HANSARD EXTRACT
|
Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2006 Budget and
Other Measures) Bill 2006: Second Reading |
| 14 September 2006 |
Mr HAYES
(Werriwa) (1.54 p.m.)—There
are very few people, I would suggest, who would entertain the notion
that education is not the key to individual or national advancement.
It is widely accepted that the best way forward for any nation is to
invest in its people. The best way forward is to educate people, to
invest in human capital and to nurture and develop an environment in
which innovation and development is encouraged. There is no doubting
that.
The cornerstone of the productivity agenda that
this nation needs to pursue to maintain its competitive position
within the global economy is, without doubt, education. The
productivity agenda that
Australia must pursue to provide the best possible opportunity to
secure its economic future is education; investing in our people and
investing in the educational development of our youth is how we will
build a future economic base for this country.
A true productivity agenda, one based on
enhancing and advancing the talent of
Australia’s labour force, has to be based around education—not
around the single-minded productivity agenda pursued by this
government, which is tantamount to slashing wages and conditions to
produce a short-term economic result. That is not development and
not investment in productivity; that is simply a recipe for
hindering the further development of our people and at the same time
limiting the opportunities that workers in this country have. Labor
governments of the past had a very positive position in relation to
an education agenda, and a Beazley Labor government will continue
this proud tradition. I will return to that and to the comments made
by my colleague in relation to Labor’s policy later.
First, I will examine the content of the
Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2006
Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2006, which we have
before us today. I would particularly like to make some comments on
the provisions of this bill that extend education and training in
the vital area of health, as that is an issue that is dear to the
hearts and minds of people in my electorate. The Minister for
Education, Science and Training in her second reading speech proudly
informed the House:
The measures contained in this bill highlight the government’s
commitment to a higher education sector based on quality,
sustainability, equity and diversity.
When I first heard this statement I thought that the new minister
for education must have driven a complete policy backflip through
the cabinet. Alas, I was wrong. When outlining the provisions of the
bill that are aimed at addressing the chronic health shortage issues
faced in many areas, she went on to say:
...this bill will implement the coalition government’s recent
decision to boost training in vital health courses.
That news is welcome to all members. Given the
University of Western Sydney is set to be allocated 15 of the
additional 600 places, I welcome it, as will the member for
Macarthur, I am sure. I welcome it because it could mean an
additional 15 doctors into the south-west of Sydney—assuming all the
students decide to stay in general practice. That will be a great
assistance to the constituents of my electorate, who are deeply
concerned about the lack of general practitioners in the area.
While this is welcome news, the fact remains
that, even if every single one of these additional training places
turns into a general practice position, if the population did not
grow and if all these additional GPs practised locally, by the time
these doctors graduate it would result in only a slight reduction in
the doctor-patient ratio in the south-west of Sydney. Assuming
everything remained the same, by the time these students graduate
the ratio of GPs to population in the electorate of Werriwa would
still be of the order of 20 per cent above that recommended by the
Department of Health and Ageing. That is a telling statistic—it
reflects this government’s complete dereliction of duty when it
comes to higher education and providing for the interests of people,
particularly in the south-west of
Sydney in my electorate of Werriwa. The government has no commitment
to higher education. In the decade that it has been in office, there
is no point trying to trick the Australian public—
Interjection
The SPEAKER—Order!
It being
2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing
order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member
will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
In
continuation
September 14, 2006
Mr HAYES
(Werriwa) (4.14 p.m.)—Before
the debate was interrupted I was indicating that the government has
had no commitment to higher education in the decade that it has been
in office. There is no point in trying to trick the Australian
public into believing that it has suddenly accepted the community
benefits of higher education. Since the government has been in
office, it has systematically set about cutting as much as it could
from higher education in all forms. It has set about destroying an
excellent health and education sector for reasons that I have to say
are unfathomable to me. Since this government came to office it has
systematically and clinically set about slashing $5 billion in
grants to universities.
This government has overseen, under a
succession of ministers, a decline in public investment in TAFEs and
universities of seven per cent, while other OECD countries have
increased expenditure by an average of 48 per cent, according to the
recent OECD publication Education at a glance 2006. The very
same report went on to indicate that Australian students are now
paying the second highest fees in the world. That is not a very good
reflection on the way we treat education in this country. Australian
university fees are now only surpassed by those of the
United States.
This government has set about a process of
Americanising everything and it has all but achieved it when it
comes to education. Under this government we now have 100 courses
which cost $100,000. Some of the courses presently on offer in this
country range up to $230,000. As the OECD report which I referred to
earlier noted:
In
Australia,
the main reason for the increase in the private share of spending on
tertiary institutions between 1995 and 2003 was changes to the
Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) that took place in 1997.
Student debt is increasing by $2 billion a year and is projected to
reach the $20 billion mark by 2008-09. What is this government doing
about that? The answer is that there is no plan to meet that. This
government is more than willing to continue along the path of higher
HECS debts and higher fees for students. It tries to mount the
preposterous argument that HECS debt is increasing because student
numbers are increasing. But the main increase in student numbers is
not from HECS students; it is from the full fee paying students.
That is how this government has opened up our universities. That is
where growth is occurring, not from our kids trying to gain their
education at university and using HECS. The growth is through the
full fee paying system. That is how the government has rejigged the
financial balance of our university sector.
The opposition’s amendment to this bill has
been criticised by various government members in their
contributions, but I stand by the amendment moved because the
figures speak for themselves. The figures tell us the degree of
havoc that this government has inflicted on the higher education
sector. As the amendment rightly notes, this government is
jeopardising
Australia’s
future prosperity by reducing public investment in tertiary
education as the rest of the world increase their investment. This
is not an argument about what a good bottom-line budget would be for
any one, two, three or so years; this is an argument about what is
good for the prosperity of our country and what is designed to lift
productivity for the future prosperity of our country.
