Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024. Firstly, I'd like to thank the committee and the committee chair for conducting the inquiry that we held into it and the collegial way in which we approached matters. Even when we disagree, we actually do work well together and we're able to prosecute the matters that are before the committee in a civil way. So I thank the committee for the way that we undertook this inquiry. I say that as the deputy chair of the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee.

The coalition does support this bill, though we will be proposing several amendments. But in my contribution here today I want to join with Senator Henderson in calling out the government for some of the failures that they have been presiding over in the higher education sector. We note that there are broad failings of the Albanese government, including its economic mismanagement and its homegrown cost-of-living crisis, which, of course, is affecting all Australians and, indeed, students.

I think students face higher costs of living than anyone else. I have a higher-ed-age student, who is about to commence next year, living in my home—my daughter. It's difficult for young people to be able to work out how to make ends meet, and that's what many students across the country are facing.

At a recent hearing of the Select Committee on the Cost of Living, we heard that an analysis by the Australian Financial Review in August 2024 illustrated that Australian households have experienced the largest fall in disposable incomes across the OECD over the last two years. This supports the body of evidence provided to the committee demonstrating that, in the last 2½ years, the cost of essential goods has increased rapidly while household incomes have not kept pace; therefore, any kind of HELP indexation relief from this bill is automatically swallowed up by the persistent and ongoing inflation, including the higher grocery prices.

This government seems to have little understanding of exactly what Australians are facing. By their actions they're demonstrating that they do not grasp the challenges that Australians are facing. Everyday prices have skyrocketed across this country. The cost of food is up 12 per cent. Health costs are up 10 per cent. The cost of education is up 12 per cent, housing 13 per cent, rent 16 per cent, electricity a whopping 31 per cent, and gas a staggering 34 per cent. It's little wonder that economist Chris Richardson said earlier this month on 3 November that handing $16 billion to graduates is 'a reverse Robin Hood'; it's a tax cut targeted to the big end of town, with money going from the less well off to the better off. He says it is 'a fairness fail', and he says: 'Worse still, that $16 billion does nothing for the nation's future.'

The education committee that I'm on held its public hearing on 24 September, and on 2 October the EEC was advised by the Department of Education and the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations that questions on notice resulting from the hearing would not be available until 11 October, well after the inquiry reporting date. That, frankly, is completely unacceptable. This committee does important work on behalf of all senators here in this place, and when we ask questions, we expect that those answers can be provided. When we're given a deadline to report back by the majority in this Senate, we need a timely response to the questions that are asked. In this case, we had questions that couldn't be answered by the department until after we were to have reported back to the Senate. This is unacceptable. It's an agenda and a timeline that is controlled by the government, using the numbers that they have here in this place. It's unacceptable that timelines that are set by the government cannot be met even by their own departments and, worse still, without instruction then being given to their departments to satisfactorily meet the deadlines that they need to meet in order to facilitate parliamentary procedure occurring—to facilitate an inquiry to properly examine all issues. Important questions are asked and not answered in a timely way.

The Senate inquiry process is meant to ensure that non-government senators and stakeholders—it's very important that we hear from stakeholders through these inquiry processes—are able to properly scrutinise government legislation and have access to the information required to better inform the process. As I said, it's the responsibility of the government to ensure that their own departments are able meet the deadlines. Sometimes there are reasons for delays. Sometimes the gathering of data can take some time. We accept that. But why, then, do the government, who are in control of the agenda in this place, set timelines that they themselves are not able to meet through their own administration? It's unacceptable. It's not proper governance. It really is a smack in the face for the constituents that voted for us and put us, in all parties, here in this place. Importantly, stakeholders have particular views that need to be considered and represented through our committee reports and our deliberations here in this place. When the government doesn't respect that, it really does slap the processes in this place, and it's a real shame. It demonstrates a continuing pattern right across the whole term of a Labor government that has treated the inquiry process with disdain.

I returning to the bill. Because of Labor's crippling cost-of-living crisis, more than three million Australians with a student debt have been hit with crippling increases to HELP indexation. Under Labor, HELP indexation rose by almost 16 per cent. That's 3.9 per cent in the first year of their government, 7.1 per cent in the following year and 4.3 per cent in this last financial year. For someone with an average loan of $24,700 as at June 2022, this has meant a debilitating increase of around $4,000 on top of their balance. In contrast to the average HELP indexation of only 1.7 per cent under the former coalition government, this increase constitutes a very significant increase in student debt.

