On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, I present the following reports: Examination of the annual report of the Australian Federal Police 2012-13 and Examination of the annual report of the Australian Crime Commission 2012-13.
Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—On behalf of the committee I wish to thank the Australian Federal Police and its Commissioner, Mr Tony Negus APM, for their hard work and dedication in preparation for the 2012-13 annual report.
The committee's report details the AFP's significant success in the meeting the obligations set out in section 8 of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. Noteworthy achievements in 2012-13 include:
Finally, the committee wishes to thank and congratulate Commissioner Negus for his dedicated service to the AFP. Commissioner Negus will end his term on 7 September, and this will conclude his distinguished 32 years service in the Australian Federal Police.
Also on behalf of the committee I thank the Australian Crime Commission and its former CEO, Mr John Lawler AM APM, for their hard work and dedication in the preparation of the 2012-13 annual report.
The report details the ACC's successes in the destruction of international money laundering operations, having seized drugs with an estimated street value of $500 million and $18 million in cash. Further, Task Force Galilee, tasked with preventing investment fraud, stopped fraud in the order of $113 million against Australian citizens.
Other successes during 2012-13 included:
The committee acknowledges the work of Mr John Lawler AM APM, the previous ACC chief executive officer who retired on 16 October 2013. The committee thanks Mr Lawler for his contributions and insights, informed by his extensive experience in law enforcement agencies provided throughout his tenure. Finally, I thank the secretariat and the rest of the committee for their wonderful work.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity I the present the committee's report on the examination of the annual report of the Integrity Commissioner 2012-13.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
by leave—The Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, ACLEI, is responsible for preventing, detecting and investigating serious and systemic corruption issues in Australia's law enforcement agencies. ACLEI's annual report details the priorities in 2012-13, including: Operation Heritage Marker, a highly successful investigation that required the input of multiple agencies as well as a pilot surveillance provided by the Australian Crime Commission; preparations to add the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, CrimTrac and parts of the Department of Agriculture to the Integrity Commissioner's jurisdiction; the establishment of two separate branches in ACLEI, consisting of strategic and secretariat and operations; and also the simplification of recruitment procedures for applicants, in addition to the establishment of an interstate office.
The committee notes that ACLEI largely met its KPIs for 2012-13. The committee congratulates the Integrity Commissioner and ACLEI officers for the quality and readability of the 2012-13 annual report and for their cooperation and engagement during this inquiry.
In this regard the committee notes that ACLEI received the bronze award in the Small FMA Agency hard copy category for its annual report from the Institute of Public Administration Australia 2012-13 Annual Report Awards. The awards recognise best practice in public sector annual reports.
Finally, the committee notes that the 2012-13 annual report marks the last annual report from the inaugural Integrity Commissioner, Mr Philip Moss. The committee thanks Mr Moss for his dedicated service to ACLEI over his seven-year tenure as Integrity Commissioner.
As I mentioned last night in my remarks about the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014, $37 billion in funding will be committed to higher education by the government over the next four financial years.
Our institutions are not just competing domestically. We should always remember this: they are competing increasingly internationally, with some of the highly-recognised universities and higher education institutions around the world—whether they be Yale, Harvard or Oxford. We are competing with these universities as well. Increasingly here in Australia we see excellent examples of universities that are offering online courses—be those at Swinburne or at Deakin University. I will talk in a little more detail about the University of Tasmania later, because it is an important institution in my state of Tasmania.
But more generally, huge opportunities exist for regional universities. Deregulation enables universities to position themselves much more effectively and attractively. For example, a regional university might appeal to students from the urban areas of Australia—the cities of Australia—to say, 'Come and do a high-quality degree with us. We have high student satisfaction, good employment outcomes and a great quality of life at a fee that is terribly good value for money.' I can assure you that in terms of quality of lifestyle there is no better in the country than the University of Tasmania.
Placing values on courses makes sense. It is what happens every day in our normal life, in everything we do in commerce. The Commonwealth scholarships fund can provide flexibility for universities to offer a range of different packages for students. It might be packages for support with living costs for disadvantaged students or it might include advantages for students who are coming from regional areas of our country: designing packages to suit the market, to suit the needs of students.
Much has been said about fees. Ultimately, the market will decide. Some fees will be low, it stands to reason, but of course some fees will be higher. If a law degree or an engineering degree at Melbourne university, for example, is priced out of the market people will simply go elsewhere. It is a fact of life; it is how markets work.
The Commonwealth scholarship fund will give students from low-SES—the brightest students from around our country—20 per cent of any fee increases that apply. One dollar in every five will go into a scholarship fund to support students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds, students who are disadvantaged. By freeing up universities to set their own fees to compete for students quality will be enhanced and make providers more responsive to the needs of students but also more responsive to the needs of the labour market.
Let us talk a little bit more about students. We have focused very much on institutions until now, and I would like to talk a little bit more about students. The single biggest reform for students is the uncapping of access for those students who do diplomas, advanced diplomas or subdegree courses. This is particularly important for regional universities. Many students go to regional universities in states like Tasmania and in regional areas of Australia, from families who have never had anybody attend university, and the first experience they have with universities is through sub-bachelor or diploma courses. Extending HECS or the Higher Education Loan Program to allow 80,000 more students over four years to access the support is indeed reformist and something that I truly support. It is estimated that the cost of diplomas and associate degrees will cost the Commonwealth an additional $371.5 million over the next three years. Funding for higher education, including the total of Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding for student places and regional loading, is actually going up—there will be $37 billion for higher education over the forward estimates.
We want to support more people to go on to university and other higher education. We want choice in the marketplace. This is, as Australia should be, about equality of opportunity. We cannot deliver in this nation equality of outcomes we can and should as a nation, as a government, be allowing every student from any background, from any socioeconomic circumstance, to access higher education, to get them to the starting line with opportunity equal to that of people from more-privileged backgrounds. Currently, taxpayers pay 60 per cent of students' fees and students pay 40 per cent. Our proposal with these reforms is to ask students, I think quite fairly, to pay 50 per cent and ask the taxpayers of Australia to pay the other 50 per cent.
It will ultimately be up to higher education institutions to decide the fees they will charge. The market will play a very important part in what they can and cannot charge. Some courses will have higher fees and some courses will have lower fees, remembering that, regardless of the student, up-front fees will be zero. From whatever background a student comes their up-front fees to go to university will be zero. On the scare campaign about what students may or may not be paying, repaying their HECS debt—this is about choice—only begins when they start earning more than $50,000. All they are obliged to pay at $50,000 is two per cent of their salary. Even when their salary goes to $100,000, the most the government will ask them to repay is a maximum of eight per cent of their salary. It is more than fair. It is more than equitable. We know also that graduates earn more over their lifetime, roughly 75 per cent more, or a million dollars, on average, over their lifetime. It is reasonable for them to make a contribution. In this case we are asking for 50 per cent. We know that graduates have access to more jobs.
With these reforms, including access to the Trades Support Loan Program which is within the industry portfolio, removing FEE-HELP and VET FEE-HELP loan fees, we are making accessibility for students, from whatever background they come from, fairer. Regional Australia and regional communities can be the big winners here by offering more courses and by competing to attract more students. Expanding diplomas and associate degrees will benefit regional institutions.
I truly believe that this reform will be good for the University of Tasmania. The University of Tasmania is one of Australia's leading research and teaching universities, ranking in the top two per cent of universities worldwide. It is renowned for the quality of its research training program. UTAS is one of the founding universities of Australia. Its long history and strength in research sees it ranked as one of the top 10 universities in Australia. Last year it was ranked, peer reviewed, as the No. 1 teaching university in the country. UTAS ranks in the top 100 universities in the world for the international diversity of its staff and students, and ranks in the top 200 universities for industry income and innovation. The university was assessed in the top 21 of disciplines rated for excellence in research after being proved to have internationally leading strengths in the disciplines of the sciences, law, history and the humanities.
Over 90,000 students have graduated from UTAS during its long and distinguished history. There are 106 Rhodes Scholars from the University of Tasmania. The University of Tasmania works with universities around the world to offer students an international experience specialising in Antarctic and Southern Ocean studies; population and community studies; national and state development in agriculture, forestry, mining and tourism; and national environment and wilderness programs. It is well regarded for law and medicine. It is important to the communities of Hobart, Launceston and Burnie. The expansion of diplomas and sub-bachelor degrees will help communities like Launceston and Burnie.
We need to allow students to choose. We need to encourage competition. 'How good is my course against the quality indicators of learning and teaching? How good are my teachers? What employment prospects will I have when I finish university?' We can lead as a nation but only if we allow our universities and higher education institutions to compete domestically, globally and online. It is a great opportunity for students, as it is for the institutions. (Time expired)
This should be a debate about realising the Australia's potential and giving every Australian every chance to realise that potential. It is that simple and it is that important. What sort of country do we want to be? The choice is stark and the implications, the consequences, of that choice are frightening if this government's ideological vision for higher education and research in Australia is realised.
I acknowledge the sentiments sincerely expressed by the member for Lyons, the previous speaker, about equity and the transformative power of higher education. It is just disappointing, in fact, more than disappointing, it is tragic that they sit so uncomfortably with the legislation and the reform package that is before this House. This government proposes to constrain our future through this legislation and to boost inequality in Australia. It puts before us, once more, a broken promise which is also an agenda that is against our national interest and which would engineer a stark and deep social divide. So, I join with other Labor members in speaking in opposition to the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill.
As the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, Labor stands proudly for affordable, accessible higher education for all Australians. We stand here committed to fighting for the future and for the vital principle that quality of education must not depend on a person's capacity to pay. Furthermore, that equity and quality, in fact, go hand in hand. We know this. What is morally just, that demonstrated capacity should guide access to university courses, also ensures the best outcomes for individuals and for our nation. This is an inconvenient truth for those opposite, but it is a touchstone for Labor—it is part of the social compact we have built.
The Leader of the Opposition yesterday asked members opposite to put themselves in the shoes of the people these decisions will affect, to attempt to understand the barriers to participation in higher education, to attempt to understand the impact. This is an important challenge but one not likely to be taken up by members of this cynical government, especially in the context of this insidious so-called reform agenda. Yesterday evening the member for Gellibrand set out effectively the process—or lack thereof—that took the Abbott government to this point. It is an ambush, not a considered, informed approach—not the methodical and calm approach they spoke of before the election—to a sector so critical to Australia's economy and our society. Once again, it is policy on the run; prejudice and ideology triumphing over method, debate and consultation.
I do hope that members opposite seek to understand the reaction of the community. I have learnt so much by listening. This debate is about more than the technicalities of the bill before us, and indeed it is about more than the cuts contained within the legislation. We must seek to do justice to the concerns and the aspirations of the millions of people affected by the decision of this House. Since this government flagged wide-ranging and regressive reform along with deep cuts to higher education amounting to nearly $6 billion, I have been inundated with correspondence from constituents expressing apprehension and anger. At street stalls, too, people right across the Scullin electorate have made it clear to me that this is a major concern for them.
With the local impact of the Napthine government's TAFE cuts, people are right to see the future cost of life choices cut off so early as something that we must fight against with all of our strength. I have visited the Bundoora campus of RMIT, in my electorate, and the Bundoora campus of La Trobe, just outside. I met with staff and with students, and I listened. I have also visited Federation University in Ballarat, with the member for Ballarat—I am pleased she is in the House, along with the member for Gippsland, who also has a campus of that university in his electorate—and the University of Melbourne in Parkville so that I can come to this debate in this place with a broad perspective of the impacts. I heard many stories from people affected, and there was one common theme: don’t—don't push ahead with this regressive, ideological and divisive agenda; don't rip up the architecture of a fairer and more productive Australia. I was proud to be in the House yesterday as the Leader of the Opposition gave his passionate account of Labor's position on this bill, but most importantly he outlined Labor values in higher education—the values of fairness and opportunity; values that this legislation would cast aside.
This bill seeks to implement the government's budget announcements on higher education, namely to introduced unrestrained student fees, or fee deregulation; to impose a 20 per cent cut to the Commonwealth Grant Scheme for teaching; to make changes to the HECS repayment indexation rate and thresholds; to effect the cessation of the HECS-HELP benefit from next year; to charge fees for higher degrees by research students through the HECS system for the first time; and to change the indexation of university funding back to CPI from a rate that genuinely reflected the costs of institutions, introduced by the Labor government. These are radical changes unsupported by evidence, paving the way for huge fee increases—$100,000 degrees have been much spoken of and are a real concern, but of course some degrees such as medicine at sandstone universities could cost considerably more. This is compounded by the prospect of the introduction of real interest rates, accompanied by huge cuts to the public funding of courses.
It is important to reflect on the disingenuous if not downright dishonest second reading speech delivered by the Minister for Education. I want to take up a number of the falsehoods contained in that speech. The first is the allegation that this bill will spread opportunities to students. Thanks to changes Labor made, in particular during the Hawke-Keating and Rudd-Gillard governments, students now have unprecedented access to university education. Students from communities across Australia have made the most of this access in record numbers. This is essential if we want to move towards a high-skilled knowledge economy and give a diverse range of people effective access to university education. In that regard I think of all the first-in-family students I have met in the Scullin electorate who have benefited from the most recent expansion of higher education.
I ask one question of the minister: can the government point to any evidence that these changes will increase participation? He has had numerous opportunities, and unsurprisingly he has been unable to do so. The only opportunity this bill offers for students is a debt sentence, a lifetime of debt, crippling burdens and a huge disincentive to involvement in higher education.
The minister claimed that regional students and regional higher education institutions will benefit significantly from these changes, and, further, that many regional institutions have warmly welcomed this opportunity. I noted with interest that the minister cited Federation University in Ballarat in this regard. I visited Federation University a couple of weeks ago, with the local member, where we heard first-hand from university management, academic staff and students about what the proposed changes would mean to them, and it is difficult to overstate their concerns—what it means for Ballarat the city, as well as the institution. Staff see this as a huge threat to the important work they are doing and indeed to the very ethos and nature of the university they work in. Students, likewise, are more than apprehensive. Many I spoke with spoke quite movingly about the opportunities that have been opened up to them being denied to others in the future who have shared their circumstances. So many of these people simply could not have travelled to Melbourne to further their education, for financial reasons or sometimes for familial reasons.
