Senator STOTT DESPOJA (4:30 PM) —I might start on the point at which the Senator Mason left off—‘Public education ... is at crisis point.’

Senator Sherry —Yes, I picked that up.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA —And through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, Senator Sherry may have fun with this one as well.

Senator Mason —State Labor governments have failed. It’s a state government responsibility.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA —Successive governments have failed. Labor governments, the last federal government, as well as state governments, have failed to adequately invest in public education. Because the matter at hand today is higher education, I will turn to the bill before us. I thought this was going to be my last opportunity to speak on higher education legislation in this place. A debate on such a topic would not be complete without the Democrats reminding everyone of our core belief that education at all levels should be publicly funded and accessible to all. It should be about your brains and not about your bank balance. But I see from the bills list which has just made its way around this place that I will have another opportunity. Next week we have another higher education bill before us dealing with some of the industrial relations measures that were promoted, I might say in quite a retrograde fashion, by the last government.

The bill before us, the Higher Education Support Amendment (2008 Budget Measures) Bill 2008, is one that the Australian Democrats will be supporting—not without qualification, of course. It implements a number of commitments made by the Labor Party before they came to office during the election campaign in 2007, including additional Commonwealth places in education and nursing, a good thing—tick; HECS-HELP; fee reductions for maths and science units, again another good thing and something the former government could perhaps have taken notice of many years ago; and the expansion of Commonwealth scholarships, another good thing. The big ticket item or the one that seems to be most contentious is the phasing out of full-fee degrees for domestic undergraduates. We are pleased to support in particular that last measure. As members of this chamber would know, we have long campaigned for a reinvestment by governments in our higher education system. A reduction in the contribution amounts for maths, stats and science is welcome on the face of it. These disciplines, we know, are fundamental to our ability to be innovative and to add value to our knowledge based economy, yet there are some pretty dire stories coming out of industry and academic sectors about the shortage of mathematicians and scientists in this country. A broad and complex approach needs to be adopted.

Obviously anything that reduces the barriers such as financial disincentives is a good thing and is one we support, but there are many other things we need to do. I have heard of major companies, such as BHP Billiton, having to import their mathematical talent from overseas. What does that say about our so-called clever country or education revolution, or whatever rhetoric we care to use in these debates, when we are importing from overseas the skilled professionals we should be able to produce in our own country?

The Democrats believe it is commendable that the government is attempting to address these particular skills shortages. I also wonder to what extent the reduction in a fee will address some of these issues. It is an important incentive to provide but a lot more needs to be done. It is always difficult to pinpoint why a student picks the course they do. Whether it is based on course cost or what a student has in mind to do as a career, all of these issues play a role in whether or not we get adequate numbers. In maths and science there is an issue to do with branding. Maths does not always immediately identify with a non-academic career path and science often conjures up images of lab work. Neither of these stereotypes do justice to the wealth of opportunities available to those who study maths and science. A fee reduction may help where a student is indecisive or is wavering between the choice of one course over another, but clearly the government needs to do more if they are serious about ensuring and encouraging increased participation in maths and science, and stats as well. We need high-quality teaching right throughout the school years and university. We also need to show the students who are at the cusp of tertiary education the variety of opportunities available to maths and science graduates so as to make these degrees as attractive as others whose career paths are more readily apparent, such as engineering. On that note, I might make a shameless plug of the Senate’s inquiry into space.

Senator O’Brien —Looking into space!

Senator STOTT DESPOJA —Into space. Space is big, as Douglas Adams would say. Why is it that space has this giggle factor? I do not get it. Space, as in space up there—indeed, I am not sure whether my colleagues are aware of this inquiry. It is an incredibly important one looking at big issues of nationhood and national interest but also talks about the very real career opportunities available for people studying maths or science. I think many of the submissions that came to that inquiry rightly identified the need to think big. Inspirational science is needed to capture the imaginations of prospective students.

