Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

As we would expect, we have heard nothing but myths and great legends from those opposite. Let me put on the record where Labor's reforms are. Labor's reforms are currently being well received in the higher ed sector. The reforms that we implemented in government are working. They have been well received. There is no evidence at all before the Senate or, indeed, anywhere in Australia that those reforms which Labor implemented are not working.

Let's have a look at all these thought bubbles we saw from the Abbott government just last week. Was it a tax? Was it a fine? What was it? It was a tax. There was a thought bubble put to the government that it entertain taxing universities that charge fees above a certain limit. They would be taxed at 20 per cent and then 60 per cent and then 80 per cent, depending on how high the fees went. So badly thought out was that thought bubble that in a speech in this place last week I pointed out that the University of Western Australia in my state of Western Australia would actually be paying more to the government in taxes than it would be receiving in subsidies. What a ridiculous notion. Of course, Labor and a number of scholars and academics were very quick to point out to the government that the tax was just an absolute nonsense.

The other thing is that, if this is such a wonderful package, if it is going to so advance the lives of students and make sure that disadvantaged students get to university—I have to say that under Labor's reforms that are currently in place we had record numbers of students from disadvantaged backgrounds attending universities, but of course you will never hear that from the Abbott government—students would be welcoming it. But in all of the evidence I have heard—and I have sat on all of the Senate inquiries, unlike most of those opposite—I have not heard any student organisation say that this is a good package and that somehow it is going to be an advantage for them. Not one single student organisation—not the National Union of Students, not the postgraduate students and not the medical students—have said that this is a package that is going to be of advantage to them.

Let's not forget for one minute where this whole package started from. Just a little over 18 months ago, we started with a Prime Minister who said there would be no cuts to education. That was the basis for this most radical reform that we are now seeing in our higher education sector. It is based on the premise of the Prime Minister, who said days before the September election there would be no cuts to education. All of Australia knows now that that was not true. This promise of no cuts to education just goes on a very long list of broken promises from this chaotic Abbott government.

Nothing illustrates the chaos of the Abbott government more than these higher education bills. We have had so many that it is a bit hard to keep up with what is happening. The reform in higher ed is the most radical in the history of our universities. What serious analysis was there in the construction of these bills? It seems just any thought bubbles which escape from Minister Pyne's office or, in fact, the last best idea from a conversation he has seems to emerge as another higher education bill. Quite frankly, you cannot build quality reform in a six-month time frame. You cannot build quality reform post the budget. You certainly cannot build quality reform when you do not speak to anyone about your intentions.

We started with that cast-iron guarantee that there would be no cuts to education from now on, but it would seem that the Prime Minister has not thought that out—certainly it is questionable whether there was any debate. It appears there was no consultation with the sector, economists, or academics. It is very clear from our questions at Senate estimates that, prior to the budget, there was no consultation with universities. Post the budget there has been consultation. That is because there has been such an outcry about these radical proposals. The government somehow thought that the community would embrace them. This is radical reform. Let us not kid ourselves: this is the most radical reform we have seen in the higher education sector; yet, it would seem there was no input from anyone before the idea was announced.

Absent from this bill is any notion of independent advice, and there is no evidence of a considered process involving consultation, evaluation and analysis. Indeed, fee deregulation has been presented as the one and only quick-fix solution to a sustainable higher education sector in Australia. What nonsense! Like most of the rhetoric from the Abbott government, their rhetoric is that, somehow, universities are at some kind of tipping point and for Australian universities to remain high quality this radical reform is needed. But where is the proof? Where is the considered analysis? When you start from the premise of just 18 months ago of 'no cuts to education', it surely means that there wasn't considered consultation before the budget. There has been no green paper and there has been no white paper. In evidence, the universities told us that they were not given much of an opportunity to have input. That is typical of this government. We know that in most areas where the government are pursuing conservative Tea Party ideologies that have failed in other countries there is no evidence of consultation with the sectors involved.

Labor has asked over and over: 'Give us some indication of the consultation.' The very best we got from the Department of Education and Training in evidence is that it had consulted post budget. I think that was a matter of damage control because there was such an outcry. Once the government's radical reform was out, and there were huge protests and a massive outcry, that is when they consulted. We have seen that over and over again—for example, the thought bubble on the GP tax, which was put out there: 'Yep, we're going to do this. Suck it up. Too bad. It is happening.' Suddenly, there was an outcry and a huge backlash from the medical profession. Now, the Abbott government are trying to hoodwink Australians that it is out there consulting. That is their modus operandi. That is how they operate. They throw it out there and see how it lands. If there is a hue and cry they will go out and pretend to do a consultation. It is not as if the GP tax is off the table. It is just put away until they can work out a time to get it through. It is the same with this higher education reform. I heard Minister Pyne on the radio this morning trying to get a medal for presenting the bill over and over. How many times do you have to present the higher ed bill before you give up? How many times do you have to be told by the Australian public 'We don't like your reforms' before you give up? Mr Pyne does not deserve a medal. He should take his reforms off the table and think about where to go next. He should talk to people and consult. But, no, he thinks he deserves a medal for keeping on keeping on. What a ridiculous notion that is. Again, like the GP tax, there has been no consultation, and that will resurface again too.

There is no evidence of any consultation on the development of their $100,000 university degrees or their 20 per cent cuts, which are off the table. But Minister Pyne has told us that they are coming back, just like the GP tax, at some later date. Labor argues that the Abbott government, with its combined budget cuts and the provision of this higher education package, are creating their own tipping point. The tipping point is the threat of this higher education package. The package threatens participation, attainment and the quality of our own current successful system. In the words of Professor Stephen Parker, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Canberra:

… we should not be taking risks with this. In the absence of evidence, modelling and time for consultation, we should be taking this carefully. The stakes are very high.