The second falsehood the minister cites is that this bill supports equity and access. What a cynical statement from that most cynical of politicians. It is easy to see in this light how he can justify to himself how he fought for free education, when it was in his interest as a student politician, and now takes the opposite tack without blinking. Because this bill does the opposite. By burdening students with crippling debt and then pretending that a few scholarships—which would not be needed if it were not for the government's policy—will deal with concerns of access and equity, the minister is taking us back to his, or perhaps former Prime Minister John Howard's, rose-tinted, imagined Menzies era.
How does this support equity or access? The policy is like robbing something and replacing the stolen items with a scratchie, and, if they are lucky, their numbers will come up. But the fundamental point is that they would not need to be lucky if it were not for this government carving away opportunities. Getting into university should not be based on happenstance or parental wealth. It should be based on merit. This government is robbing students of previously equitable arrangements and replacing them with huge barriers to entry.
It is worth touching a little bit more on the scholarship proposal, because this is a pea and thimble trick. There is no Commonwealth money allocated for these scholarship funds, which means they will be funded on the basis of additional fees charged on students. In the kind of perverse bifurcation this government seems fond of, students will be paying for these scholarships.
Federation University's vice-chancellor, David Battersby, has belled the cat on this, particularly from a regional university standpoint, noting that major universities, the 'sandstone group of eight', will be able to charge higher fees, meaning regional universities are disadvantaged in competition. In other words, this scholarship fund will entrench existing positions in market power. So much for meaningful competition.
The third falsehood was the minister claiming that cutting funding to universities was equipping universities for change. He leaps from this proposition to cite universities in places like China, Hong Kong and Taiwan as rising through the rankings system. In seeking to draw these together, I ask of the minister and members opposite: where is the evidence that these brutal cuts will somehow equip universities from the challenges of the future? Where is the evidence they will equip universities for anything other than further entrenching their market position, and to give some universities the capacity to greatly increase their fees.
The fourth falsehood—no surprise here—is the claim for consultation. The minister has name-dropped Universities Australia in this regard, but Universities Australia chair, Professor Sandra Harding, warned that the changes were being rushed, saying:
There are grave risks here. Universities are being asked to set fees in an unprecedented market environment.
Previous Labor speakers have made clear the shoddiness of the process here. Going to the consultation, I note that the government has done no consultation whatever with staff at the universities, or their associations. There has been no consultation with the community, none with students and none with staff. The National Tertiary Education Union, which represents the interests of about 28,000 academic, professional and general staff, has done some important research into the government's proposed changes, as I am sure the member for Gippsland would be well aware. If the funding cuts went through and you cost shifted to students, the cost of some degrees would be more than $100,000. The move to a market interest rate would escalate student debts and they would be repaying them for years longer. The debt would run further out of control if the graduate were not earning above the repayment threshold. This scenario is particularly chilling for prospective women students as they realise that they could still be paying their student debt in their 50s, Just as their children want to go to university.
Make no mistake: there will be a deleterious impact on university staff, who are already under pressure from insecure work arrangements. Academics, who are the custodians of our future talent, are unsupported by this government in this endeavour. I think it is pretty obvious why the government has only chosen to ask a select few to speak to a select few in this regard. It is only interested in hearing from those who support its position. This is not consultation; this is policymaking by ambush.
Of course, the government went to the last election promising that there would be no cuts to education. I think we all remember that. And some of us also remember the 'Real Solutions' policy document. I think some copies may be found somewhere. It stated:
We will ensure the continuation of the current arrangements of university funding …
Indeed, after the election, the minister stated, 'We're not going to raise fees.' What a joke! The public could be forgiven for thinking that there would be no cuts to education and no rise in fees. That was what the government said and now the government, as with other broken promises, is relying on sophistry to claim disingenuously that it is not directly raising fees. Instead it is looking to blame the universities for this.
But this is not the sort of dissembling that has any currency with the Australian people. People in my community in Scullin and around Australia regard this count as a broken promise, because it is. Let us not forget that this government has cut all levels of education from early childhood all the way through to higher education. So much for the clever country! The government has made vicious cuts to universities—$5.8 billion to teaching, learning and research.
I spoke yesterday about the concerns of Nick from Mill Park, who expressed his concerns about being able to pursue his PhD in immunology. He said:
Cuts to education would mean that instead of educating the best and brightest here in Australia, they may either go overseas and never return or, they are discouraged from higher education, meaning they may never reach their full potential, or are prevented from contributing significantly to Australian society.
These cuts, in effect, would stop me from being the best that I could be, not for myself, but for Australia.
These cuts don't just deny or discourage students entry, they deny and discourage students following on with their studies. They deny Australia the full use of these students' capacities and talents.
Let's not forget that this is not solely about barriers to accessing higher education in the first place; it also impacts on what our best and brightest do next. Labor has a proud record on higher education, from Whitlam, who opened the universities to the general population, to Dawkins, who turbocharged this, and to the Rudd and Gillard governments, who completed the process by removing the cap on places. Labor opened up higher education and Labor continues to stand for affordable, accessible and quality education for all.
I thank the member for Scullin. I will just remind the member for Gippsland of his comment in the corridor a minute ago, before he starts!
Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell, and it is terrific to have you in the chair. I respect the authority that you bring to that commanding position!
I rise to speak in relation to the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014. I have spoken in the House many times over the past six years in relation to access to university and higher education. I do find it somewhat bizarre to listen to those opposite lecture the government on issues of equity and access after the way the previous Labor government botched the reforms to youth allowance.
For many regional MPs, the issue of youth allowance remains an issue of some great concern and a matter of unfinished business. I know it is not directly part of this bill, but it is associated in terms of the access issues. I continue to receive correspondence from my electorate in relation to the issue of youth allowance and the overall concerns about student income support. It remains a weeping sore for many regional communities, which do not necessarily have a local university that their children can attend and where parents are forced to pay upwards of $15,000 per year in accommodation and living-away-from-home costs. These are up-front costs and as a matter of fairness and a matter of equity, it is an area where I will continue to lobby cabinet ministers and seek the support of those opposite to address in the future.
I accept and understand that we have inherited a significant budgetary problem and that it will require diligence from the Treasurer, the finance minister and others to bring the nation's books back into order, but the issue of student income support remains a significant matter of concern. It is National Party policy to support an overhaul of that system. That was endorsed again on the weekend at National Party federal council here in Canberra, with the federal council calling on the federal government to implement reforms to increase financial support for students in a way that improves mobility and provides opportunities for regional students, communities and universities. Personally, I have advocated for a tertiary access allowance in the order of $10,000 per year to assist regional families with their living away from home costs. It is a public policy debate which flows out of today's discussion, which I am keen to continue to pursue with the relevant ministers and I will seek support from regional members.
Having said that, I recognise that today is a pivotal moment for Australia's higher education sector. This parliament has before it a bill that presents new opportunities for Australian students and particularly for Australia's regional students. The parliament has an opportunity today to introduce measures that will increase access to higher education and make our tertiary education system sustainable for the longer term while also making our institutions more competitive on the world stage. But it will also take courage—courage from those on this side and courage from those opposite—to look beyond the scare campaigns, to look beyond the shock and horror tactics of the student union movement and the efforts by those opposite to whip up hysteria without closely considering the facts. I congratulate the minister and the government for having that courage and the vision to take on a task that has been in the too-hard basket for way too long.
I reject the suggestion that was made many times during the contributions of those opposite that we have not consulted with the sector or with our communities. The consultation has been extensive at a local level and a national level. I have had the opportunity to meet with the Regional Universities Network and individual vice-chancellors on several occasions, and I also meet with students in my electorate. Quite recently I was invited to participate in a debate at the Gippsland Grammar School where the VCE students were keen to discuss higher education reforms. Obviously the students have a keen interest in the reforms because the students themselves will be among the first to study in the new deregulated environment, if indeed this legislation successfully passes the House and the other place. The students were aware of the scare campaigns and they were keen to get the real information and the real story on what this education reform would mean to them. Within a short time of the discussion beginning the tone changed dramatically as students came to understand that very little was going to change in terms of the up-front costs for them attending university—in fact, access to the loan system would continue to apply for them. They were reassured that the fundamental aims of these reforms, to encourage more students to go on and achieve their full potential, would benefit them in the longer term. I stand here proudly as a member of a regional community saying that I want more young regional people having the opportunity to achieve their full potential, whether that be going to university or TAFE or pursuing some other study after they finish high school.
One of the most compelling arguments for the legislation and the reforms put forward by the minister is that by 2018 we will provide an extra 80,000 higher education places supported by government subsidies. It surprises me that those opposite, who like to claim they support higher education, who like to claim they support regional students, are opposed to providing access for more students into the future. Those opposite are mistaken in thinking that there is nothing wrong with the system as it stands today, particularly from a regional perspective. The fact is that university participation rates are low in Gippsland as they are low in every other regional area. Only about 17 per cent of 17- to 22-year-olds in Gippsland go to university. The government's higher education reforms will make it easier for students from the country to get a tertiary education if that is the path they choose to follow, because they will have more choice and more options available to them. I fully support the minister in his endeavours to create new pathways and better pathways and exciting opportunities for students in Gippsland, and I will be looking forward to working with him on these issues in particular but also on the broader issue of access and equity when it comes to student income support.
It is a bit rich for those opposite to lecture the government when they left us with a legacy of debt and deficit to repay. It is all very well to say education should be free, as if no-one actually pays for this free education. Free education simply means one taxpayer paying for another person's education. The opposition left this government with a legacy of $1 billion per month in debt to repay—every month, month after month, until we get on top of the mess they left behind.
If we are going to talk about fairness we should really talk about whether it is fair for the former government to run the nation's books in so appalling manner as to leave us with a legacy of debt and deficit to repay and then stand in the way as we try to clean up the mess. It has become apparent that the current system is no longer sustainable. To ignore that fact would be entirely irresponsible, so I congratulate the minister and the government for taking the hard decisions and moving towards a more sustainable system.
The taxpayer currently pays for about 60 per cent of a student's education. We are asking students in the future to pay in the order of 50 per cent. Those opposite say they would like free education. I have heard it said many times. In an ideal world, perhaps, we would be able to pay for it all, and we would be inundated with students going to university with some taxpayers somewhere in this mythical Labor land picking up the tab. What about those who do not go to university? Why should they be picking up the tab for those students who do go to university?
Mr Champion interjecting—
I take up the comments from the member opposite that they might be a doctor, and that is why the government is prepared to meet—
Mr Champion interjecting—
If the member wants to interject—that is fine—I will take his interjection, but he does not need to keep rambling on incoherently, as he tends to do. I say to him in relation to support for someone becoming a doctor:, yes, we would support them, in the order of 50 per cent. The government is prepared to pay in the order of 50 per cent of that person's fees to go to university and would expect the student to make a contribution themselves. It must be noted, on the upfront costs, that students will still have access to the HECS system that has existed in the past. In fact, upfront costs are not going to be a barrier to people's attending university.
Through the program of reforms that the government has announced we recognise the particular challenges that face regional university students and people from low-socioeconomic backgrounds. The scholarship initiative contained in the reforms will see universities required to allocate $1 in every $5 for additional revenue to the scholarship scheme. I support that reform in the sense that it will allow more students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, which obviously includes regional, rural and remote students, the opportunity to participate in the course of their choice.
The other point that is often made in relation to the opposition's complaints, or whinge sessions, about these reforms relates to the aspect of when a student has to start repaying their HECS debt. The simple fact of the matter, and the research supports me in making this claim, is that students who attend university, who go on to achieve a qualification, will earn more in their working life. It is not until they earn in the order of $50,000 a year that they will start paying back their HECS debt. It is a system that the Labor Party has endorsed in the past. It baffles me to hear the comments from those opposite over the last 24 hours, as they seem to be backtracking from a position that has had bipartisan support for many years.
In conclusion, I will reflect more specifically on the reforms and how they will affect the Gippsland region, in particular the new Federation University in Gippsland. Just as these reforms are a pivotal moment for the nation, they are pivotal for the seat of Gippsland because they will open more doors for regional students. The legislation before the House recognises the evolution of Federation University, which now has a campus in my electorate, in the town of Churchill. It is noteworthy that the Minister for education, in his second-reading speech on the legislation, singled out Federation University. He commended the merger of the University of Ballarat and the previous Monash University Gippsland campus as an example of regional institutions embracing innovation to meet the needs of their communities and create a learning experience that a student cannot get anywhere else. These higher education reforms will remove restrictions on our education institutions to allow them to come up with more creative solutions into the future, just as Federation University has done.
I make that point because to suggest that there is nothing wrong with the current system, when only 17 per cent of Gippsland students go on to university, is complete folly. We do need reform. We do need to find ways to encourage regional students—in my case, students from Gippsland—to go on and achieve their full potential. This bill also makes official the change in the name of the University of Ballarat to Federation University Australia. Those opposite who may follow social media—they may follow me on social media—would note that I am often promoting Federation University by wearing my Federation University T-shirt in various locations around my electorate and also on the USS Ronald Reagan during the parliamentary exchange program. It is a bit of fun, but it helps to promote the brand. I encourage Gippsland students who are looking to continue their studies after year 12 to consider the options available to them at Federation University, at the Churchill campus or at other campuses in regional Victoria. I am proud to have this institution in Gippsland, which gives a world-class education to young people in my electorate. Federation University has about 24,000 students and offers a wide spread of programs from certificates to PhDs, and it delivers its services across campuses right across western Victoria and Gippsland.
There are a couple of significant points about Federation University that I want to put on the public record. About one-quarter of its students come from low socioeconomic backgrounds, low-SES backgrounds. Interestingly, more than three-quarters of those students are the first in their families to attend university. That is an important point. Federation University, in its former guise as Ballarat University, has been successful in raising aspirations among families where children may not necessarily have thought, in the past, that university was a place that they could attend. I congratulate the university for its success in the past, and I look forward to working with it in the future to make sure that our regional areas grow stronger and capitalises on all the opportunities that exist in Gippsland to provide courses, locally as much as possible, or, when students are forced to travel or move away from home, to provide them with an enjoyable educational experience wherever it may be.
Interestingly, about 80 per cent of Federation University students find work within three months of graduating, which is the most successful rate for any university like it in Victoria. About 70 per cent of its students take up a job in a regional area—these are our future regional leaders—and that is an important point. We know that, if we can get regional students to university, if we can get them in the doors, if we can provide that access for them, they are more likely to come back and provide those services, those skills, in a regional environment. We know that, if we can give a country kid the opportunity to study medicine, law, accountancy or engineering, there is a very good chance that they will come back and make a contribution to the regional community into the future.