So while the Democrats support the fee reductions in this bill as something of an incentive in some respects, clearly the government cannot rest on its laurels. It has to do more to address these critical skills shortages in our community. The expansion of Commonwealth scholarships that is given effect by the legislation before us, if implemented properly, will give students from lower socioeconomic and rural and regional backgrounds the opportunity to attend university. This is desperately needed, of course. The participation rates from students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds fell from 15.1 to 14.6 per cent between 2001 and 2006. So if we think about that in some of the key areas by which we measure disadvantage and the participation of those groups that are traditionally disadvantaged or underrepresented in the higher education sector and we use those usual cohorts to look at lower socioeconomic groups, they are not improving their participation rate based on those figures between 2001 and 2006. Essentially, what we are saying is: we are still locking out poor kids from universities—that is the gist of it. And anything this or any other government can do to rectify that is welcome. I might suggest that fees and charges are still a financial disincentive and constitute a barrier for those students, be they young or old, from those particular backgrounds.

Over that same period, the participation rates of students from rural and regional areas also fell from 19 to 18 per cent, so we are going backwards. I would be curious to see what the National Party says about this, because this is a travesty. How can we have an education system that is considered accessible and, to a degree, publicly funded—but we all know what has happened with funding not just over the period of the last government—that is equitable and open when we know that people from those particular backgrounds are still not improving their participation rates? I think it is appalling and I hope that in the life of this government we will see a marked improvement. I will watch with interest, but I think one measure of a society is how available and accessible its education systems are to its citizens, and that is particularly true when it comes to higher education. Those of rural low SES comprise 10.6 per cent of the population, yet only 5.9 per cent occupy higher education places. This is an indictment; it is certainly not indicative of an accessible or equitable education system.

This legislation will ultimately double the number of undergraduate scholarships from 44,000 to 88,000 and does the same for Australian postgraduate awards to almost 10,000. That is due to take place by 2012. More than 230,000 domestic students commenced study in the first half of last year, so an increase in the number of scholarships of this magnitude will, as a very crude calculation, potentially make a scholarship available to around one in three students. We welcome this move also but again we have to sound some cautionary notes. Doubling the number of scholarships sounds good for the headlines, but there are concerns in the sector about the adequacy of the scholarship as a means of income support.

For one, Commonwealth scholarships are a maximum of four years length, which is not enough to cover some combined degrees or the length of certain degrees such as medicine. If an applicant is successful, the scholarship scheme should be flexible enough to cover the entire full-time length of their chosen course of study. The adequacy of the rate of payment under these awards is also open to question. Using Australian postgraduate awards as an example, there is a yawning gap between the stipend rate for these APAs and average weekly earnings, and that gap unfortunately continues to get bigger. The Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations estimates that the stipend rate will fall below the Henderson poverty line by the end of this year. Again, if we believe investing in the best and the brightest, particularly at the postgraduate scholarship level, then we should be doing it properly, not letting people fall below the Henderson poverty line.

There is a private senator’s bill before this place—I tabled it a while ago—to, among other things, abolish the distinction between full-time and part-time scholarships and to make all scholarships which satisfy the criteria in the existing provisions tax free. I almost thought for a while, particularly when then Minister Brendan Nelson was responsible for the education portfolio, we had a chance of cracking that one. I thought that, because it is not a particularly costly bill and it seemed a fair and appropriate thing to do, we might lose that distinction and, in particular, see part-time scholarships tax free. I urge the government to consider taking on, if not that private senator’s bill, that particular measure, that initiative. It is rather penny-pinching, don’t you think, to tax part-time scholarships—quite extraordinary. As one way of making scholarships more attractive, the government could do worse than include this bill in their legislative agenda.

On top of those concerns, the Democrats are continually worried about the apparent tightening of access to student income support, particularly in recent times. Since 2002, the proportion of full-time students receiving income support has fallen—it has gone from 35 to 27 per cent. Again, going back to the issue of urging and encouraging participation from those traditionally disadvantaged groups in higher education, we know one key factor makes a difference. Even if people are debating whether or not fees and charges are a financial or a psychological disincentive to enter into or participate in higher education, we know one thing helps for sure—the research is clear—and that is income support. Under successive governments, the availability of income support and the amount available to individual students and families has been woeful. It is getting worse if you look at it proportionally. Again, it is something I would urge the government to do something about.

