Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell, you will not be surprised to learn that I, along with every member on this side of the House, will oppose the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014. These reforms are unfair, misguided, ill-conceived and based solely on the ideology of those opposite. These reforms will destroy the opportunity for higher education for many and will laden others with a large and growing debt that will take decades to pay off.

Education in this country is a great equaliser in society. It has allowed many in previous generations to do better than those that went before them. It allows social mobility and it allows children to get opportunity and realise their potential. This bill, unfortunately, will make it harder for many to realise their potential and get a university education.

Over the break, I have been visiting universities—as have many MPs and senators from this side—speaking with parents and grandparents about what these changes will mean. Unfortunately, the government has not done this and has not listened to the majority of Australians that are incredibly concerned about what this means. The message, time and time again, has been clear from those I have spoken to. An Australian university student should not be condemned to a debt sentence because of this government's budget of broken promises. This is a broken promise.

There was no word of these changes before the election. Indeed, there was a guarantee to the Australian people that there would be no cuts to education. Time and time again the now Minister for Education has made comments varyingly but there has been one clear message. I would like to quote from Sky News Australian Agendaof 17 November 2014, where the member for Sturt said: 'I'm not going to jump ahead of the budget that's in May next year' but 'the education budget as forecast over the next four years will not be cut by the coalition. That's very clear.' On the same program, when asked by Peter van Onselen's whether he would like to raise university fees, he said:

Look, Peter, I am not even considering it because we promised that we wouldn't and Tony Abbott made it very clear before the election that we would keep our promises.

It is not surprising that this government have not kept their promise and pulled out in the budget these regressive reforms that are a surprise and have made many Australians very distressed. These reforms will affect students but also past students—and this is a broken promise to the Australian people.

Australians fundamentally still believe in the fair go—the opportunity to get a university education based on one's ability and not on one's capacity to pay; that obtaining a university degree should not mean choosing between a degree and buying house, choosing between a degree and starting a business or choosing between a degree and starting a family. Through this package the government want to abolish opportunity. They want to quarantine university for those who can afford to pay their way with exorbitant fees. They are saying to Australians everywhere: 'It doesn't matter how smart you are, how talented, how gifted or how driven; if you can't afford the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars for your degree, you can forget about it'.

With this legislation the Minister for Education has abandoned so many communities. He has abandoned rural and regional communities. He has abandoned migrant communities. He has abandoned Australians on low and middle incomes. He has abandoned women. He has abandoned Australians who work in the lower paid sectors of teaching and nursing, and he has abandoned Australians everywhere who still believe in a fair go. A quality, affordable university education is at the heart of what Labor stands for. It was a Labor government who made it easily accessible and affordable to achieve a university education and who made it a reality for so many Australians. I second the sentiments of the Leader of the Opposition who said that Labor still believes in equality of opportunity.

Australians should not be condemned to a debt sentence because of this Prime Minister's and this Minister for Education's broken promises. Our best and brightest should not be forced to pay $100,000 for their degree. Look at what a private education system has done in America—where we have seen student debt equalling around a trillion dollars in private debt. Indeed, many people are confused about why Australia would move away from a sustainable, equitable higher education system to try to follow the American route. Indeed, Joseph Stiglitz, a well-known Nobel economist, has said:

Trying to pretend that universities are like private markets is absurd. Countries that imitate the American model are kidding themselves.

It seems that some people here would like to emulate the American model. I don't fully understand the logic.

He is right. The American model has led to a huge amount of student debt. Those who are able to achieve a university degree and those who are not able to have a significantly different outlook on life. And their university sector is not open to everyone who has the smarts to be able to achieve a university degree.

Looking at this legislation, at the heart of these reforms are education cuts. They amount to approximately $5.8 billion of cuts to Australian universities—cuts which, before the election, the government promised they would not make but they are now bringing them forward—and they are asking the students to foot this $5.8 billion bill. For a government that said that they would make no cuts to education, I cannot believe that they are introducing this legislation with a straight face.

This is not a nip or a tuck here or there; this is billions of dollars being ripped out from our Australia's higher education sector. Indeed, across the board it is cut of approximately 20 per cent. We know that some areas of education will be hit harder. Engineering and science undergraduate degrees and environmental science will see a much bigger cut to their per student contribution from the government, which means that courses in these areas will actually increase more than 20 per cent. This means that this will act as a deterrent for those wanting to study engineering and science—those areas of study which are so critically important to the future of our economy, if we are going to be a smart, productive nation.