I strongly endorse every effort made by this government to improve access for regional students in terms of achieving their full potential. I reject the argument by some members opposite who have suggested that regional universities are at risk of becoming second-rate universities. That is not a 'glass half empty' argument, that is a 'we do not have a glass' argument. We need to be more optimistic and look for ways to be part of innovation in creating new opportunities for regional universities through these reforms.
As I said, I have met with the Regional Universities Network, I have met with the Vice Chancellor of Federation University David Battersby. I have discussed with him some of his comments in relation to the need for a regional adjustment package and I recognise that there are special circumstances that regional universities face. I believe his arguments have a great deal of merit. I am keen to keep working with the government and the minister to ensure that regional universities, like Federation University, have the opportunity to prosper under these reforms. Even more importantly, I want to work with the government and those opposite to make sure that regional students have the opportunity to achieve their full potential by pursuing university education, if that is their choice.
There is little doubt that the new university fee and loan repayment structures will see debt levels for students doubling, or trebling, putting the quest for higher education out of reach for many. I have no doubt that this is no great worry to the Prime Minister and to Minister Pyne who, at their heart, believe that education is a positional good and, just as when you make a lot of money you get to buy the Maserati or the Alfa, so too, an elite education should be the preserve of those, fundamentally, who have had the opportunity to do well financially. They are not motivated, and I think that has been recently described by Maxine McKew, in her new book on education, as the view that education is a positional good, which is a view embraced by Minister Pyne. This is not, of course, an egalitarian spirit, but these are not people who are motivated, fundamentally, by the quest for a quality of opportunity, but rather they are hankering after the hierarchies of the old world.
On any analysis, whether we are talking about universities from the Group of Eight—the elite universities—to the National Tertiary Education Union, there is agreement that fees will need to go up by around 30 per cent, just to make up for the cuts made in this budget to the universities, and particularly the massive per capita cuts to the Commonwealth supported places. So the per capita payment that currently is made to each student is going to be significantly cut. That figure, for some degrees—again, this is just the increase that will be necessary to cover the cut in the Commonwealth supported place per capita payment—is going to be closer to 60 per cent. Take a look at some of the areas. In engineering, an area where we should be encouraging our young people, we have seen the Commonwealth contribution cut by 28 per cent, increasing student fees by 54 per cent. In nursing, an area where we are importing vast numbers of people because we do not have enough nurses, the Commonwealth is cutting their contribution by 8.5 per cent per annum and increasing student fees by 18.5 per cent. With agriculture, they are going to a great extent to try to encourage people to get into it because it is recognised that there is a chronic shortage of professionals in this area that is hampering the ability of the agricultural sector to seize the opportunities that are being presented by emerging new markets. But, bizarrely, in agriculture we are seeing the contribution of the Commonwealth being cut by 15 per cent and an increase in student fees of 37 per cent. Yet at the same time we are acknowledging that we need to attract more people into this sector, because it has traditionally not been a well-paid sector.
Interestingly, in the performing arts my electorate arguably has the best performing arts academy in Australia. We see cuts being made there of 23 per cent and an increase in student fees of 45 per cent. I think the visual and performing arts will increasingly become something that can be engaged in only by people who have wealthy parents.
The universities will now receive less for every student. To cover that we have fee deregulation. It is interesting that the minister makes much of the support for fee deregulation that comes from the Group of Eight universities. It is true that in the current funding environment, with $6 billion worth of cuts to higher education, there are universities that believe they need to be able to charge more to build their reputation. But we know that this way of doing it, through deregulation, will come at the expense of the rest of the sector and at the expense of the principle of merit-based access. This is a betrayal of the very notion that underpins what it is to be Australian: the notion that your ability and your effort, and not your birth, determine your ability to succeed.
Not everyone from the Group of Eight universities is blind to this. To quote Professor Kwong Lee Dow, former vice-chancellor of the University of Melbourne: 'Most universities will raise fees, at least to offset their loss of income from government subsidies. Many will go further to boost the total level of income they receive to above 2014 levels. Either way, higher education loan program debts will balloon.' The vice-chancellor of the University of Sydney, Professor Michael Spence, warned that fee deregulation risked pricing the middle-class families out of tertiary education. He said, 'It's the ordinary Australians that I think aren't getting enough of a guernsey in this conversation.'
But not even the Group of Eight universities, who are supporting deregulation, support the restructuring of the loan repayment system. Let me quote a few here. The vice-chancellor of the University of Adelaide, Warren Beddington, said, 'Aspects of the change are unworkable and unduly harsh. The compounding interest here means that we might deliver debts to students of $70,000, $80,000 or $100,000, and no-one here wanted that.' Likewise, the University of Queensland's Vice-Chancellor, Professor Peter Hoj, revealing that the budget would cost his university at least $60 million and hurt students, said:
I am generally concerned about the changes to the loan repayments. I do think that was very unexpected and I think that this is one of these things that really make the cuts to the Government funding for students sting more than we had anticipated.
So not even his friends in the Group of Eight will come out and support this massively unfair way in which the loan repayment system has been restructured.
Let us talk about this. There are three prongs to this restructuring: firstly, the reduction in the repayment threshold from $53,000 down to $50,000; secondly, and more importantly, the move from CPI indexation to a bond-rate indexation—this is capped at six per cent but the modelling shows that the most likely outcome over the long term is around five per cent; and, thirdly, the introduction of compounding interest. If we look at those three brought together, and the impact of higher fees and then the restructure, we see that the total interest obligations could increase by between 300 per cent and 700 per cent, and we could see overall debt levels double.
Universities Australia have modelled various scenarios that compare existing HECS obligations with those which will be experienced by students from next year on. Let us take a medium-fee scenario. We will take a nurse, so we are taking a pretty standard sort of scenario here. Under the current regime, with the CPI funding and current fee levels, a graduate nurse would expect to be paying, over the course of her loan, less than $4,000 in interest. Under this new regime—and taking a pretty modest scenario of a nurse who continues to work full time until such time as her HECS debt has been completed—that nurse will be paying now, in interest alone, between $14,000 and $26,000, depending on the actual bond rate. So, even with a bond rate of four per cent, that is a 300 per cent increase just on the interest charges. That is for a graduate nurse. If we see this compounding—particularly for women, who, in most instances, will take time out to have a family—in the case of that same nurse, if she works for six years full time and then goes on to part-time work, that increase in the interest rate will be 400 per cent: it will go up to $20,000. So the interest for her would go from less than $4,000 to $20,000 or, indeed, with a bond rate of five per cent, around $30,000. So, again, the interest charged will be more than doubling the debt. Likewise, an engineering graduate who is lucky enough to get a job will see their interest charges go from around $9,000 to between $37,000 and $78,000. And that is on, as I say, a modest fee trajectory.
We already see that banks and lending institutions are beginning to ask applicants for housing loans about their HECS debt. That indicates that students are going to have to really be considering very seriously the amount of debt that they are accruing.
Not as well known as the impact this is going to have on new students is the impact of the elevated and compounding interest rate that will apply retrospectively to over a million Australians and, indeed, to nearly 110,000 Western Australians with massive HECS debts, be they current or former students. So this is not just going to apply to students now and going into the future, from next year on; in fact this applies to over 110,000 Western Australians who entered into their degrees thinking that they were signing up to a regime of a CPI indexation. About half of those Western Australians have debts of $30,000 or more.
I had a letter from a young Western Australian, Georgina Ker, a 32-year-old, in my electorate. She has been out of the workforce for five years raising a family and is now going back in. She has short-term contracts and, indeed, an income level just above the repayment threshold. She is now facing a vast escalation of her liabilities because of this change of regime—a regime that she had no reason to expect would happen. It is a travesty. As consumer law specialist Dr Jeannie Marie Paterson said, 'It's akin to banks forcing mortgagees onto a flexible interest rate.' So here we have 110,000 Western Australians, over a million Australians, who suddenly have seen not just the goal posts shifted but, in many cases, just cut out from under them.
There has been this profound change in the way of the repayment regime that is applying retrospectively. We know Minister Pyne does not think that is right. He told the parliament in 2010:
… it is a fundamental principle of law and regulation that if someone relies on the laws and regulations at the time, they should be able to rely on those laws into the future. They should not have the goalposts changed on them in the middle of that reliance.
I want to make a brief reference to the provision just to publicly owned or not-for-profit institutions to the provision of for-profit private providers. Professor. Greg Craven said today:
Everyone knows that this gravy train will end up pulling into the Ma and Pa Kettle business academy and that non-universities that have nothing like the funding requirements of Australia's national intellectual powerhouses.
And he calls on the government to defer it, ditch it or discombobulate it and take the opportunity to reduce the cuts where they matter.
So we are taking money out of established Australian universities to fund the Ma and Pa Kettle business academy. How on earth can we justify that as part of making our higher education system stronger and more capable? We do need to be really focused on this. What we are doing is going to have profound impact on the future of higher education in Australia, on the future of our community. Can we at least call upon the Minister for Education to read the words today of Vice-Chancellor Craven and ditch the funding to these for-profit organisations who will be fundamentally driven by preserving shareholder value, who will not be driven by furthering the interests of Australia or by ensuring that we have a highly educated population?
I rise to speak on the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014. We can all identify with the story of the old farm axe: it is as good as new—it has just had six handles and two new heads in its life. I come off a farm and I have seen a lot of axes in my time which did not actually get the new handle. In fact, I have seen axe handles held together with duct tape, bailing string, hose clamps and, even in desperate times, the farmer's friend—a bit of fencing wire. Unfortunately, that is the state of our higher education system at the moment in Australia. It has just sort of evolved as local and specialised programs are being formed to counter trouble and new challenges. Duct tape, string, hose clamps and wire are being applied to keep the show on the road. But the final product is no longer fit for purpose in the modern world to deal with the quickly evolving challenges that face our higher education sector and, in fact, our nation as a whole.
We have taken it for granted for so long that Australia has some of the best universities in the world and that the world will progressively beat a path to our door. But we are being challenged by other countries in our region. We currently have eight universities in the top 200 in the world. China has five and soon will have more along with India, Korea, Japan and the other growing economies of Asia.
The world as we know it is changing quickly. The growth in Asia is not just confined to manufacturing industries. In the higher education and school sectors, these countries are quickly expanding their capacity and the quality of their institutions. However, there are some in Australia—unfortunately quite a few on the opposition benches—who just wish the world would go back to normal, that change would leave us alone, that the things that we have done for the last 20 or 40 years will be good enough to keep delivering for the future. But unfortunately they are not because our neighbours will not continue to view Australia as one of the small number of countries that will provide a top-class tertiary education. It is not a given and it is seriously under challenge now.
Tertiary education and access to quality tertiary education for country students was one of the things which really sharpened my interest in politics. I had always been interested but trying to find the resources to allow my own children to gain good quality degrees presented a number of challenges. There are some side issues here about the accessibility of quality education for country students. For most of us that put our kids through school and then universities far off, we have to face a large cost of living penalty that those that live in the city do not. It is not the time to explore all those problems at the moment but I will flag that that was the thing that really got me going and thinking, 'We must do better. We must deliver better for country students.'
I was pleased in the previous parliament—the one before—to sit on the relevant House standing committees on education and, in the last parliament, on education and employment. Last year, I was asked to sit on the coalition's task force examining the role of online degrees and opening up the university sector to new customers, competition, innovation and opportunity. That task force proved to me that nothing will remain the same; that our education process is constantly changing and that every institution will be affected.
The key to success will be the ability for the institutions we have to adapt and to adapt quickly. Those who choose to invest in and to defend the status quo will be the losers. And that is not a result of government policy; that is as inevitable the tide coming in. There is change all around us and we must adapt. So this government is faced with a tertiary education sector that has learnt to adapt to a decline in government support on a per capita basis over a long period. There has been increasing total funding on the tertiary education sector, but on a per capita basis it has been decreasing for 30 or 40 years.
The previous government, for instance, despite its protestations at the moment about the treatment of this sector, removed $6.6 billion over the time they were in office. The uncapping of places in the sector has prompted universities to chase numbers, to bulk up courses and to increase income, and that puts downward pressure on the resulting quality of the courses on offer. Most universities are trying to be everything to everyone just to chase numbers, and that is not a good place for our premium institutions to be, it is not a good place for any of our universities to be and it is not a good place for our higher education sector generally to be. We need our higher education institutions to concentrate on what they do best. It is no different to any other industry in Australia. We have to concentrate on our natural advantages—we have to concentrate on what we do best—and universities are exactly the same.
The higher education reform bill will be seen in the future as a marker: the time when government recognised the problems and challenges of the sector and decided to act before the world came crashing down. Under the reforms, the higher education sector will be opened up to much more competition. The Commonwealth will provide support where it has not previously existed; diploma, advanced diploma and associate degrees students will be able to access a higher education loans program for the first time. The government will invest an extra $371 million over the forward estimates. Students will be asked for no up-front fees and will instead be able to borrow the entire contribution to their degree and that will rise to around 50 per cent of the actual cost of delivering that degree from 40 per cent, where it currently sits.
Yes, there is a real rate of interest. But the government will lend to students at exactly the same rate that the Commonwealth is able to borrow the money in order to lend it to the students and that is currently less than four per cent. In any case, it will be capped at six per cent. This will be the cheapest loan that a person will ever take out in their life. I understand that the Group of Eight universities at least, while generally supportive of the reforms, are not supportive of that particular move by the government. It may well be that we will look at reconsidering the way that interest rate is charged. But it is not as those who would decry these changes would put it. In fact, that is the best loan that anyone is ever likely to take out in their life.
If we could get a housing loan or, from my point of view, a farm loan, or a loan to buy a prawn trawler on the same kind of basis, I would be there with my ears back. Why on earth would someone not borrow money on that basis to fund what would be the best investment of their life? We know that someone who attains a university education is likely to earn 75 per cent more in their working life than those who do not. It is the best investment they can make.
Having said that, they will not start paying back that loan until they reach an income level of $50,000 a year and then, should they earn $50,000 a year, only two per cent—that is $1,000—is paid per year. That can rise to eight per cent when they reach $100,000. Of course, if they go over $100,000 that is a flat rate at that stage. It is a pretty good deal. And to those who say that students will not take those loans out, that they will be scared of taking those loans out: students have been facing loans for the last 30 years in higher education in Australia. From time to time they have been adjusted—the student contribution has always been adjusted upwards. At no time have we ever seen significant market resistance from students taking that higher role and a little bit more of the strain of their education costs. So those who try to run the scare campaign at the moment are really just doing that: they are running a scare campaign for political purposes.
