Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a continuation of my contribution in this debate on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2006 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2006I had started my remarks last night but had only about two minutes then. In recent weeks we have seen yet another report, an OECD report titled Education at a glance 2006, with some very unfavourable comments about Australia in relation to higher education. It certainly shows that this Prime Minister and this government deserve an ‘F’ for education and training. There can be no doubt about the meaning of this report: ‘F’ signifies failure. While the rest of the OECD countries around the world have increased their public investment in tertiary education by an average of 48 per cent, Australia is the only country in the developed world—I emphasise: the only country—to see a decline, of seven per cent. Surely that must be not only a national but an international disgrace.

Let me give you some comparisons. In the OECD report we see the increases by other countries in their funding contributions to tertiary education. In the United States, the increase has been 67 per cent; in Canada, 37 per cent; in Japan, 32 per cent; and in Switzerland, 74 per cent. But what we see in Australia is a decline in public investment of seven per cent—so not an increase but, in fact, a decline. And it is not as if we do not have the money. This government boasts of its enormous budget surplus; we often hear about good times and economic prosperity in this country. It is simply down to the government’s short-sighted ideology and its blind desire to turn our higher education system into an American copy. So Australia is going backwards internationally while everyone else is going ahead. No wonder we have a massive skill shortage impeding our future development and prosperity—a skill shortage brought about solely by this government and its lack of attention to higher education.

Furthermore, the report shows that the Howard government’s HECS hikes have meant that Australian university students are now paying the second highest fees in the world. Under the Howard government Australians are paying more and more simply to get a degree. These massive increases in university fees are forcing up the total debts faced by students and graduates by $2 billion a year, taking Australia further down the track of an American style university system. The new Senate estimates figures from the Department of Education, Science and Training show that university graduates and students will owe $18.8 billion—that is billion, not million—in HECS debts by 2008-09. We have the Minister for Education, Science and Training, Minister Bishop, trying to spin herself out of trouble by saying that the massive rise in debt is simply due to the rise in student numbers. Try again, Minister. That is simply wrong, as the student numbers have risen by only a small percentage, in fact 0.2 per cent, according to DEST’s own figures, between 2004 and 2005, compared to the rise in student debt. What we have seen from this government is a deliberate shift: a decline in university funding and the onus being moved onto students through their HECS increases over the life of this government.

Included, of course, in the funding this bill proposes is the application of indexation to university grants across the forward estimates years. This is a major matter—indeed, our universities continue to suffer from inadequate indexation, as they have done for 10 years under this government. The rate of indexation being applied to university operating grants by the government averages around two per cent per annum. By comparison, average weekly earnings rose by an average of 4.5 per cent annually between 1998 and 2004. Salary costs are the largest component of any university’s operating expenses, ranging between 45 per cent and 70 per cent—more like 70 per cent or more, I would have thought. The gap between indexation and the growth in wage costs continues to rise. In fact, I understand that what is needed to compensate universities for the gap between indexation and the rise in wage costs is somewhere around $500 million. As the gap rises, so do the financial pressures on universities—their staff, courses, class sizes and students. The ratio of students to tutor or lecturer in higher education in 1991 was about 15.6 to one. That ratio in 2004 was 20.7 to one. So there has been an increase in class sizes.

In particular, the shift in responsibility from the Commonwealth and public purse to either students or universities themselves has been most significant in the last 10 years. For example, Commonwealth grants to universities in 1996 when this government took over represented about 57 per cent of total university revenue. More than 50 per cent of funding going to universities was from the Commonwealth government. In 2003 around 41 per cent of university revenue came from the Commonwealth. So we have seen a downward shift of 16 per cent.

What has been the reaction from the sector? The universities have no other option but to impose fees. Somehow the 16 per cent difference has to be made up. In 1996 universities had 13 per cent of their revenue base made up of fees from students. In 2003 universities relied on about 24 per cent of their funding to come from student fees. So from 1996 to 2003 we have had a 16 per cent decline in the funding coming from the Commonwealth to universities. At the same time, universities have compensated for that by imposing fees on students which have risen from 13 per cent to 24 per cent of their revenue. So it is not surprising that we do not come up to the mark in an international report such as the one produced by the OECD.

Let us look at the impact on regional universities, and in particular Charles Darwin University in the Northern Territory. Charles Darwin University has about 17,665 students—people, that is, not equivalent full-time students or TAFE students, but actual bodies—according to their 2005 statistics. Out of that about 5,380 people are in higher education. Charles Darwin University suffered a $6 million cut in the first year of this government coming to power. We know what that meant at the time for the then Northern Territory University. It meant that they had to abolish courses, areas of faculties and departments. The English faculty, for example, was one that was abolished to much hue and cry from the local community. The arts department suffered as a result.