But it is not only undergraduate degrees that are being cut by this government. The government is also, for the first time, introducing the ability for universities to charge fees for higher research degrees—with a 10 per cent cut in funding, universities will be able to charge up to $3,900 for PhDs and masters by research. This shows the short-sightedness of this government when it comes to our intellectual capacity in this nation. The Prime Minister talks a lot about infrastructure; but what about investment in our intellectual infrastructure. With this legislation, he is putting in a deterrent for those to contribute to higher degree and PhD research, which contribute significantly to the overall ability of our nation to be competitive around the world.

Together with these significant cuts, the government also has a plan to deregulate tuition fees for undergraduate students—signalling to Australian universities that they can feel free to charge whatever they want. This will lead to fees rising significantly—doubling, tripling—and fees of around $100,000. Despite the opposition saying that maybe fees will go down, they have provided absolutely no evidence. When asked in Senate estimates whether the government had done any modelling on where fees might rise, they said, 'No, we haven't.' This policy has been introduced on a whim and a hope. But of course experts in the area know that fees are going to go up significantly.

Program Director at the University of Melbourne's LH Martin Institute, Geoff Sharrock, said:

Most universities will raise fees to at least offset their loss    of income from government subsidies. Many will go further to boost the total level of income they'd receive above-2014 levels. Either way, the Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) debts will balloon.

So it is clear that it is not just Labor saying that fees will increase. While the government chooses not to do modelling in this area, those that have said this will lead to higher fees—no doubt about it.

It is not just the deregulation of university fees, it is not just the cuts to education that were promised would never happen but it is the introduction of real interest rates that will have a significant impact on many people. The government is also proposing to change the interest rate applied to HECS and HELP loan students. This is unfair legislation. Students will be facing the 10-year government bond rate capped at six per cent. Anyone who has had a credit card or a loan knows how this system works. Interest is compounded not only on the original loan but on interest charged so the real interest rate, the real size of debt grows and grows. As a sneaky part of what the government plans to do, this will not only affect new students but will affect anyone who has a HECS debt on 1 January 2016. If that is not a broken compact with the Australian people with a HECS debt, I do not know what is. This will have a significant impact on those that can least afford it.

The government have said time and time again that they believe that education will be accessible as a result of their changes. I have got news for the government: when I talk to people, they are looking at the interest rates, they are looking at the higher fees and they are saying, 'Maybe university is out of bounds for me.' This is a sad situation in a country that prides itself on egalitarianism.

It will be those on lower incomes that will have ballooning debt. Those teachers and nurses that go to university to contribute back to society will have ballooning debt. Indeed, it will be women that will be most negatively affected. While I have been saying to people 'every student will be worse off under this legislation', women will be hit hardest because often they work in the lower- and middle-income sectors. There is still a pay gap between women and men so it will take women longer to pay off a debt, especially as their debt grows in real terms.

Women often take time out to have a baby and go back to work part-time. It will be during this time, when they may not be earning any money, that their university debt will continue to increase. I am quite surprised that the Prime Minister, who is also the Minister for the Status of Women, has not identified this, has not considered the impact that this legislation will have on women. Quite frankly, I think it shows he is not up to the job of being the Minister for the Status of Women.

Independent modelling has backed this up. Modelling by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling has shown that the length of time for a female science student to repay her student loan would increase from 8.4 years to 13.9 years, with a total repayment figure increasing from $44,228 to approximately $97,000. That will have a significant impact on so many people. There are many people this is going to affect.

I have been speaking not only to students and university teachers but also to parents and grandparents who are particularly anxious about this legislation and who have been confused about the government's motivation except to price them and their children out of the education market—that is the only conclusion they can come up with. We on this side of the House know it is an ideological bent: those on the other side do not recognise that education is a public good, not just a private good. It would be good for those on the other side to wake up to this.

We are at a fork in the road here with this legislation. Do we want our country to be a fairer place, a place where those who are smartest can get the opportunity to achieve their dreams? Or do we want to go down a user-pays system where only those that can afford to go to university can do so? This is bigger than just the changes in front of us. This is a question of what we want our country to be.

Labor will fight this legislation because not only is it unfair but it also means that we will go down the road of not being a smarter nation but a dumber nation, and that is of great concern to all those on this side of the House. I implore the government to reconsider this position, to not break their election promise and ensure that Australia remains a fair place to live.

See this speech in context