Of course, as the member who represents a large slice of regional South Australia—my electorate covers over 90 per cent of the state—I am particularly interested in how these changes to higher education may affect country students. South Australia, unfortunately, has no regional universities as such, but we do have some regional campuses. The biggest are two regional campuses run by the University of South Australia, which have linkages between Mt Gambier and Whyalla. I state an interest in this in that I am currently chair of the Whyalla UniSA centre for regional engagement. We consider many things about the way that particular university campus engages with country students and how we attract people onto the campus. It is pretty hard work, I must say! At the moment we have been facing some reorganisation issues by UniSA, which have seen some of the power of management withdrawn back into Adelaide. UniSA are telling us that they are very interested in expanding the campus and expanding the number of courses on offer there.
One of the things the reforms in this bill will do is establish the biggest Commonwealth Scholarship Scheme that Australia has ever seen. It will be funded by a portion of the increase in fees should universities be able to obtain them. Really importantly, I do not think there is a lot of scope to lift university fees in a campus like Whyalla; but I do believe that UniSA will be able to lift their fees in other places and then they can make a decision about where they want to attract students. There are good reasons for attracting students to country campuses. Even more importantly, what they will be able to do is fashion Commonwealth scholarships to suit the environment and the people who live in that area. Remember, there will be regulations around these scholarships to make sure that they are targeted at the lowest socioeconomic groups, those who need the assistance the most and they will be aimed at the best and brightest students in that category. That is absolutely a good thing. That will allow a campus like Whyalla to say, 'Rather than reducing university fees here, because of course you can borrow to fund fees, you can get HELP loan assistance to do that, we will provide an accommodation package. We will provide a transport package. We will meet some of the costs of your investment in books and literature that you need. We might be able to help you fund a laptop computer, for instance.' That is the kind of flexibility that universities will be given.
Another university, the University of Adelaide, for instance—one of the 'sandstones', one of the Group of Eight around Australia—may well decide to use it as a way of reducing their fees for those best and brightest students from wherever to bring them to the best courses that Australia has to offer. Both of those things are good outcomes for education. We should not be shy about this. This is enabling universities to compete in the modern world.
Another one of the big winners, as far as I can see, are TAFEs, which play a very important role in rural living and their ability to deliver courses. They have been squeezed right around Australia. Unfortunately, in the last parliament we only had the chance to just begin the investigation, but we were looking at the role of TAFE and other providers of education into rural and regional areas and for industry. Students who attend a TAFE and in the case of diplomas, advanced diplomas et cetera, courses that will enable them to enter into a university where in fact they might not have the qualifications at this stage, will now be able to borrow that money. People coming from a lower socioeconomic group might say, 'I'm a bit concerned about borrowing money.' They need to remember that unless they earn $50,000, they will never be asked for it. (Time expired)
The member's time has expired.
You're joking. I only just got started.
I have enormous respect for the member for Grey and I cannot work out quite whether he really believes what he is telling the House or whether he is just picking up the government's spin on this subject. But I will give him the benefit of the doubt and come to the conclusion that he really believes the things he just said. I only recommend to him that he has a closer at the subject and to give it more thought because I really do believe what he just said about the impact of these reforms on the university sector is just wrong—in particular, his failure to grasp the impact on regional universities, including the campuses he was just referring to.
Indeed, on few occasions have I watched a debate in this place so closely—this debate on the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014—and I have watched with some bewilderment as rural and regional members from the other side have got to their feet in defence of what I think is an indefensible policy. The member for Riverina was amongst them not that long ago.
I haven't spoken yet, Joel—
I thought you did. I apologise to the member for Riverina.
but I will.
The member for Riverina has indicated that he certainly will be speaking on this bill and I assume, in doing so, he is indicating that he will be speaking with enthusiastic support of the bill—
You will have to wait and see.
Although he is now indicating that we should wait and see. So I look forward to member for Riverina getting to his feet in this place and giving a genuine and honest critique of the bill before this place. It is amazing how the member for Eden-Monaro, and I am not sure whether the member for Page has got to his feet on this issue yet, but certainly the members for Braddon, Lyons, Bass and others have got to their feet, and consistently made very similar contributions in defence, again, of what I think is the indefensible. I look forward to the member for Indi making a contribution. As a member who represents both rural and regional areas, she will make a different contribution. People in this place would appreciate that she does understand the impact of these changes on regional Australia, and I think people watching and following both the people in the coalition and in the Labor Party making their contributions can look to her contribution as a truly independent and objective one. I recommended people take note of what she has to say.
Firstly, I want to make a disclosure. All of my children have had the benefit of attending regional universities and I want their children to have the same opportunity, and a chance to attend a high-quality and affordable university in the region which they have been able to do.
There has been a lot of debate and discussion about the minister's higher education reforms but within all that there is one fact, whether or not those opposite like it, and that is that fees will go up. Christopher Pyne has acknowledged that himself by saying that he thinks it is fairer that students make a 50 per cent contribution to their higher education learning rather than a 40 per cent contribution. By any definition, that is a fee increase for students. It can mean nothing else. So fees will go up and students will be carrying greater debt for a longer period. These things are just a given. Again, the minister himself has not contested that point by explaining his main objective and that is to make students make a greater contribution.
While I disagree with both the Prime Minister and his minister, I understand that there will be some people in our electorates that won't. There will be some who do believe, particularly those who have not themselves had an opportunity to secure a university degree, that the taxpayer should pay less. I respect that and I understand that, but to them I make four points.
The first point is that education demand is of course price sensitive. That is, many students either cannot afford to pay more or will not see the value in paying more. For example, the Australian Veterinarian Association modelling suggests that a young person contemplating life as a vet will face a final debt fee of around $250,000. Given the average annual wage for a vet in Australia is some $76,984, a young person—and I am thinking particularly about a young person living in rural and regional Australia—might not see that as a good financial investment and might, therefore, make another choice.
The second point is that we need rural and regional Australia to be doing well to come to the conclusion that Australia is also doing well. Therefore, we want regional universities to thrive. This is where the minister's free-market approach really starts to run into trouble. Make no mistake: the government's plan for our universities will hit regional universities the hardest. Therefore, it will hurt the aspirations of rural and regional communities and all those around them the most.
The minister expects universities to replace the billions of dollars that he is cutting from their budgets by increasing student fees. But, unlike the sandstone universities in our capital cities, the capacity to put up fees is limited by the capacity of students to pay. This is a basic fact. Let me expand. The Australian National University—the alma mater of the shadow minister sitting next to me—has 7,832 undergraduate students, of which 273, or 3.5 per cent, are in the lowest socioeconomic status band. In other words, to use the Australian vernacular, they are the poorer students. There are just 3.5 per cent of them.
For the universities of Sydney and Melbourne, the figures for students in the low-SES band are 7.3 per cent and 8.4 per cent respectively. By contrast, Central Queensland University is at 35.5 per cent; Southern Cross University, 26.4 per cent; and the University of New England, 24.7 per cent. Of course that university is in the electorate of the Minister for Agriculture. I bet the fact that convention in this place dictates that he does not get to make a contribution in this place is welcomed by him. Also, the University of Newcastle, in my own region, 24.3 per cent; Charles Sturt University, 24.1 per cent; and Ballarat university, 23.9 per cent. And the list goes on and on in regional Australia. So to state the obvious those city-based elite universities are in a much better position to recover money lost by the billions of dollars being ripped out of them by the government as a result of this proposition.
The third point is that those tempted to think that students should pay more should think about the greater good. Our regional universities are key drivers of local economies. They are major employers, but they are more than that. Regional universities are part of the social fabric of regional communities in which they are located.
I am most familiar with the University of Newcastle, particularly in more recent years, which of course is critical to the Hunter's economy, but you have to travel to places like Bathurst and Armidale—and many areas in Victoria, Tasmania and elsewhere—to fully appreciate what a university town looks like and feels like. You cannot go to these places without sensing the critical role that the local university plays in the vibrancy, the economic wellbeing and indeed the social wellbeing of that town. If anyone in this place has not done that, I recommend they do it, particularly those in this place who live in and represent capital cities.
My fourth point is that regional universities also play a vital role in driving national innovation, productivity and development. That is just a fact. They tend to focus their research on areas such as agriculture, which are so important to rural and regional communities. Sadly, I make this prediction: if the minister secures passage of this bill through the parliament and all the unfair changes within it, it will not be long before we have a two-tiered university system in Australia. I have made the point that, to an extent, we already have that when you separate the G8, the sandstone or elite universities, from the others. But we will have a real two-tier system. The divide will be between those elite universities and the rest, but there will be another divide. That divide will be between those universities which both teach and undertake research and those which only teach. Have a think about that. It would be a massive change in the nature of our higher education system in this country. I also make this prediction: those so-called teach-only universities are not going to be much of a magnet for those PhD students and other academics who are really looking forward to opportunities to undertake research.
My real concern is that this is not an unintended consequence of this bill. I suspect this is the minister's objective. This is ideologically driven and this is the minister's objective. We all know that, for example, those who are likely to practise medicine in rural and regional Australia are those who are from rural and regional Australia and in particular have had an opportunity to study medicine in rural and regional Australia. These are issues the Adelaide based minister simply does not understand. I am amazed at the consistency of those who sit opposite—the way in which they have been prepared to come in here, toe the party line and insist that these are good changes for rural and regional Australia, because they are not. I thought some of those sitting on the other side were more courageous than that. I would have thought they would have been more willing to even subtly make a more honest contribution, a more objective contribution, and bell the cat on the impact these changes will have, not only on students and their capacity to secure an undergraduate degree, and hopefully go beyond that in some cases, but also on the institutions and therefore the impact on the local rural communities.
This bill is like all the others that seek to implement the measures announced in this government's first budget. Like all the other measures, on health or fuel taxes or whatever, these measures fall disproportionately on rural and regional Australia. The silence on the other side is deafening. There must be people right around rural and regional Australia today—some of them even listening to this debate—simply shaking their heads and asking themselves what their representatives in this place are thinking to allow such massive changes.
Going back just a little bit, I meant to make this point: the idea of the scholarships is just ridiculous. The member for Grey reminded us that the scholarships will come from the increased fees. The government is mandating that, with all the increased fees, you need to hive some of that money off for scholarships. This is not the government funding scholarships; this is the greatest ruse I have seen in this place. They are running around the country saying, 'Don't worry. There will be higher fees, but there will be more scholarships,' but the scholarships are being paid for by the students. I will make another prediction: the city universities, the elite universities, who themselves will choose who the scholarships go to, will be cherry-picking around rural and regional Australia, taking our best students out of rural and regional communities, or indeed out of Western Sydney, for example, dragging them into the elite universities, subsidised by increased fees paid by rural and regional students. That is what will happen. So, let's dispense with this crazy idea that there is a new scholarship scheme coming into place to help students. That is just rubbish. The Prime Minister and his minister should apologise for misleading the Australian community in that way. That is another example of how this bill will fall disproportionately and adversely on people living in rural and regional Australia.
I am glad the member for Riverina pointed out that he had not made his contribution yet. I apologise for that. I thought he had. I say to him again that I look forward to it very much and I look forward to a very objective contribution from him.
I rise today to speak on what is the largest reform to higher education we have seen in a generation. I have asked the Minister for Education about these reforms a number of times during question time. The answer is a resounding win for students. The University of Queensland is within my electorate of Ryan and many students have contacted my office about these reforms. While some are slightly concerned about potential fee changes, although they understand it will not be as high as those opposite postulate, they do know that they will be receiving higher quality education, especially on the research front, and that they will be able to borrow every cent of the cost of their degree from the taxpayer through the Higher Education Loan Program.
The coalition government's reforms to higher education will see Australia's university sector become truly competitive on the world stage into the future. Right now our universities face a constant struggle to maintain their superiority. Our higher education sector is currently our third largest export after iron ore and coal; it just recently overtook gold. Under Labor, international education went backwards. Export income dropped from $19 billion to $15 billion from its 2009-10 peak because of Labor's neglect and lack of backbone to make proper policy action. The number of international student enrolments fell by 130,000 between 2009 and 2012.
When Labor was in office they cut $6.6 billion in funding to higher education, including more than $4 billion in their last year in office alone. Labor cut $2.8 billion of funding to universities and students and capped self-education expenses, which would have left thousands of Australian nurses, teachers and other professionals out of pocket. Labor's legacy was a complicated and unwieldy mess, with large increases in regulation, compliance, reporting, unnecessary red tape and regulatory duplication applying to universities. This meant universities spent an estimated $280 million a year on compliance and reporting. Labor's poor track record is evidenced by the two independent reviews of regulation and reporting in 2013 to which the previous Labor government failed to respond.
Action needs to be taken to ensure that our education sector is not left to crumble as a result of Labor's neglect and the growing competition in neighbouring countries. In November 2013, the government appointed Dr David Kemp and Mr Andrew Norton to review the demand-driven system. More than 80 submissions were received and other significant consultation was undertaken. These reforms are not a result of rash, back-of-the-drink-coaster policymaking. They have been carefully devised with full consultation over a long period of time.
Earlier this year, Universities Australia launched a campaign urging that Australian universities must not be left behind in the face of intensifying global competition. Minister Pyne made it clear that he was in full agreement and that one of the core goals of higher education reforms is to ensure that Australia is not left behind as universities around the world, especially in Asia, rise in standing.
The Shanghai Jiao Tong index, released a few weeks ago, lists eight Australian universities in the world's elite 200. Universities in China, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore are rising strongly through the ranks. Five years ago there were no Chinese universities in the top 200. Now there are six in just five years. We need to make sure our universities are not left behind.
In the lead-up to the budget, many calls for reform—including for fee deregulation—were made by several vice-chancellors across Australia. On the night of the budget, the government announced that two working parties were being appointed to advise on key aspects of implementation of higher education reforms. I would like to point out that out of all the vice-chancellors of Australian universities there is only one who is completely opposed to these reforms—just one, and on an ideological basis, not a practical basis. All the others, in one way, or another, support the reforms.
These reforms are indeed enormous so we do need to have complete agreement by all parties on the whole package. To have wide ranging support for the majority of these reforms is obviously quite difficult; so to have such broad support is testament to the calibre and necessity of this reform package. Just yesterday, in The Australian, there was an article stating that David Gonski backs the coalition's plan to deregulate higher education fees.