This Abbott government package was completely unexpected. It was lobbed on the Australian higher education sector off the back of the promise of 'no cuts to education'. As the Australia Institute, in its submission to the Senate inquiry, asserted, there has been no properly, well-informed debate and there are no clearly articulated goals of how this radical reform will serve the public interest. Moreover, it is imperative that all Australians have a clear understanding of arguments for and against any proposed changes to the higher education system and the mechanisms by which such changes will be achieved.

Then of course there was the false and misleading advertising, a significant waste of taxpayers' dollars from a government supposedly so concerned about taxpayers' dollars. On 7 December 2014, the Abbott government launched a taxpayer funded advertising campaign designed to address supposed misunderstandings about higher education funding and the changes contained in the HERR bill at that time, which has now been defeated. The $14.6 million campaign spanned television, radio, newspapers, digital media, social media and bus shelters. The purpose-built campaign website featured video, infographics and a true-or-false quiz. If we applied a true-or-false quiz to the Abbott government false would come up most of the time.

The short-term interim guidelines on information and advertising campaigns by Australian government departments and agencies, which were in effect when the Secretary of the Department of Education and Training certified the campaign as compliant, stipulate that all campaign materials should be presented in an objective, fair and accessible manner. The guidelines specifically state:

Where information is presented as a fact, it should be accurate and verifiable. When making a factual comparison, the material should not attempt to mislead the recipient about the situation with which the comparison is made and it should state explicitly the basis for the comparison.

The government's advertising campaign presents misleading, unverifiable figures as fact and offers no information about the basis of its calculations. Policy experts have questioned the accuracy of the government's claims, with Andrew Norton noting that, regardless of their veracity, the figures used are 'not particularly meaningful in the first place'. It is so typical of the Abbott government: it seems to think that, if it says it over and over really loudly and it insults everyone else, somehow it makes the campaign believable. Well, it does not. Truth and facts are what the Australian people want.

The guidelines require that advertising campaigns be instigated on the basis of a demonstrated need. While there has been some attempt to use unverifiable anecdotes and third-party market research to justify the campaign, there is no demonstrated need for a wide-scale, multimillion dollar advertising campaign, using taxpayers' dollars, to promote a bill that has not yet passed the parliament. On Minister Pyne's own reflections on the radio interview I heard this morning, the legislation is unlikely to pass this place once again.

The campaign does not address the bill's core policy objectives, instead offering misleading and meaningless assurances to prospective students and the broader public. It is clear the campaign has been developed not to address demonstrated need but rather in response to the negative reaction to the government's proposed changes from students, education providers and the Australian public. Let us be clear: it is students who will carry the $100,000 debt. And not one student organisation has yet to tick off and sign up to the government's reforms. The reforms are universally rejected by students right across this country.

The campaign's clear political purpose breaches the guidelines, which require that 'Campaign materials must not try to foster a positive impression of a particular political party or promote party political interests.' The current system works. The Senate inquiry received overwhelming evidence that the current higher education system is sustainable and high quality. For example, Mr Ben Phillips and Professor Parker argued:

… at the moment student contributions are already quite high in Australia from an OECD perspective. The Australian university system appears to be working very well: we have 19 universities in the top 500 and on a per capita basis we are ranked fourth in the world. We are very attractive for international students, and the international market is very healthy here in Australia. I guess we are not quite sure what the problem is. That is something that needs to be explained.

When we heard evidence on the first bill, all of the universities that gave evidence—and many of them, or their representative umbrella groups, did—said that international students are a very lucrative market for Australia's higher education sector. They all want to continue to be able to encourage international students to come to Australia to study. The Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations also said that the current system is workable and would ultimately produce better future outcomes for the Australian higher education sector. Australia Needs a Brighter Future agreed with the notion that the current arrangements for the funding of the higher education sector are preferable to those proposed in the reform package.

Labor believes that fee deregulation is unnecessary. Education policy analyst Professor Louise Watson argued that evidence obtained in the Higher Education Base Funding Review, chaired by Jane Lomax-Smith, which reported in October 2011, led to the conclusion that Australian universities were doing very well. In discussing the fee deregulation proposal, Professor Watson argued that it was a further impost on the Commonwealth budget and that it would be more unpredictable than the removal of caps on funded places, stating:

I have always been puzzled as to why fee deregulation was necessary or deemed necessary. I have never understood the problem it was meant to fix. From where I stand, it seems like fee deregulation will simply compound the problems currently facing the government in terms of university financing, not solve them.

This is what happens when we put Minister Pyne's thought bubble into a higher education reform package. If there had been some consultation, and if indeed the Australian public had been put on notice that there were going to be cuts and changes to education, we would have been able to have a for-and-against debate. We would have been able to have experts providing input. But no: the Abbott government, in its usual way of pushing through, denied everyone that opportunity. Expert after expert is saying that this is not the way to go. What is it that we are trying to fix? Nobody quite understands that.

The National Union of Students contended that fee deregulation would result in decreased opportunities, accessibility and equity for students and provided evidence before the committee that deregulation, as proposed, will be unpredictable and unsustainable. All of the student organisations reject fee deregulation out of hand. The National Tertiary Education Union noted that 'nobody, including the government, seems clear as to the rationale or underlying principles of the proposed policy framework'.

Those are the reasons that Labor will not be supporting the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill. We do not see the need for it. There is no clear evidence being put forward. Therefore, we will continue our opposition to it.