Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Hansard source

Exactly, until they join the Labor Party to get into this place. I might say my favourite professional student at university was also the president of the communist party at university. She was a delightfully charming person, but I did feel that she might well have had long enough at university and that it was probably time, having had several partnerships and several children, to perhaps move into the workforce and allow the taxpayer's contribution to her education to finally be realised.

The deregulation of Commonwealth supported places removes the first of the rationales, but I believe there are still very strong reasons for retaining the student learning entitlement. While the government may assert that there are very low instances of professional students in Australian universities and there are problems with effectively administering legislation, simply abolishing the entitlement is sending the wrong message to students and the taxpayer. In fact there are very low levels of these perpetual students as a result of the Howard government's reforms and indeed the introduction of the student learning entitlement. To abolish the student learning entitlement in its entirety would see the return of students doing degree after degree for decades at significant public expense with no ability for the government to recover their HECS debt. Today the minister for education, Senator Chris Evans, has accused the opposition of wanting to hold on to this measure because we want to increase red tape on universities. But as I have already pointed out, it was under Labor that red tape and bureaucracy flourished.

Students at university should never ever forget the great privilege that is being afforded them by the Australian taxpayer. Only around 30 per cent of the population attend university, but it is the taxes of all Australians that keep them operating. Students at university should accept that they owe the taxpayer a debt and pay it back. Only the Labor Party would see a benefit in scrapping a measure that stops the Australian taxpayer and the HECS system from being abused in this manner. We on this side of the House do, however, agree that there have been some substantial changes in the way some undergraduate degrees are taught and that the upper level of the student learning entitlement should be set at eight years rather than the current seven. This would, for example, allow students to undertake a bachelor of science with an additional honours year and then complete a medical degree.

We understand the government may attempt to stop this amendment on technical grounds by asserting that the extension of the term of the student learning entitlement is an appropriations measure and that the opposition may not appropriate public moneys. However, this amendment would actually reduce expenditure. The student learning entitlement provides a cap on the length of time a student may occupy a Commonwealth supported place. The government seeks to remove this cap and has provided expenditure to match this removal. Therefore our amendment would reduce the burden on the Australian taxpayer rather than increase it. As a consequence, in my view, this is not an appropriations measure and does not offend the rule of what this House can or cannot consider.

I am therefore going to move amendments that seek to reverse these student learning entitlement changes. I will table the amendment that is in my name and have it circulated at the end of my speech. These amendments, if adopted, will retain the cap on the length of time a student may occupy a place and increase the entitlement currently in place from seven to eight years. However, compared to the government's bill, which sets no limits, the opposition amendments set a limit of eight years.

The last matter I wish to address relates to schedule 3 part 1 clause 3 of the bill, which provides inter alia:

A higher education provider that is a *Table A provider or a *Table B provider must have a policy that upholds free intellectual inquiry in relation to learning, teaching and research.

To ensure crystal clarity, the coalition will amend the bill to ensure the policy applies to students as well as academics. Students have complained for many years about their work being marked not on the quality of their argument, their understanding of the material and the clarity of their thoughts, but on the basis of their political philosophy. I might at this opportunity tell you a small vignette about my own undergraduate degree, which I know will enthral the member for Braddon. In my first year at university in constitutional law 1, I chose to do my first essay on the dismissal of the Whitlam government in 1975. Amazingly I only got 30 per cent for that essay and when I went to see the lecturer in constitutional law 1 she explained to me that, while there was not anything particularly wrong with my essay, I might stay away from political subjects in future at university. I did not complain because one takes the rough with the smooth, but I think there are students who have a much worse experience at university than I had. Therefore, we do seek to include the same intellectual freedoms for students as this bill introduces for academics.

Requiring universities to have a policy on academic freedom for students as well as teachers will assist students in exploring their own philosophical underpinnings without fear that their views will offend the sensitive and indignant sensibilities of some academics. While the coalition is well aware that many higher education providers have policies and procedures in place that seek to manage these issues, we are aware of a number of examples where the different political affiliations of students and lecturers have caused problems. For these reasons, I will move the amendments standing in my name, which will be circulated at the end of my speech.

I do note also that the Nation Tertiary Education Union has commended in their press release the government, in particular Senator Carr and Prime Minister Gillard, in relation to their commitment to acknowledge through this legislation 'that one of the distinctive purposes of every Australian university is to promote and protect free intellectual inquiry.' I do hope that they can therefore provide the same acknow­ledgement to this amendment on behalf of students who also deserve this same recognition. The coalition hope that the government and the crossbenchers in this House will see the merits of these amendments and the others that I will move today on reducing red tape and maintaining the student learning entitlement so that the Australian taxpayer can continue to feel confidence that the students who attend university will at some point in the future pay back what they owe to the taxpayer. I do commend the bill to the House with the amendments as described by the coalition.

See this speech in context