These are good reforms; they are the reforms our higher education sector needs. The University of Queensland in my electorate of Ryan is a member of the Group of Eight universities and is one of Australia's top universities. In fact, the University of Queensland is ranked in the top 50 worldwide, as are the ANU, Monash and a number of other Australian universities. Yet not one of those is ranked in the top 20. I think this is a shame. I believe in our higher education sector, and I share in the minister's passion and vision to give our Australian universities the potential to be in the top 20 and to one day compete with the likes of Oxford and Harvard. These reforms make such dreams possible.
I know the minister has worked hard and has done a very good job of communicating what these reforms involve. There are 10 key points to the higher education reform package. The first is expanding the demand-driven Commonwealth funding system for students studying for higher education diplomas, advanced diplomas and associate degrees, costing $371.5 million over three years. The second is extending Commonwealth funding to all Australian higher education students in non-university higher education institutions studying bachelor courses, costing $449.9 million over three years. The third point is that more than 80,000 students each year will be provided with additional support by 2018, including an estimated 48,000 students in diploma, advanced diploma and associate degree courses, and 35,000 additional students undertaking bachelor courses. Fourth, there will be more opportunities for students from low socioeconomic status backgrounds through new Commonwealth scholarships, the greatest scholarship scheme in Australia's history, effectively meaning free education for the brightest students from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. The fifth point is that it will allow universities to set their own fees and compete for students. Competition will enhance quality and make higher education providers more responsible to the needs of students and the labour market. When universities and colleges compete, students are the winners.
The sixth point is that it strengthens the higher Education Loan Program, which sees the taxpayer support all students' tuition fees up-front and ensures that students repay their loans only once they are earning a reasonable income—more than $52,000 per annum. No one needs to pay a cent up-front. Seventh, it will remove all FEE-HELP and VET FEE-HELP loan fees, which are currently imposed on some students undertaking higher education and vocational education and training. Eighth, it secures Australia's place at the forefront of research, with $150 million in 2015-16 for the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy, $139.5 million to deliver 100 new four-year research positions per year under the Future Fellowships Scheme, $26 million to accelerate research in dementia, $42 million to support new research in tropical disease, and $24 million to support the Antarctic Gateway Partnership.
The ninth point is that it will reduce the Commonwealth Grants Scheme by 20 per cent. Currently taxpayers fund more than 60 per cent of a student's degree. We believe that it is fair to ask students to pay for half of their degree—especially when people with a tertiary education earn significantly more over their lifetime. And do not forget that this 50 per cent can be completely borrowed on HELP—previously known as HECS—regardless of the student's background. Tenth, it adjusts the interest rate on student HELP loans. This is the money that the taxpayers lend to students up-front for the student's tuition. It will be adjusted to the 10-year government bond rate, with a capped maximum of 6 per cent, away from the current interest rate which is CPI. Taxpayers borrow the funds at the bond rate so it is reasonable that students should also borrow at the same rate. Remember that this is possibly the best value loan that students, or anyone, will ever get in their lives.
These reforms mean more competition and more choice for students. And, as a result of these reforms, there will be more courses. Universities will receive government support to offer more courses to more students. These qualifications will provide career opportunities and pathways to further qualifications.
There are some objections to these reforms on the basis that they do not help those in regional and low socioeconomic areas. However, diploma courses provide crucial opportunities to higher education for less-prepared students, giving them the opportunity to develop the skills needed for further higher education study. Expanding Commonwealth subsidies to these courses will ensure our students have the best chances of success. This is especially important in regional and low socioeconomic areas where students are less likely to enter into higher education compared to students living in metropolitan areas. These reforms mean more choice for students.
Universities will be empowered to set their own fees for their courses, which will generate more competition for students between a greater number of providers. More competition between higher education providers is good for students as they will now have a greater array of choices when it comes to course offerings and prices. Competition will drive quality and encourage providers to be more responsive to the educational needs of students. This will see many other students paying less than they do now for their education as the government supports more higher education options.
Many TAFEs and private colleges already work in partnership with universities. Those universities have been seeking funding for pathway and other diploma courses that help less prepared students succeed at university. The coalition government will now fund pathway and other diploma courses through universities and colleges, enabling many more people in Australia to get qualifications that can be used outright or towards a university degree.
Teaching and learning quality is a large part of these reforms. A competitive market requires an informed consumer. The coalition is responding accordingly. New information provided through the Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching will put the performance of each higher education institution—private as well as public—in the public eye. This will ensure that all those involved in the market have all the information they need to make the right choices and that no one party is advantaged at the expense of another. Students and their families will be able to access information about the quality of the courses and institutions they are considering. There will be better information about how successful previous graduates have been at finding jobs and what other students and employers think about the course. This information will also help Australian institutions compare their performance with other countries, assisting them to continue to improve. A new website presenting this and other information will be online later this year, with full implementation by August 2015.
I would like to reiterate that there are no up-front costs for students studying pathways which lead to a career with higher earnings. The government will maintain the HELP loan scheme so that no student need pay a cent up front for their higher education until they have graduated and are earning an income of more than $50,000 per year. Australian university graduates, on average, earn up to 75 per cent more than those who do not go on to higher education after secondary school. Over their lifetime, graduates may earn approximately $1 million more than if they had not gone to university. Given this, it is only reasonable that students contribute fairly to the cost of their education.
There has been a determined scare campaign regarding the future for fee paying students. Let me be clear. The current debate about these reforms has led to some inflated claims about the likely fee levels and repayment requirements of students. These claims should be treated with caution. Students enrolled before the budget will continue to be charged under existing arrangements. The government is not increasing fees. It is up to universities to choose what they charge, and for students to choose to pay.
Higher education providers will have to compete for students, and when there is competition for students, the students are the winners. Universities will have more to say about their own fee arrangements in due course. However, the wild speculation those opposite are using to scare the public away from the greatest higher education reforms we have seen in a lifetime are vastly incorrect and have no founding in reality. Some university fees will go up and some will go down. Students can choose a university that is best for them. They can choose the courses they want at the fees they want. Students will have the chance to go to universities that truly compete on the world stage and will set them in good stead to reach their full potential. These reforms mean that students win. Australian universities are dropping in world standing, but we cannot afford for them to be left behind.
I urge all those in this House to support this bill. To stand in the way of these reforms is to stand in the way of our children and their potential. I commend this bill to the House.
I acknowledge the member for Ryan and thank her for her contribution. To the young people who are listening to this debate, what we are talking about today has direct relevance to your futures and I encourage you to have some discussion about it. There are three things that I am going to talk about in my speech today. I want to talk about the impact of these reforms on the people of Indi. I want to talk about why some aspects are problematic and I want to make some suggestions for future consideration.
I acknowledge the comments of the member for Ryan and, in many areas, we have total agreement. But the fundamental difference that I would like to bring to this debate is that I believe we have already got market failure in rural and regional Australia. This is not the case in the cities. So my contention is that the government has to do something about market failure and one size does not fit everybody. In May this year, following the budget, in Indi we undertook what we called the Indi Budget Impact Tour. We had widespread consultation with my electorate—730 people in one week—and copies of our report are available from my office. Generally speaking, people supported the budget and, importantly, the role of the government in making the changes they thought fit. However, within the whole budget, there are a number of issues which caused particular concern. None was stronger than the reaction we got to the so-called reform in the education sector.
There were a number of specific issues that people raised with me—the impact of changes to interest rates on HELP loans; the deregulation of the university fee system; cuts in funding; the scholarship system; increase in costs for postgraduate degrees; reliance on the market to drive changes; and the separation of teaching from research. I would like to read into the Hansard a summary of the major comments people made:
The possibility of increased university fees is overwhelmingly and emotively opposed. The proposed changes to university fee arrangements will benefit the well off and further exclude the disadvantaged and country students. The expense of university study and living away from home is already too great for country students; it should be reduced, not increased. We are creating an academic underclass when we don't support rural kids to do higher education. HECS/HELP debt is already a stress; increasing it will result in less people doing higher education. Private school bias is squeezing public schools and the Gonski proposal is to redress disadvantage should be implemented. TAFEs and universities need to receive funding. Education is our future, paying of the national debt is not as urgent.
Many more comments were included.
From my perspective, a number of things in this legislation are problematic. I would like to outline to the House why I think there has been such a strong negative reaction. I have to say that the people of Indi, by their nature, are doers. Typically, they are resilient, independent and creative people who cope with change. Like most people in this House, they value education. They see it as a fundamentally important part of our social, economic and cultural infrastructure. They see education as the answer. They see it as the solution to continuing to be a profitable, prosperous, sustainable and creative community which is alive with opportunities for everybody. They know that the rural economy is changing. They see globalisation of our economy and through their agriculture and related businesses many are active players in this internationalisation. They know that education, especially formal education, is an absolutely essential ingredient of our ability to compete in world markets. I know these sentiments are shared by members of this House.
So what makes for such a strong, negative reaction to this legislation from the people of Indi? I believe they understand that the assumption underpinning the legislation—that the market will deliver—is flawed. Two recently released reports highlight the significance of regional universities in local communities: Regional Universities Network: engaging with regions, building a stronger nation and Aspirations and destinations of young people: a study of four towns and their communities and schools in Central Hume, Victoria, University of Ballarat, December 2012. In these reports some very revealing statistics are presented. For the Hume region, which includes half of my electorate of Indi and half of the electorate of Murray in north eastern and central Victoria, the percentage of graduating secondary students who enrol in a bachelors degree is for females in Hume 31 per cent, for males 26 per cent, the lowest percentage of non-metropolitan region. Interestingly, in Melbourne it is 59.6 per cent. So we have a comparison between Hume of 31 per cent and Melbourne of almost 60 per cent. The percentage of the Hume population aged between 25 and 35 with a bachelors degree or higher is 17.35 per cent; the state average is 30 per cent. The estimated percentage of Hume students who have been offered university places but have deferred is 30 per cent and all my career teachers tell me that that is growing.
Clearly, the current system is not working. Clearly change is needed. The question I put to this House is, where you have no competition, where you have limited service provision and what is currently being provided is not working, will a market based economy work? My argument is not. I believe we have market failure in Indi and the answer is more government intervention, not less. Market failure is considered by economists to be the rightful role of government to correct. Obviously, classic economic theory believes there is a large role for government to play in the economy.
I would like to read some of the preconditions for markets that are necessary if they are going to achieve efficiency. Clearly I believe these do not exist in my electorate. There needs to be perfect competition, there needs to be perfect information. We need to have perfect mobility of resources. We need to have no economies of scale and we need to have not critically large transaction costs. It is stated that when many of these conditions fail to be met, it is termed a market failure and it is considered by economists the rightful role of government to correct for these market failures. Obviously, classic theory leaves a large role for government to play. This is the crux of my argument today. There is a role for government to play in the provision of education, particularly in rural and regional Australia, because there is a difference between public goods and other goods, because there is a difference between the country and the city, because education is an investment as well as an expense and because politically we all know that one size does not fit all and if we, as politicians, refuse to accept this, we will pay the cost for our decisions.
So what is it about country living that makes for these special circumstances? My proposition is that distance is the key characteristic that needs to be accounted for and the consequential impact that it has on population density, demographic profiles, workforce composition and skill. These, coupled with the extra costs incurred in overcoming the tyranny of distance—the cost of money, the cost of time, the cost of resources and particularly the cost of effort—have huge impacts for us. People in my electorate are already playing huge costs for education, costs that are not accounted for through HELP, through government—the costs of travel, accommodation, living away from home, community disruption—and the extra costs imposed by this legislation will have a major multiplying effect on the individuals concerned. It will have a multiplier effect on the families. It will have a multiplying effect on the communities and, I believe, on my whole electorate. The impacts will be that even fewer people will take up the options of post secondary education. I do not think as a country we can afford that.
The fact that even fewer people are undertaking education will flow right through my community, adding to the disadvantage we already experience. For example, this education I am talking about is not about doctors and lawyers, it is not about excellence; it is about the basic provision of skilled professionals in my community. It is about nurses, it is about teachers, it is about social workers, it is about child-care workers, it is about people who do not do these jobs for maximum income. They want enough and they want a job to which they can reasonably travel from home to contribute to their community. These are not grabbing people, these are not people who want to rip off the system; they want to be able to serve their communities, to earn enough income and to live in their communities. Without this local provision we will lose that infrastructure.
The second thing is that because we do not have enough relevant education available locally, we have a huge export of our young people to the cities and very few of them choose to return—that brain drain. There is an opportunity cost for my community of having to pay for loans and the money goes out of our community. Instead of being invested in businesses and in mortgages locally, it goes off into some fund which then gets redistributed in the nether land. I have already spoken in this House about my particular concern for the impact on agricultural education, so I will not go into it today. What I would like to talk about in the next section of my speech is what can be done.
We have a failure of market. We have a role for government to intervene and we are not part of the city answer. I can totally understand when members of parliament say it is going to work for them; it does not mean to say it is going to work for us. Like the people in my electorate, I am a doer, and I know the importance of outlining solutions to the problem. When I talked to the community that I represent about what can be done, they said: 'It is not just what we do; it is how we do it. Giving us a big hunk of money won't solve this problem. You need to talk with us. You need to engage with us. Government needs to trust us to be part of the solution. You need to build on what is already working. We need to think and plan for the long term, beginning with the end in mind. Most importantly, we need to measure, count, analyse and recalibrate. It is how we do things that will deliver success. Throwing money at the problem is rarely the answer, and it won't be the answer for us. It is how the money is used that will make a difference.'
Suggestions from my community include: rather than limit scholarships to the profit base of universities, which clearly works to the disadvantage of rural and regional universities, have a process to consolidate scholarship funds and make them available to everybody equally. Have a process for tendering; award best practice. Rural and regional Australia needs to be engaged in the process of developing solutions. I am so disappointed that this legislation was not informed by a white or green paper or a consultation process.
In my community we know that the future is not some place we are going to; it is one we are creating. We know the paths to it are not found but made and we know that the making of those pathways changes both the maker and the destination. We know that, by working together with government, community and stakeholders, we can come up with better solutions. Government, come and talk to us. Invest the time in consulting with your communities and working together to come up with solutions that will work. We know what will work. We have some excellent practice in our communities.
In Indi specifically, we have an excellent campus of La Trobe University at Wodonga, doing fantastic work and delivering, against all odds, to raise those statistics that I mentioned before. In Wangaratta we have some fantastic work happening between GOTAFE and CSU, delivering agricultural education. We have excellent work happening. We have models that deliver. We know what works. We know how to engage. Give us more, not less.