The government makes it easy to stand before
this House today and criticise its record on tertiary education. I
have already spent some time highlighting some of the major flaws as
I see it in this government’s approach to higher education. But,
having said that, I think it is also appropriate that I comment on
the positive initiatives that the Labor Party has put forward for
higher education. Unlike the government, which plans to Americanise
our tertiary education sector, Labor has a plan to support it. That
is the traditional way that Labor has approached education.
Recently, through the shadow minister for education, Labor released
a white paper which develops a new policy framework for higher
education, research and innovation.
It is a landmark policy, a policy framework
that will take
Australia
forward. It is a policy framework that recognises that tertiary
education is not a burden on society but rather an investment in our
future. That is the point I would like to stress: with respect to
education, we need to be prepared to invest in our future. Central
to Labor’s plan is lifting up all universities to build a prosperous
future for all Australians. Under a Labor government, all
universities would be better off. They would not be, as they are
now, a means for the government to extend its extreme industrial
relations laws. They would not be used as a whipping horse or for
blackmail, as the government is doing now with universities to
impose Australian workplace agreements on lecturers and
administrative staff. Moreover, they would be used as centres of
learning to produce the desired results for students who are going
to be responsible for delivering productivity growth for this
country into the future.
Labor’s white paper points the way forward on
issues such as the reform of university funding, world-class and
world-scale research hubs, the expansion of associate degrees and a
new Australian higher education quality agency. The implementation
of Labor’s plan would mean that Australians would have access to the
best possible education and training to compete with the rest of the
world. Students want to know that they will receive a high-quality
education, not a high-cost education. Employers want to know, and
they want to be confident, that the qualifications that people
present to them when they are applying for jobs are consistent. They
want to know the status of those qualifications. It is simply not
good enough for our system to be one that does not assure at least
minimum standards of quality. Merit should be the means by which you
get into education, not the size of your bank balance. It is not a
complex idea, but it is the basis on which
Australia’s future prosperity must be built.
Despite the clear evidence to the contrary, the
government continues to pursue its ideological agenda against
universities with all of the vigour with which it pursues its
industrial relations agenda. People already fear for their children
in the workforce; they should not have to fear for their children’s
prosperity and prospects in the education system as well.
The continuation of the government’s policies
will mean that
Australia’s
higher education sector will continue to lag behind the rest of the
world. As I mentioned earlier, the OECD reports that since 1995
there has been a seven per cent reduction in the public expenditure
on university education. In the United States, by way of comparison,
there has been an increase of nearly 70 per cent. In Japan the
increase has been just over 30 per cent. In New Zealand, Austria and
Germany the increase has been slightly over 10 per cent. The OECD
members have shown an average increase of 48 per cent. I think that
most reasonable people can see the trend here. Most countries are
investing in higher education—they are investing in their tertiary
sector—but
Australia
is going backwards.
There are some very fine universities in this
country. I am particularly proud of the impact that the
University of Western Sydney has on the Macarthur region. It is an
excellent facility staffed by very dedicated people. I was very
pleased to see that it received some additional medical student
positions under the COAG agreement, and I look forward to some
highly skilled medical practitioners being turned out from the
Campbelltown campus. These students will be in good hands under the
stewardship of the vice-chancellor, Janice Reid, and Professor
Neville Yeomans. They have done a sterling job. Recently they have
recruited Dr Andrew McDonald as an associate professor.
Dr
McDonald heads paediatrics at Campbelltown Hospital. I know what a
sterling job they do. I am glad to see that they have such a
talented staff to look after and oversee the development of these
young doctors for the future.
Universities like the
University of Western Sydney need to be supported. However, once
again we are seeing important legislation introduced into the
parliament in a rush. It is going to be pushed through. The
government does not want time spent on its record. It does not want
to discuss that, particularly when it comes to the higher education
sector. It does not want any form of close examination of these
proposals. I am sure that the government did not want to hear the
comments of Alan Jones on the Today show this morning when he
raised this particular issue. In her second reading speech the
Minister for Education, Science and Training said:
The bill before the House is a clear expression of the Australian
government’s strong commitment to higher education and will enhance
the quality of our higher education system and the choices available
to students. It reflects the government’s commitment to ensuring
that
Australia’s higher education sector continues to play a vital role
in our economic, cultural and social development.
Regrettably, that is simply not the case. This government has
systematically failed to make the necessary investment in education
that will drive
Australia
forward. It has failed to make the necessary investment in the
medical workforce. People in my electorate remember that one of the
first things this government did when it came to office a decade ago
was to slash the number of GP training positions. We are now paying
the price for that. We are paying the price for what occurred 10
years ago. In the outer metropolitan areas of Sydney, we have one GP
to 1,700 people. The federal Department of Health and Ageing’s
recommendation for what is acceptable is one GP to 1,200. That shows
how this has impacted on the outer metropolitan areas of Sydney
and—if everyone in this place is honest—on other electorates as
well.
Full fee degrees, degrees with a price tag the
size of the average mortgage and massive student debt are not the
way to produce the highly skilled workforce that
Australia is going to need to compete on the world stage. That is
not what we need for the future. It is not what we need if we are
seriously going to provide economic prosperity for this country.
I support the amendment moved by the shadow
minister for education and training. Unlike the government, Labor
knows that the best way to promote innovation— (Time expired)
Return
to Speeches Menu.