What are the risks with the proposed changes? Mr Andrew Norton, a respected professor in the practice of higher education policy at ANU, appeared before the inquiry in a personal capacity and highlighted the dangers with the proposed changes to HELP indexation. He said:

My concern is that this leaves us vulnerable to a period where the CPI and the WPI are both high simultaneously—

that, of course, is what we're dealing with—

kind of like we had in the 1970s. I don't think that's likely right now, but nor did we expect this kind of resurgence of inflation.

In response to questions on notice, Mr Norton also stated:

The function of a loan scheme like HELP is to help people achieve their educational and career goals, doing so in a way that balances managing their personal financial risks and the government's fiscal position. All parts of the system—the original fees charged, the indexation arrangements, and the repayment system—need to work together in a coherent way to achieve these objectives.

How will the government's changes assist regional students? This is an important question that needs to be asked. Regional Universities Australia said:

These amendments will provide little to no cost of living/cost of study relief to those students enrolled at Australia's universities today, who face the immediate pressures of study during the current cost of living crisis. Nor will there be any substantial, immediate benefit to Australians currently paying off their HELP loan. If these students are already in the workforce, their ongoing HELP loan repayments remain fixed and unchanged under this amendment.

So who will benefit? It's unfair to millions of Australians who do not have student loans. Only people who have paid off their HELP debt—estimated to be around 200,000 out of the total of three million debtors—will receive an actual refund. But those refunds are only payable once all other Commonwealth debts, such as for child support, are cleared. As I said, this is not delivering the help that is needed, particularly for those facing the high increased costs of living.

In the short time I have remaining I want to address another matter of this bill—that is, the student services and amenities fee. This bill mandates a minimum of 40 per cent of student services and amenities revenue be directed to student led organisations, including student associations, unions and guilds. Students studying at university or with a higher education provider pay what is known as the student services and amenities fee. It is set to a maximum each year—this year it is set at $351—and is collected by universities to provide non-academic support. This includes help with housing, health and welfare, career advice, the provision of library or study areas, financial advice, legal services and providing food and drink. In 2023 more than $278 million was collected through these fees, of which, according to the Department of Education, $110 million, or 38 per cent, went to student led organisations.

The Accord report noted that while universities have discretion on how they use these funds—as long as they use them for the intended purpose—it is a financial source that student unions rely on heavily.

This measure appears to be driven more broadly by ideology rather than by common sense, a pattern that we see continuing to recur with this government. Some student organisations do not have the capacity to deliver appropriate student services, and some universities have also raised these concerns. We are deeply concerned that this bill lacks any measures which require transparency and accountability as to how student union guilds and associations would be using this funding. There must be clear rules. There ought to be clear rules. These are hard-earned student levies that are being paid by students. Those fees that are paid should be accounted for.

During the inquiry, many providers raised concerns in their submissions about the likely unintended consequences of this proposal, including that student led organisations 'do not have the capacity or the expertise to deliver essential supports for students, such as mental health assistance or, indeed, food banks'. Submissions also noted that the changes may result in 'employment uncertainty for some staff'. Universities Australia recommended:

…that changes to how the SSAF is used be deferred until the proposal has been further developed in consultation with the sector because of substantial concerns raised by UA's members.

There should be clear rules about approved expenditure to ensure that only essential services which directly support students are funded. It's abhorrent, for instance, for any such funds to be used by any organisation for anti-Jewish or anti-Israel student protests, which we have seen. It should be clear that the funds cannot be used for those types of activities. It should be absolutely crystal clear, but it's not under this bill; it's a free-for-all. Safeguards need to be put in place to prevent this from occurring.

The coalition seeks an amendment to remove the 40 per cent allocation requirement to allow students the flexibility to be able to distribute SSAF funds in ways that best meet their needs, and we want to see accountability in it. Transparency and clear guidelines for SSAF expenditure are essential to ensure that only essential services directly supporting student needs are funded, rather than allowing for potential ideological misuse of student fees.