Begin with an end in mind, government, and plan for the long term. When I look at this legislation, I do not see a plan. I do not see how this model will address the real concerns of businesses for a skilled and experienced locally based workforce. I do not see the concerns of families who want educational opportunities locally available and at all stages of the life cycle. I do not see a plan for rural and regional Australia where there is excellence. Excellence is going to be located in the cities. Where will that take us? I do not see a plan to enable all communities to reach their potential without exporting their young people and I do not see a plan that enables a nation—a nation that is both urban and regional—to truly reach its potential.
In closing, I call on the government and all my colleagues opposite who represent electorates outside the cities: in voting for this legislation, take responsibility for your decisions and start counting. Continue to count, and report back to this place on where the success is and how we actually have delivered for rural and regional Australia.
I rise to talk on the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014. This is a significant bill. This is a significant piece of legislation. This bill before us today is not about so-called reforms; this bill is about real reforms. It is about real reforms to the higher education system, which is a significant contributor to our society, a significant contributor to our gross national product and a significant income earner. Education is our fourth-largest export. Our higher education system now operates in a globalised world. Making sure that it can operate in that globalised world is vital. Already, we are seeing other countries competing with our higher education system. If we do not allow our higher education system to compete with other universities, whether they be in New Zealand, Asia, the US, the UK or anywhere else, then we are tying our higher education system down; we are shackling our higher education system. In doing that, we are shackling the future of our children.
These reforms are important, and they are especially important because of the situation that we have been left with, the situation that we face coming into government. As Paul Kelly so brilliantly articulated, Labor made a cart when it came to higher education but they did not provide a horse. I will just say that again, because it is important: the Labor Party made the cart but they did not provide the horse. So what did they do? They said, 'We're going to have demand-driven places in our universities, so universities can open themselves up. And we will make the system of how they bring students in demand driven.' But they did not deregulate the fee base. They said, 'We want you to take all these students, but we're not going to give you the ability to fund it.' As a matter of fact, not only did the Labor Party go to a demand-driven system but they actually took money out of the higher education system as well. So they shackled the higher education system. What the Minister for Education and the government faced was a system which did not have the ability to innovate and compete. These reforms are about giving our higher education system that ability to innovate and compete.
I am happy to place on the record here my belief that this is the true reforming part of our budget. This is the most significant reforming element of our budget, without doubt. What we are doing here to our higher education system will set it up for the decades to come—will give it the ability to compete in a globalised world against other countries.
To those opposite I say: look around you and look at the examples. We already have universities in New Zealand that are coming to Australia and advertising to take our students so that they will go to New Zealand to study. They are there saying, 'Come and get educated in our universities; it will cost you less and you will get a better education.' We are not giving our universities the ability to go to New Zealand and do exactly the same to them, and we should.
I would like to touch on one thing that the member for Indi said about what this will mean for universities in regional and rural Australia. What it means for our regional and rural universities is: for the first time, they can compete on cost. They can offer degrees, on a basis competitive with those being offered in the large capital cities, to attract students to regional and rural areas. They can do it on the price of the degree. They can also do it on the cost of living in those areas. So they will have two advantages over those capital city universities to attract students to their campuses. This is a game-changer.
At the moment, if you look at, for example, my electorate, where I have a Deakin University campus, that Deakin University campus in Warrnambool has to offer degrees at exactly the same price as the campus that they have in Geelong and the campus they have in Melbourne. There is no ability for that university to differentiate between campuses on the price of a degree. If they were able to, and if they were able to provide that at a cheaper price—and the cost of living there, we all know, is a lot cheaper—then we could attract more students to that regional campus rather than fewer, because at the moment there is no ability for that campus to compete. So these reforms, for regional and rural Australia, offer a significant advantage to our regional and rural campuses, and I think that this is one of the big, big wins from these reforms.
There are other issues which this bill deals with. For the first time, we are offering HECS or HELP to those people who want to get a tertiary degree. This is also significant because, once again, especially in regional and rural Australia, there are students who want to make sure that they can afford to get a tertiary degree. And why shouldn't we give them the same opportunities as we give to those who want to get a higher education degree? Once again, common sense—practical solutions to problems, which I know, in my electorate, and in other electorates in regional and rural areas, will be extremely well regarded.
It is interesting to see what those opposite have said on this issue. I have a transcript here of the former Minister for Employment Participation—Minister Ellis, as she then was—in an interview with Linda Mottram on Monday, 16 April 2012. She was being asked about HECS-style loans for TAFE students, and she had this to say:
Oh look, I'm incredibly excited about this. I know that upfront fees have meant that it has acted as a barrier to some people being able to take up their skills, their trades training and that this HECS-style scheme will ensure that everybody has the opportunity to access this form of education and training, like others.
So I am hoping that the former minister for employment will be incredibly excited about the reforms that we have brought before this House here today.
I doubt it!
Highly unlikely—because they are very good at saying one thing before an election and another thing after an election, but it would be good to see a little bit of consistency in approach, and it would be good to see that incredible excitement about what we are offering, because it is very, very important for our young people.
As we have seen recently, youth unemployment in this nation is an issue that we need to address. It is over 13 per cent; it is more than double the national average. It is an issue that we need to focus in on and target. What we are doing with these reforms—and, in particular, what we are doing when it comes to providing HECS and HELP into the tertiary sector—is a significant development in helping us address that youth unemployment problem.
As we know, if we can have our young people either earning or learning then that is the best way that we can ensure future paths into proper employment which will give them the type of start in life that they need to make sure that they can lead fulfilling lives—and this is what these reforms will do.
These reforms will also help those students from regional and rural areas and those from low-socioeconomic areas by giving them the chance to be able to afford to go to university. So the scholarship system which has been set up has been deliberately set up to mean that those students from low-socioeconomic areas and from regional and rural areas can afford to go to higher education—another significant aspect of these reforms.
I will also take a moment to note here that the government is going to look, when it comes to rural and regional students in particular, at dealing with the costs associated with having to move to take up a higher education place. Both the Minister for Employment and the Minister for Education have had a working group, chaired by Senator McKenzie, that has been grappling with this issue. The Labor Party made draconian changes to the independent youth allowance. Fortunately, after a lot of community unease and protest about those changes, that draconian decision was overturned, but they still did not go far enough in fixing and addressing this issue.
The Minister for Employment and the Minister for Education have committed to looking at this issue—how parents deal with the costs of sending students to get an education in rural and regional areas—which is so vital to rural and regional students. That is a major development and I look forward to the task force that has been set up in this area reporting back with options that the government can take forward and which will be another component of these important reforms that are here before the House this morning.
In conclusion, I just want to reiterate once again how important the higher education system is to the social wellbeing of our nation and to the economic wellbeing of our nation. I want to reiterate that our higher education system in Australia no longer operates in a vacuum; it operates in a globalised world. It must compete. It must innovate. It must do everything it can to attract students. It must do everything it can to make sure that the degrees that they are offering are the best in the world; if they do not, Australia will be all the poorer for it.
What we inherited was a system which was broken. It was a demand-driven system that did not deregulate the fee base. You cannot have a demand-driven system where government is cutting funding out of the system—and that is what the previous Labor government did—because all you do is cripple your higher education system. We want to unshackle it. We want to free it. We want to give it the opportunity to be the best higher education system in the world. This will enable us in rural and regional areas to expand the higher education presence and the higher education footprint around the country. If you compare our higher education system to that of the US and the UK, ours is predominantly based in capital cities while those in other countries are spread right across those countries, and in rural and regional areas in particular.
I rise to speak against the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014. I am amazed that the coalition has members from rural and regional areas actually speaking on this bill. If I were in their tactics squadron, I would be recommending that none of them speak on it, because they are arguing that this will make it harder for the children of people living in rural and regional areas to go to university. That is exactly what they are doing. Yet they are up here criticising our system.
They allege the higher education system was broken—the member for Wannon said. But I will give you a few facts, because I have heard speech after speech from coalition members. When we were in government, we commissioned the Bradley review on higher education and we responded to it. We increased the revenue funding per student by 10 per cent to $1,700 during the time we were in government. We increased government investment in universities from $8 billion, which we inherited in 2007, to $14 billion by 2013. If that funding had been maintained, by 2017 we would have seen $17 billion contributed by the federal government to the higher education sector.
But what are they doing? They are cutting $5.8 billion from it and making it harder for young people in rural and regional areas such as mine to get to university. And yet they are coming in here and lauding this as a historic reform. What they are doing is looking at the prospect of those universities charging far more for young people to become nurses, doctors, teachers and engineers—or even to work in the farming sector. We have rural and regional members here from the coalition lauding this yet we are seeing cuts to agricultural science, cuts to those people who actually want to better their farming skills, people who want to work on their farms and make their farms more competitive.
Where is the National Party? I think I am starting to agree with Bob Katter: the National Party does not really exist in this chamber anymore; they just roll out to the Liberals and the free marketeers and buccaneers of the right wing ideologues of the Liberal Party. And this legislation is typical of that.
When Labor was in power, we boosted funding to regional universities by 56 per cent. So we made it easier for young people to study. Our student start-up scholarships helped more than 427,000 Australians with the costs of study; our relocation scholarships helped 76,000 people with the cost of moving from home to study. We put 190,000 more students on campuses across the country. We boosted Indigenous student numbers by 26 per cent. We boosted regional student numbers by 30 per cent. And we have more than 36,000 extra students from low-income families in universities, compared to 2007.
In my area in Ipswich, the University of Southern Queensland in Springfield is hitting its Bradley review commitment in terms of young people from low-socioeconomic backgrounds getting access to university degrees.
Lest anyone say that we did not invest in world-class research and teaching facilities, we invested $4.35 billion from the Education Investment Fund and we earmarked $500 million for regional Australia. Let me give you an illustration of the kind of thing that that has done. Lest anyone in the gallery or listening think that Labor did not invest in the university sector, let me give you one illustration—the University of Southern Queensland's Springfield Education Gateways Building. It is a digitally connected learning environment, including simulated learning and laboratory spaces, allied health and nursing, engineering and construction and education. If any members want to go there they will actually see the construction taking place at the University of Southern Queensland's Springfield campus in the southern parts of Ipswich.
This bill is about cutting Commonwealth funding for university courses by an average of 20 per cent, leaving universities with no alternative but to raise fees to cover costs. It deregulates university fees and it will see the cost of university degrees skyrocket. Young people in regional and rural areas will have to make a choice between a car loan, a home loan or a university education—and the crippling interest rate on HECS-HELP student loans will burden students with years of crippling debt. It is a price signal. Those opposite are happy with price signals—because they want to put a $7 GP tax on people. They are boasting that this is the biggest Commonwealth scholarship fund in Australia's history. It is a sham. It is funded entirely by students paying higher fees. It introduces fees for PhD students—stifling innovation. But this is a government that does not believe in innovation. It got rid of the funding for the innovation precincts and they do not even have a science minister.
This bill does nothing to improve affordability, nothing to improve accessibility and nothing to improve availability of higher education. Name a country in the world where the deregulation of higher education led to lower fees. The minister could not name one when asked that question. This bill will force capable students to consider whether they can afford to go to university and put the burden of debt on them in the future. It is particularly harsh on students from low-income backgrounds, students who graduate into relatively low-paying jobs, graduates who take time out of the workforce to raise a family, mature age students who seek to upgrade their qualifications and those in remote and rural Australia. Put simply: we are seeing today through this particular legislation the Americanisation of our higher education system. It is a plan for $100,000 university degrees. It is a plan for a higher education of haves and have-nots. It fails the national interest test and it fails the test of equity and fairness.
Before the election, the now Prime Minister and the now Minister for Education promised no cuts to education. In September 2012 the now Minister for Education said:
While we welcome debate over the quality and standards in our universities, we have no plans to increase fees or cap places.
On election eve, the now Prime Minister said:
And I want to give people this absolute assurance, no cuts to education …
That blue book, Real Solutions, which they put underneath their chin all the time—and you saw candidates for the Liberal Party parading around the Real Solutions book as if it was the solution to everything—gave an old-fashioned, rock solid guarantee about university funding. Real Solutions, the Liberal Party's manifesto at the last election, said:
We will ensure the continuation of the current arrangements of university funding.
That is what it said: 'We will ensure the continuation of the current arrangements of university funding.' Well, the book is in the shredder. Real Solutions is in the shredder. They do not want to know about Real Solutions.
That did not take long—but it took a bit longer than I thought. In November 2013, the Minister for Education told Sky News: 'We want university students to make their contribution, but we're not going to raise fees.' So the Damascus Road conversion experience in reverse—the good minister for education becoming the bad minister for education—took a little while. In November 2013 he had not yet submitted himself to the finance minister and the Treasurer—they had not cut it yet. When asked why the government would not raise fees, the Minister for Education replied: 'Because we promised we wouldn't before the election.' Well, that did not last long did it? The budget in May broke that promise.
They broke that promise and every other promise that they made about education—$30 billion in cuts to education. The Gonski unit ticket went. It is gone. It did not last long, either—it did not last at all. Despite repeated promises that this government would be a government of no surprises, they delivered this shocking budget in May and we are now dealing with the consequences. There was $5.8 billion cut from the higher education sector alone. There were cuts in terms of the HECS-HELP benefit program and the Higher Education Reward Funding. The Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program was scrapped. There were cuts through changes to indexation for higher education. There were cuts to the Student Start-Up Scholarship Program, cuts to the Relocation Scholarship Assistance Program, cuts to the Research Training Scheme, cuts to the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency and cuts to the Australian Research Council through an efficiency dividend. They are the cuts those opposite made. So much for the party that want to support higher education—cut, cut, cut!
This bill before us today includes two massive cuts that will punish students. But members opposite from rural and regional Australia are lauding the bill—as if it is somehow great to cut $5.8 billion from the higher education sector. This will harm students in regional and rural areas; yet they are saying that it is fantastic. This bill cuts $3.2 billion through changes to the HECS-HELP repayment threshold and will increase rates for HECS-HELP debts. There is also a $1.1 billion cut through cutting funding for student support places.
The government argue that this is the only pathway forward. I tell you what it is a pathway towards: it is a pathway to a system where universities are a place that only privileged can go to, where only the sons and daughters of the rich can afford to go to. Those from the middle class and those from poor backgrounds will have this cost imposed and this obstacle in front of them that will make them question: 'Can I really afford to do it?'
This is not essential for the future prosperity of the nation as the minister said; this is about a class driven approach to university funding. We have not quite seen this. Even John Howard, the Prime Minister that imposed protocols and Work Choices in the higher education sector, would not go down this road because he knew it was too dangerous.
