to 405 places by 2009. We know that the Productivity Commission identified that shortages existed in a number of health professions and that in essence we needed to train more health workers to meet projected needs. So out come the government, and they announce with great fanfare that more medical places will be created. What they of course omit to mention is that it was their decision when they came into government 10 years ago to reduce the number of Commonwealth supported places that led to the problem in the first place.

We also have to acknowledge that, even with the increased emphasis on training medical students in the area of general practice, these changes will mean a reduction in the number of patients that a doctor will be able to see. I was talking recently to doctors in Perth and they pointed out to me that each student they train and supervise in their practice will mean a 25 per cent decrease in the number of patients that they can see. That is the problem with this government: it fixes one problem only by creating others. Australians are entitled to wonder what would be the current situation if the government had not made that original decision 10 years ago to reduce the number of places for medical students in our universities.

The same sorry story exists for trades and traditional apprenticeships. With great noise the government launched its new apprenticeships and traineeships schemes. But it overlooked one problem. The numbers undertaking traditional trades were decreasing, and increasingly people were not completing the apprenticeships they commenced. This government has no real understanding of the difference between seeing public expenditure on higher education as an investment and seeing it as a cost. When all you are driven by is recording record surpluses and you are not also driven by investing in the future, you get the situation we now face in Australia. Those opposite need to understand that public investment in higher education benefits all of us and should be treated accordingly.

Let me turn to some of the specific details in schedule 1, in particular those that are part of the COAG mental health package. The bill funds 431 additional new places in undergraduate nursing courses, with a mental health major commencing in 2007. We are told that this will increase to 1,148 places by 2010. As part of the COAG mental health package, 210 additional Commonwealth supported postgraduate clinical psychology places will be commencing in 2007. This also will increase to 400 places by 2008.

I have some concerns with this approach generally and more specifically. My first concern is that these changes are to commence in 2007. What work has been undertaken already for the institutions that are to receive this funding to ensure that those additional places can be accommodated and that sufficient educators are in place to commence from next year? I for one hope that sufficient work has been undertaken in anticipation of this change that ensures that, as of next year, institutions will have in place the resources to take in 210 postgraduate clinical psychology places and 431 nursing places with a major in mental health and that arrangements are also in place for these students to have access to training placements.

These arrangements are traditionally at public hospitals and other health institutions. There is a need for them to be put in place in a cooperative manner—not in the current dictatorial manner coming from this government when it comes to mental health funding. There is always a concern about the timing of policy announcements and whether they are achievable. We saw the time lag between the announcement of the Australian technical colleges policy in 2004 and the graduation of the first student.

My other concern with these announcements is how they will affect Western Australia. As a general rule of thumb, Western Australia typically receives about 10 per cent of any new initiative. These figures tell me that we can expect about 20 postgraduate clinical psychology places and about 43 nurses with a mental health major. I am not confident that this will address the needs of the Western Australian community, particularly for those living in rural and regional areas. As a member of the Senate Select Committee on Mental Health I think that the government should have done better.

The COAG mental health package was announced back in April and here we are halfway through October and only now are these measures being debated in this place. The report of the senate select committee made this clear: surely there is a degree of urgency with how we deal with the issue of mental health. A time lag of six months between the announcement and the presentation of enabling legislation does not fill me with confidence. I can only trust that these places will be available at the start of the 2007 academic year.

One of the other concerns I have is that many of the people in our community with qualifications and skills in a particular area do not work in that area. Surely a task for government is to determine the factors why so many holders of nursing qualifications, for instance, do not work in the nursing occupation and why so many people who commence apprenticeships do not complete them. Once the government is able to make that determination, ensuring that suitable policies are in place will assist us in overcoming future skills shortages.

Let me now turn to schedule 2 of the amendment bill. Schedule 2 deals with FEE-HELP. FEE-HELP, as most of us know, is an income contingent loan scheme. Essentially, full-fee-paying domestic students are eligible for a loan to pay for the cost of their degrees. As we are now seeing universities charging in excess of $200,000 for a medical degree, is it any wonder that the government has had to increase the FEE-HELP loan limit to $100,000 for medicine, dentistry and veterinary science students? FEE-HELP is just another step on the path of the Americanisation of our universities.

Full-fee-paying students gain entrance to universities on one basis only: their capacity to pay. The Australian Medical Association is already on the public record as saying that all medical school places should be Commonwealth supported places. The AMA is, of course, dead right on that one. What this government is doing is going to make it increasingly difficult to gain a university place based on merit selection and increasingly easier to buy a place. In future, the ability of Australians to gain a degree will be about not only whether they can pass the course but whether they can apply for a loan to help pay their way.

It is clear that we are yet to see the full impact of full-fee-paying students and their effect on the university sector, but increasingly we are seeing the start of those changes. One of the areas that have recently been in the press is how the fall-off in enrolment in some courses results in universities having to return money to the Commonwealth. This is an area that deserves close attention. Universities have to provide government with an estimate of how many students they expect to attend a particular course. Universities then set their entry mark and await applications. In the event that the application numbers do not meet their estimate, they have to return the funds to the Commonwealth.

One of the issues is that universities have recently been in the press saying that they will be lowering their admission marks to increase the number of enrolments. Personally I am concerned that this approach puts the cart in front of the horse. What I mean is that entry should be on the basis of merit. Merit is determined by having an entry mark to the course. So if university administrators are wrong in their estimates at the moment then they pay back the money and lower their standards in the next year. I believe that our higher education institutions should be centres of excellence—excellence in research and in teaching.

Through all this we must remember that investment in higher education for our community should not be treated simply as a cost. Higher education benefits all of us. Higher education ensures that we will have a skilled workforce in the years ahead. The value of higher education should not just be measured in a budget bottom line but be seen as a way of ensuring that our country continues to be a prosperous one with decent education and incomes for all.