All up, since 1996 Charles Darwin University has faced nearly $40 million in recurrent funding being withdrawn by the Howard government. Forty million dollars over the course of 10 years is a large cost for a university like Charles Darwin University to have to wear, particularly when they do a splendid job in trying to deliver higher education right around the Territory in places such as Gove, Nhulunbuy, Katherine, Alice Springs and even in the remote centres. It is extremely expensive and time consuming to get lecturers out to those places and to service students in those places. This university has had to struggle to survive and to continue offering higher education right around the Territory while they have suffered a $40 million reduction in their recurrent funding under the Howard government. So reduction in funding has a massive impact on small and regional universities such as Charles Darwin University.

At a time when our university system is grossly underfunded and in need of serious attention, all we are getting from this government is an inadequate, incoherent policy response to the needs of our university system to diversify, innovate and meet Australia’s higher education needs.

I want to spend some time having a look at Indigenous people participating in higher education. I have not heard any comment about that in this debate in this chamber or from my colleagues in the House of Representatives. We know that this government set up the Indigenous Higher Education Advisory Council. Let us give that a tick because that is a good thing. It is time Indigenous people have an avenue in the tertiary education sector through which advice can be given directly to the minister. I notice that we do not have it in the school sector but at least we have it in higher education. I want to commend the government for putting representatives from the trade union movement on it—people like Joel Wright, who works for the National Tertiary Education Union—who have a broad network of connections in the education sector. Their expertise is welcomed and recognised.

On 18 July the new minister, the honourable Julie Bishop, launched the Indigenous Higher Education Advisory Council’s report called Improving Indigenous outcomes and enhancing Indigenous culture and knowledge in Australian higher education. The report also included the outcomes of the Indigenous Higher Education Advisory Council 2005 conference—because, remember, there was a commitment from this government to have an Indigenous higher education conference each year—titled Education led recovery of Indigenous capacity: reshaping the policy agenda. The reforms and initiatives in the report aimed to substantially improve the quality of Indigenous peoples’ participation in higher education as staff and students. It put forward, though, one overarching recommendation. The cornerstone or the keystone of that report stated:

A major national project be undertaken to investigate and report on Indigenous education initiatives and strategies in higher education that are successful in improving access and rates of retention and completion.

There were 35 specific recommendations in that area and they went to: encouraging universities to work with schools and TAFE colleges; developing a concerted strategy to improve the levels of Indigenous undergraduate enrolment; improving the level of Indigenous postgraduate enrolment; improving the rates of success, retention and—let us not forget—completion for Indigenous students; enhancing the prominence of Indigenous culture and knowledge; increasing the number of Indigenous people working in universities; and improving the participation of Indigenous people in university governance and management.

But what have we seen since that the report was handed down in July? Each month I carefully look and watch to see if we have got another announcement about how this is going to be implemented, but I suspect that it is going to be another report that sits on the shelf gathering dust without any strategic plan or performance indicators to put it in place. One of the critical issues addressed by the Indigenous Higher Education Advisory Council report was the ongoing debate about the decline in Indigenous student commencements since the invincible date of 2000. We all know what happened at that turn of events. The report went on to say:

Despite some advances, Indigenous people remain significantly under-represented in Australian higher education. The number of indigenous students commencing higher education rose steadily throughout the 1990s—

that is true—

but dropped significantly in 2000 and has fluctuated since.

In the latest report to the federal parliament on Indigenous education there was a decline of nearly 600 students in the 12 months of that reporting period. Despite the fact that this government continue to deny this, the decline has been brought about by the changes to the Indigenous student income support, Abstudy, introduced between 2000 and 2003. Every significant report I have seen, every academic who has researched this and every person who wants to point to the reason Indigenous education is declining in the higher education sector points to that moment when the Abstudy changes occurred. Everybody seems to recognise this except this government. They are still in denial about that. The Indigenous Higher Education Advisory Council report says:

Changes to ABSTUDY with the aim of aligning the means tests and payment rates with those of Youth Allowance and Newstart took effect from 1 January 2000. There was a sharp decline in higher education Indigenous enrolments in 2000 and ABSTUDY recipient numbers in higher education declined significantly in 2002 and 2003 (DEST, 2004). It is likely that both the means test and the payment rates need urgent reconsideration”.

And now we have got the government’s own Indigenous Higher Education Advisory Council in a report to government also confirming that they believe that was the trigger for the decline.

One of the most significant changes was the abolition of the Student Supplementary Financial Support Scheme. This provided students in receipt of Abstudy or Austudy with loans to pay for additional living and education costs associated with university study. We know that in the years prior to the abolition of the loans the number of commencing Indigenous students had been steadily increasing from 7,342 in 2001 to 8,871 in 2002 and then to 8,998 in 2003. But the loans scheme was abolished in April 2003, after which there was an almost immediate decline of 12.1 per cent in Indigenous student commencements in 2004, going down to 7,902, and in 2005, based on half-yearly figures, an 11 per cent decline was already evident. So since 2003 we have actually seen 1,955 fewer Indigenous commencements, representing a decline of 21.8 per cent. Under this government we have seen a massive underspending in higher education, a deliberate shift to include the cost—(Time expired)

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Amanda Vanstone (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senator for her contribution and I thank the other senators for their contributions. I think there is a will to simply proceed.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.