We have seen the sector rebel against this. We saw Stephen Parker, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Canberra, hit the nail on the head when he questioned if this plan was essential for the future prosperity of the nation, as the minister had claimed repeatedly. Mr Parker said one wonders why it was not mentioned in the federal election campaign last September. The answer of course is the coalition knew they could not take the plan in this bill today to the election in September last year. Who, thinking about taking time off from their work as a mature-age student with a young family going back to university, would not think about the cost? Who, as a mum or dad of tertiary aged kids that are finishing high school in places like Ipswich, Logan, Rockhampton, Gladstone, Townsville and Cairns would not have thought, 'Can we really afford it?'
This is about a price signal. This is what this mob opposite are going to do. They knew that Australians would not vote for a $7 GP tax nor for young people under 25 years of age who are just entering the workforce to lose $100,000 on their superannuation, as all those opposite yesterday voted for. Australians would not have voted for an increase in the petrol tax. They knew Australians would not vote for $80 billion in cuts to health and education, hospitals and schools. They knew Australians would not vote for cuts to the age pension or for cuts to the dementia and severe behaviours supplement. They would not mention those before the election.
Those opposite have abandoned needs based funding for schools and now we have before this chamber today another bill which shows that the Liberal Party are always on the side of the affluent and have a hard right wing ideological bent when it comes to education and the economy. This is a terrible troika on Australian students. It cuts funding for Commonwealth supported places, it deregulates university fees and it increases the interest charged on HECS-HELP student debts. It is worth considering each one of those.
I want those opposite to go back to what they call their listening post or their mobile offices and put a banner in front of them that says 'I voted to cut $5.8 billion from the higher education sector' and see what their constituents say. Or put on the banner 'I am going to make it harder and more expensive for your children to go to university' and see what their constituents say. I am amazed that we have seen some members in marginal seats in rural and regional areas actually have the temerity to come in here. Let them send out press releases today saying 'I voted to make it harder for your sons and daughters or for you yourself to go to university.' I dare them to do it. I guarantee they will not do it. They will be really courageous here but when they go back to their constituents in their marginal seats in rural and regional areas, they will not have the fortitude to tell people how they voted. This is important legislation they say. But, in fact, what they are doing is Americanising the system and making it harder for young people to go to university. It is a shame, a disgrace and they will rue the day.
I rise to speak in support of the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014. It gives me great pleasure to speak on this bill because education, particularly higher education, has transformed my life and has transformed my wife's life. Between us, we have five degrees. She was the first person in her family to ever go to university. We have both taught at a range of different universities on the east coast of Australia over many years, her law and myself business and strategy. I have been and remain on the council of one of the residential colleges at Sydney University that takes a large number of regional students and helps them to get a higher education at Sydney University. So I am deeply passionate about this issue; I know a lot about it and I care about it a great deal. I take great offence at the comments from those opposite about what we are seeking to do and what will be achieved through these reforms. In particular, I think the fundamental issue here is that those opposite do not understand what is happening in higher education.
Since 1986 I have been involved in this sector and I have seen extraordinary changes, so let me describe some of those changes. We now face ferocious global competition that those opposite do not understand. That competition is for students, particularly post graduate students. But, increasingly, undergraduate students are making choices about where they go to university between Australia and other countries in the world. For years we have been facing brain drain from our universities to global universities as students find the best place to do research and find the best place to teach. We are competing with universities around the world.
We face competition in our businesses. If we cannot attract and educate the best students here in Australia, we will fail. In this incredibly competitive global environment, we face competition which few of those opposite have ever had to deal with. We see that competition emerging very rapidly. China, for instance, if you go back only five years, had no universities in the top 200 in the world. They now have six. There are more students studying in China at universities, in higher education, than the whole of the Australian population. This is global competition in higher education in action.
There is a second major change I have seen in my time in universities—that is, how technology is transforming the sector. Many students now undertake their higher education using technology-intensive tools. We have heard in this chamber about how MOOCs are changing the nature of higher education. But, at a far more practical level, in regional Australia and in my electorate we see a large number of students watching lectures online using technology and doing tutorials through technology, which is changing the face of higher education. The notion that all degrees are going to go up in cost, when we are seeing these massive technological changes, is just absolute rot.
This reform bill is designed to help our universities to be competitive in this global environment and with these technological changes that we are seeing in the education sector. It has three key objectives: to increase access to quality higher education, to increase the diversity of courses offered and to contribute to repairing the budget and making sure that higher education is sustainable into the future. I think it is fair to say that in this chamber, on both sides of politics, there is some agreement that Australia's current higher education system does face challenges if we do not make reforms. This bill is about making important changes to strengthen that system.
As the member for Hume, with an electorate that spans from Picton and Wilton on the fringe of south-western Sydney, to Young and Cootamundra in the west, my comments on this reform bill focus on the benefits—the benefits—for rural and regional Australia. Regional Australia accounts for almost 40 per cent of our nation's population and the majority of our Indigenous population. However, young people aged from 15 to 24 who are from rural and regional Australia are almost half as likely to be attending university as young people from metropolitan areas. I saw that with my wife's family. She was, as I said earlier, the first in that family to go to university. She is from central western New South Wales.
In my electorate, higher education participation rates for young people aged 17 to 22 is about 16 per cent, this compares with 25 per cent in the ACT and as high as 45 per cent and 49 per cent in some capital city electorates. Clearly, there are barriers to regional and rural students accessing higher education. In 2009, the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee conducted an inquiry into rural and regional access to secondary and tertiary education opportunities. Submissions discussed some of these barriers.
The submission from Charles Sturt University—a university headquartered in Bathurst in central-western New South Wales, and operating campuses in inland New South Wales, the ACT and Victoria—noted that distance from a higher education institution does influence a young person's decision to attend university. I have seen that myself in my role at one of the residential colleges at Sydney university.
Charles Sturt University looked at the effect of the physical presence of a university campus in rural and regional areas on student participation, finding that the total number of students enrolled in a university increased with proximity. Participation also increased where the university offered a broad range of courses compared to a single course. Another study referenced in the Charles Sturt submission and titled, 'TAFE, university or work?' looked at the attitudes of high school students towards university, TAFE or work as post-school options. It found that student preferences for TAFE or work increased as their distance from major cities or university locations increased. Universities located in rural and regional areas have many benefits, such as bringing that knowledge economy to regional areas, providing educational opportunities for regional populations, providing opportunities for employment and so on.
Currently, only students studying bachelor-level courses at university are guaranteed access to government subsidies for their education. This reform bill extends this opportunity to students studying a wider range of courses at TAFE, at private universities and at private higher education institutions, and for students studying higher education diplomas, advanced diplomas and associate degrees. It is expected that the reforms will see more than 80,000 additional students each year accessing government subsidies for their education. Many of these students will come from rural and regional Australia and disadvantaged backgrounds. Students studying for jobs in child care, aged care, computer engineering and students studying qualifications that will lead them into university studies. There are clear opportunities for regional universities to expand into this area, offering these qualifications to local young people to develop their skills and retaining graduates in the community.
Tertiary education institutions, particularly those in regional areas, will also have new incentives and opportunities to work together to develop customised courses that produce graduates with the skills and knowledge required by local employers. Regional students will benefit from courses that enable them to study in more places and in more ways, including of course online.
The reform bill also provides for the deregulation of fees for Commonwealth supported students and removes the current maximum student contribution amounts. I have received a number of emails from concerned parents and grandparents about this measure, specifically about the potential for significant increases in course fees. I acknowledge these concerns; however, through the HELP loan scheme, no student will have to pay any money upfront for their course, and students are still able to defer the entire cost of their degree. And we know that technology will provide lower-cost options for tertiary education.
I am going to pause a moment and now quote a man we cannot quote often enough in this chamber—none other than the shadow assistant treasurer and member for Fraser.
Some of my colleagues have also alluded to his co-authored book, inspiringly named Imagining Australia: ideas for our future, published by Allen & Unwin in 2004, in which the member for Fraser lays out his vision for an Australia where universities are free to set student fees according to the market value of their degrees. With great pleasure, I quote directly from the text:
A deregulated or market-based HECS will make the student contribution system fairer because the fees students pay will more closely approximate the value they receive through future earnings.
He continues, 'Market based HECS will also help to improve our higher education system by making universities even more responsive to student needs and educational outcomes. Universities will have a strong incentive to compete on price and quality and meet the various requirements of the different segments of the student market.
We could not have said that more eloquently if we had tried. He joins the chorus of vice chancellors from universities, including Greg Craven today in The Australian, who echo those views.
Fee deregulation is also an opportunity for regional higher education institutions and the way they may choose to position themselves in the market. To attract students to regional campuses, some institutions may offer their courses at a lower cost than capital city counterparts. If towns and cities get behind this, we could see students choosing a regional location to study over a capital city location and this would significantly benefit regional economies—specifically employment and providing a strong rental market and services.
Linked to fee deregulation, the reform bill introduces a new Commonwealth Scholarship Scheme to support students from disadvantaged backgrounds, including from regional Australia. I cannot say enough about how positive this scheme is. Higher education institutions with 500 or more equivalent full-time supported students will be required to allocate one dollar in every five of additional revenue to this scheme.
For many families in rural and regional areas, the strain on family finances to send a young person to study away from home is a huge challenge. This financial burden is significant, particularly when they are ineligible for Youth Allowance. Cost is often identified as a significant factor in the decision making of rural and regional students—whether to go to university and which university they attend.
The study I mentioned earlier, 'TAFE, university or work?', commented that rural students who need to leave home to attend university are particularly concerned about the additional costs of accommodation and living in a city. Charles Sturt University in its submission to the Senate inquiry noted that annual living costs for a rural and regional young person studying away from home is between $15,000 and $20,000, plus start-up costs of about $3,000 to $6,000. For many rural and regional students and their families, there is no choice but to pay those additional costs. This Scholarship Scheme will help with these costs. I can assure you that the residential colleges of the universities around Australia are looking at how they can make sure they use this effectively for the most disadvantaged rural and regional students. It will provide assistance with tuition, accommodation, travel and other living costs that are barriers to further study. It is a great initiative which will assist many. As I have mentioned, the key aspects of this legislation are about expanding opportunities for students, including the scholarship program that I talked about. In a world of growing international competition, we do not want Australian universities to get left behind.
I would like to make a few comments about the changes to the indexation of HELP loans. These changes are about ensuring the higher education system remains fair and equitable for all Australians, particularly for those who do not benefit from higher education and are being asked to make a contribution. I have many of those in my electorate and I have great sympathy with the fact that many of those people express the view that they should not be paying excessive amounts for students to go university and then go on to earn far more than they ever could.
In conclusion, I again quote the member for Fraser—one of our greatest allies:
Deregulating university fees will mean much needed additional funding will be available to universities that capitalise on their strengths and develop compelling educational offerings. The result will be a better funded, more dynamic and competitive education sector.
Hear, hear. We agree wholeheartedly with the shadow assistant Treasurer.
The reform bill before the House will ensure that government funding for education will continue to grow by around $5.7 billion over the next four years. This includes higher education and research funding that will grow by over $950 million over the same period, in contrast to the cuts the last government instituted which were roundly condemned by David Gonski, the architect of their secondary education reforms. The measures in this legislation will ensure that our higher education system is sustainable into the future. Our universities will be protected and they will continue to grow. They will continue to be competitive internationally in a tough international environment. I commend this bill to the House.
I proudly rise to speak in opposition to the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014. I am another MP representing a regional electorate, as the member for Hume purports to do. Unlike him, I am representing the best interests of regional families. This bill is an attack on the opportunity for regional families to send their kids to universities. This bill is all about advancing the interests of a few sandstone universities to compete internationally at the cost of students from low- and middle-income families, who will be forced to compete for the crumbs of a few scholarships. The last speaker liked to quote from a certain book. I will return the favour and quote from a coalition pamphlet, laughingly entitled 'Our plan: real solutions for all Australians'. Anyone listening to this debate might remember this pamphlet. This was the great shield for the Prime Minister. For two years before the election whenever he had a tough question or was asked about his complete lack of policy details, he hid behind this pamphlet, saying: 'This explains all. These are our policies. Unlike anything else I have ever said in my life, this is in writing so you can believe it.' Let me quote from it:
We will ensure the continuation of the current arrangements of university funding.
That is just a broken promise outright. That is a blatant lie. It has deceived the families of Australia.
This government's proposals do three key things: they allow universities to set higher fees for students, they dramatically increase student debt by changing the interest rate on student loans and they drastically cut public funding for university courses. And the Minister for Education has the arrogance and audacity to have stated in this House on at least two occasions that students will benefit most from these changes. Crippling students with enormous debt or deterring them from study is not benefiting them and he should be ashamed of making such an absurd assertion.
Labor's values on higher education are fundamentally different to the Liberal Party's. We believe in fair access and fair funding, and we delivered this when we were in government. The Liberals want to Americanise the university sector, as they want to do in so many areas of Australian life. Education is the great enabler. Like many speakers in this debate, I am proud to be the first on my mother's side of the family to go to university. Not only is education a private good, benefiting the individual; it is a public good, enriching our economy and society. The changes contained in this legislation impoverish our society through their myopic focus on penny-pinching.
Before drawing to the attention of the House the many flaws in this bill, I want to briefly respond to the outrageous claims from the last speaker—in fact, every coalition speaker—about Labor's legacy on higher education. Here are a few facts. On our watch, government investment in universities increased from $8 billion in $2007 to $14 billion in 2013. For the innumerate over the other side, that is almost a doubling of federal funding for higher education in six years. We saw 750,000 students at Australian universities—one in every four of them there because of Labor's increased funding. Through the Education Investment Fund, $4.35 billion was invested in modern teaching and research facilities.
In the regional context, Labor increased funding for regional universities by 56 per cent and boosted regional student numbers by 30 per cent. This was incredibly significant for my area and for the University of Newcastle, which is in the region I represent. It was Labor which made these record investments in our university sector and it is a record which is in stark contrast to the reforms proposed by the Liberal Party.
The truth is that the government's plan for higher education constitutes an extensive cut in funding and support to the sector. The Liberals are attempting to cut $5.8 billion from higher education teaching, learning and research.
This bill provides for $3.9 billion in cuts as follows: funding through the Commonwealth supported places in undergraduate degrees will be cut by an average of 20 per cent and for some courses this will be as high as 37 per cent; almost $174 million will be cut from the Research Training Scheme; and interest rates for student loans will move from CPI to the 10-year bond rate, which is a grossly unfair change.
There are clear economic arguments against the government's proposals. If fewer people obtain university degrees because degrees become more unaffordable, this will impact on Australia's productivity and economic performance.