As you may know, the Democrat initiated Senate inquiry into student income support—the first Senate inquiry to examine solely the issue of income support for students—made a number of recommendations that would ensure that students had better access to income support. It would mean that they would be more able to participate in higher ed or continue their studies, and it would open up education at that level for many families who previously have not been able to participate for financial and other reasons. Clearly, it is not in the interests of students, nor in the interests of our nation—given that we are so dependent on the skills that they acquire—for students or aspiring students to be distracted by poverty or excessive work hours.

I mentioned that perhaps one of the more contentious aspects of this bill was the abolition of full-fee places for domestic undergraduates. But this is certainly not contentious for the Democrats. This reform is long overdue, it is one that we wholeheartedly support and I congratulate the government for doing it—and doing it with alacrity. I actually thought I might wait a little longer to see that measure introduced in legislation and, hopefully, pass successfully. However, I recognise that for university institutions this is not so simple. I understand that they are worried about the shortfall in funding, and that they are worried about the consequences of this measure in terms of the money that they have in order to provide quality education for their students. But having said that, full upfront fees for domestic undergraduates have no place in a public university system in our nation—and I welcome the opportunity to vote on legislation that finally abolishes that.

As you would know, the Democrats have campaigned against full upfront fees, particularly at an undergraduate level. But if you go back into the dim, dark Democrats past, we have also campaigned against full upfront fees at a postgraduate level. Forgive me—it is that nostalgic, 11-days-to-go feeling that has probably taken over a little here, remembering the Democrat’s very good record on fighting for publicly funded and accessible education. I am reminded that we not only opposed the introduction of those full-cost fees at undergraduate level, but also at the postgraduate level.

The government does, however, need to be very careful to ensure that the compensation it provides under this legislation is adequate to compensate universities for the loss in full-fee places. As I say, universities and their administrations are very concerned about that. I have heard that the sector is disappointed by the amount of compensation that has been made available. Indeed, it has been suggested that it is roughly half the amount that was sought by those institutions, and I would be curious to hear the duty minister’s response to those particular complaints.

Some universities were charging more than $200,000—one of the highest fee-charging arrangements that I have heard—for a full-fee degree. This, of course, comfortably exceeds what they would receive through a Commonwealth funded place. The government might be saying: ‘That’s tough; universities will have to deal with it. It was their choice to charge those fees in the first place.’ But I acknowledge we need to be careful, and we need to be careful for a couple of reasons. Firstly, these full-fee places were attractive to some universities as a result of the dearth of public funding. Because of the lack of investment in higher education over the years by governments, universities had become quite dependent on that flexibility in relation to full-fee charging arrangements. Failing to deal appropriately with the abolition of full-fee places will merely entrench the financial difficulties of the past dozen years or so.

Secondly, there is potential for unintended consequences. Universities could refuse the additional Commonwealth places and instead focus on recruiting more international students as a way of compensating for the money that will be lost. It is a complex issue; I acknowledge that. We do not want universities to be worse off from this move, nor do we want to implicitly disadvantage those universities which did not offer full-fee degrees for domestic students in the first place. I ask the government to ensure, one way or another, that universities do not miss full-fee places.

Broadly, at least, this legislation therefore heads in the right direction. When combined with the $11 billion Education Investment Fund and the $500 million one-off renewal fund announced in the recent budget, the government is beginning—just beginning—to make the kind of reinvestment in education that the sector needs, while also starting to reduce the fee burden that students have to deal with.

Those of us who have been passionate about, and still believe in, the potential for higher education to allow people to achieve their goals, regardless of background, and who believe that higher education should be seen as a national investment—not an expense—are waiting to see what comes next. I must admit I am a little sceptical about some of the reviews that the government has called for. I hope that they are not merely a delaying tactic, although at this stage I am prepared to give the government the benefit of the doubt. I think, though, if they take much longer to announce the results of the VSU review, I might start to change my mind. There are some very clear issues on the table for this government, especially a government that purports to believe in a so-called education revolution. The government needs to give us less rhetoric and more detail as to what this actually constitutes.

Senator Bernardi —Hear, hear!

Senator STOTT DESPOJA —Thank you, Senator Bernardi. (Time expired)