Deregulation will inevitably result in significantly higher course fees and this will have two significant impacts: students will be faced with huge debt and those considering tertiary education, particularly in regional areas like those I represent, will be deterred from pursuing a university degree.
It is not just the Labor Party which make these points. It is telling to identify some important contributions from the sector on these unfair reforms. Professor Stephen Parker, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Canberra, stated:
… these changes, taken together, are; unfair, unethical, reckless, poor economic policy, contrary to the international evidence and being woefully explained, raising suspicions about how much thought has actually gone into them.
That is a damning quote. And let us point to Belinda Robinson, Chief Executive of Universities Australia, the peak body for this sector—hardly a Labor friend, if you look at their quotes in the past—who stated:
If we're not careful what we will start to see is a situation where students are being deterred not only from participating in university study but in fact taking time out of the workforce to do things like have children because it will be such a financial burden for them once they re-enter the workforce …
These are damning quotes. Look at what Professor Bruce Chapman, the father of the HECS scheme, has said. He is of the view that the government's model is bad economics. It is also important to consider the impact regarding fair access to tertiary education. It is abundantly clear that the Liberal's proposed reforms are fundamentally unfair, as well as disastrous economically.
Again, it is not just the Labor Party saying this; the Vice-Chancellor of Swinburne University, Linda Kristjanson, has criticised the reforms and wrote to her staff, stating:
… deregulation will inevitably lead to much higher fees for our students.
And further:
Over time, full fee deregulation will lead to a higher education system characterised by the "haves" and the "have nots".
And it is not just vice-chancellors who are of this view. I previously referred to a year 11 student, Jacqueline, who attends Callaghan College in my area. Jacqueline wants to study primary teaching at the University of Newcastle. She emailed me and told me how angry she was that, because of these changes, the cost of a teaching degree will now cost around twice as much as it currently does. She also has significant concerns about the interest repayments on her student loan, particularly if she wants to have time away from work for family reasons.
The government has achieved something quite unique with these reforms. The unfairness and inequity of these reforms is clearly identified by a broad spectrum of our society, ranging from university vice-chancellors to prospective university students. It is regional areas such as the Hunter region and the electorate of Charlton, which I represent, which will be hit the worst. A significant number of university graduates in Charlton are teachers and nurses. Around 13,000 people in Charlton have a university degree and, of these, four out of five have studied in education or nursing.
According to Universities Australia—again, the peak body—the cost of a nursing course will increase by 24 per cent and the cost of an education course will increase by 20 per cent. These are incredibly significant increases for professions where wages are only moderate. And that is before you even look at the impact of higher interest rates on these debts.
NATSEM modelling, the modelling organisation that the Prime Minister, when in opposition, said was the premier economic modelling body in this country, predicts that the cost of an education degree will increase from $31,400 to $87,560. That is a huge increase in anyone's books. Universities Australia's modelling is even more dire.
Charlton has a very significant number of nursing graduates and the country will need more nurses as people age and the healthcare sector expands. According to Universities Australia, a female nurse, who works part time for six years in order to have kids—a scenario I am very familiar with personally—will face a debt of $97,680 to have a nursing degree. What those on the other side do not understand is that, when they take time off to have a family, they will not be paying the HECS—or HELP, as it is now called—but because of the jacked-up interest rates their debt compounds very significantly. So a nurse who wants to work part time for six years while they get their kids up to school age will face a debt of $97,000. They will also be paying off this debt to age 46. Despite the protestations of our Minister for Education, nurses and teachers do not earn $1 million more than non-university graduates. They make a great contribution to this country and it is completely unfair, inequitable and contrary to good economic policy to weigh them down with a $100,000 debt.
Teaching and nursing degrees are often the first degrees obtained in families. My wife is a nurse and was the first in her family to finish university. My grandfather was the first in his family to go to university and obtained a teaching degree. These are typically the first degrees that working-class kids are able to engage in to join the professional sector. The government is making that possibility so much harder.
These increases are not just for these degrees. Let us look at engineering, a profession where we face a dire skills shortage. According to Universities Australia, an engineer will face a debt of over $200,000 and will not pay it off until they are 53. This is an incredible impact on both skills shortage areas and it is also going to have a disproportionate impact on women. This is a government that purports to be trying to increase workforce participation through its laughable Paid Parental Leave scheme, a scheme that will reward mothers in north Sydney with $50,000, while women in my electorate will get less than $20,000. But this scheme will do nothing to increase workforce participation, especially when you counteract it with these very regressive changes to higher education.
The impacts on regional universities will be quite massive. The University of Newcastle, which has been ranked the best university in Australia under 50 years of age, has a very high proportion of students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds. Over a quarter of the students going to this uni have this background, and these students will be the real victims of these changes.
This is part of a broader attack by this government on education. We have seen them cutting over $1 billion from child care, taking crucial dollars away from early childhood education, which has a marked impact on the quality of people's lives and their chances of succeeding in life. In addition to that, we have seen a $30 billion cut in school funding through the government's abandonment of their commitment to the Gonski funding model. This is a government that have breached every single promise they have made on education. They promised not to change university funding arrangements. They did. They said they were on a unity ticket on Gonski. Well, they could not wait to break that promise and strip $30 billion from school funding. This is a government that will stand condemned for their changes to the education sector. They will have a massive impact across all of Australia but especially regional areas like the one I represent.
Labor opposes the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill because these changes do not meet the fairness test. They are fundamentally unfair and, if the reforms are enacted, they will have a profoundly negative impact on our economy and our society. As the Leader of the Opposition stated earlier in this debate, opportunity in education is a pact between generations. This government is yet again failing the next generation, as it has on climate change, investment in industries of the future and a sustainable healthcare system. This government will stand condemned as Australia's worst government when it comes to supporting future generations.
In contrast, Labor have a proud tradition of investment and broadening access to tertiary education. We will never accept changes that Americanise our tertiary sector, cut funding and make it harder for Australian students to obtain a university qualification. I would like to finish by quoting Labor's leader:
Labor believes in equality of education. Labor believes in affordable, accessible higher education for all Australians. That is why we will vote against $100,000 degrees. We will vote against the doubling and tripling of university fees. We will vote against a real and compounding interest rate on student debt. We will vote time and time again against this government's cuts to university research. We will never consign the next generation of Australians to a 'debt sentence'. We will not support a system where the cost of university degrees rises faster than the capacity of society to pay for them. We will never tell Australians that the quality of their education depends upon their capacity to pay.
This is a debate about economics and equity. On both counts, this government fails. We will hear speakers from the other side talk about needing to reduce debt. Governing is about choices, but why would you choose to cut $5.8 billion from higher education while wasting over $21 billion in a ridiculous Paid Parental Leave scheme that rewards rich women for having a baby and pays a paltry less than $20,000 to the majority of my electorate.
Governing is about choices. This is a poor choice that will close the door on a generation of working class kids getting to uni. This is a poor choice that will mean we have fewer nursing and teaching graduates and vital services for our future. It is a poor choice that will move Australia's economy backwards and make society a less fair place. In the end, it must be opposed for these reasons.
I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this bill today. When you talk about the value of higher education, it is all too easy to just think in dollars and cents and the cost of an education. But it is vital that we look much broader than that and consider the opportunities that higher education presents to students, from developing critical thinking and becoming active participants in our society to forging lifelong relationships with peers and making valuable contacts in relevant industries. It is also about the future of research and innovation in our institutions and whether we want Australia to be at the forefront of learning and industry, providing intellectual and moral education, nurturing teaching and general and professional education.
There is no doubt that these proposed changes to higher education and research in Australia are revolutionary. This reform package is fair and balanced. It will spread opportunity for students and ensure Australia is not left behind in global competition.
Coming from a regional area where residents suffer from the tyranny of distance in so many ways, I am pleased to see that these reforms will help strengthen higher education for students and institutions in my area. Firstly, for the first time ever, all Australian undergraduate students in registered higher education institutions will be supported for accredited courses, from diplomas through to bachelor degrees. I have seen how diploma courses can be an important pathway to higher education for less-prepared students, giving them the opportunity to develop the skills they need for further study.
The government is investing $371.5 million to deliver this initiative. Expanding Commonwealth subsidies to these courses will make sure that our students have the best chance for success. This is especially important in regional and low-socioeconomic areas where students are less likely to enter into higher education compared to students living in our metropolitan cities. This means that over 80,000 students each year will be provided additional support by 2018. As the budget papers show, government investment in higher education is going to continue to increase each and every year—totalling $37 billion in funding to higher education institutions over the next four financial years. That certainly puts paid to the previous speaker's assumptions. There is more money, but it has to cover more students getting access to higher education subsidies, which is why the per-student rate is coming down.
Secondly, there will be more opportunities for students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds through new Commonwealth scholarships. We will require that universities and other higher education providers spend $1 in every $5 of additional revenue raised on scholarships for disadvantaged students. We have been listening to students in regional Australia and what they have been saying about up-front costs in accessing higher education study. These Commonwealth scholarships will be of enormous benefit to students from regional Australia and to others.
Thirdly, we are freeing up universities to set their own fees and compete for students. More competition between higher education providers is good for students, giving them more choices when it comes to course offerings and prices. Competition will drive quality and encourage providers to be more responsive to the educational needs of students. Universities will be empowered to set their own fees for their courses. This will generate more competition for students between a greater number of providers. The fees charged to students will ultimately be up to the institutions to decide but could see many regional students paying less than they are now for their education as this government supports more higher education options.
In addition, many TAFEs and private colleges already work in partnership with universities. These universities have been seeking funding for pathway and other diploma courses that help less-prepared students succeed at university. This was evident at the launch of Queensland's first dual sector university, created by a merger of the Central Queensland University and the Central Queensland Institute of TAFE. At the time, our education minister said:
They will be able to compete with the sandstone universities, not just on living conditions … they will also be able to compete on price if those other universities exponentially raise their fees.
He said:
Universities like CQU will pitch their fees to the market that they represent and that means they will be able to keep their market share or in fact grow it.
CQU Vice-Chancellor Scott Bowman saw a lot of potential in the changes. He said:
There are two types of universities: those that see change, wring their hands and say 'Oh woe is me'. And then there are others that lick their lips. We are a lip-licking university.
He met the changes with a great deal of enthusiasm. That was further reflected recently when he announced that CQU are looking for a site to house a campus in the Cairns CBD; so they are expanding from where they are. We certainly welcome the opportunity to have CQU as a second university in our regional city.
Fourthly, we are strengthening the Higher Education Loans Program, or HELP, which will see the taxpayer support all student tuition fees up-front. With the debt and deficit burden that we have been left by Labor, everyone has to pay their share. Students are going to be asked to pay 50 per cent of the cost of their education. They are currently paying 40 per cent, with the taxpayer bearing the other 60 per cent. We are asking them to increase their contribution by 10 per cent. I think a 50-50 split sounds like a fair deal, especially when higher education students can borrow all of that money from the taxpayer at a low interest rate and not start paying it back until they are earning over $50,000 a year, and then only two per cent of their income can be taken to start paying back those fees. Remember too that Australian university graduates on average earn up to 75 per cent more than those who do not go on to higher education after school. Given this fact, it is only fair that students contribute fairly to the cost of their education.
Fifthly, we will grow regional education providers to build stronger communities. As I mentioned earlier, for the first time regional education providers will have the opportunity to offer more courses and be able to compete to attract more students. We will continue to support regional higher education directly through the regional loading that is provided to universities in recognition of the higher cost of operating in regional campuses—a total of $274 million over the next four years.
All these reforms tie in with two of my key focuses: developing northern Australia and getting rid of the burden of excessive red tape.
In my work as the Chair of the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia, I have seen that there is huge potential to position educational and research institutions in the region as the keepers of tropical expertise. Overall, however, Australian universities are dropping in world rankings, and we cannot afford to be left behind. Through these reforms, we are securing Australia's place at the forefront of research with more than $400 million in investment. This includes $42 million to support new research in tropical disease through the Australian Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine based in Cairns, Townsville, Mackay and the Torres Strait—a project that I have strongly advocated for quite some time.
Labor has left a complicated and expensive mess, with large increases in regulation, compliance, reporting and unnecessary red tape applying to universities. This has meant universities spend around $280 million a year on compliance and reporting—what a waste that is! It makes sense that higher education institutions, not governments, are the best judge of how they can maintain and promote a world-class higher education system.
From 2016, institutions will be responsible for setting their own levels of student contributions, freeing them from bureaucratic restrictions. The response from industry to this proposed reform package has been mainly positive. I note that in his contribution to the debate the member for Charlton, the previous speaker, made frequent references to Universities Australia, and he quoted negative comments. This is rather interesting, because I have had discussions with Professor Sandra Harding, who is not only the Vice-Chancellor and President of James Cook University but the Chair of Universities Australia, and she has called on parliamentarians to support fee deregulation, describing it as:
… an important and a very timely innovation reform for higher education.
She states:
Fee deregulation will allow JCU to potentially be a price setter within the market in those courses for which we are renowned globally and where there is a value added experience.
Even though JCU has outstanding assets, such as the Orpheus Island Research Station, the Daintree Rainforest Observatory, and the 'James Kirby' (the biggest vessel of any University in the country), which enhance our teaching and research, currently JCU receives the same funding per science student as another university that offers a largely laboratory-based science program with some field trips.
We should be able to put a premium price on these courses to reflect the cost—but also the value presented.
Professor Harding cautioned, however, that some improvements need to be made to the package to ensure affordability for students, including moderating the size of the proposed 20 per cent cut in the federal government contribution to tuition fees and maintaining the interest rate applied to HECS-HELP student loans at CPI. Professor Harding further states:
A support package should also be provided to universities, to address possible market failure—especially for institutions that serve disadvantaged and regional communities.
Other industry sectors such as sugar and forestry, which have experienced major change as a result of changes to public policy, have had access to a support packages.
At this stage, it is difficult to foreshadow what impact the changes will have and therefore what, if anything, JCU might be looking for.
TAFE Queensland also supports extending opportunities for students, including disadvantaged students, to access higher education qualifications though reform of funding arrangements. TAFE Queensland cautions that, to ensure equity and achieve the policy objectives intended, it will be important that any fee deregulation arrangements treat government owned TAFEs and universities equally. This recognises the public good delivered through these organisations.
In the Leichhardt electorate, 21 per cent of publically funded VET students at the TAFE Queensland North Cairns campus are Indigenous, in comparison to an average of 4.8 per cent of publically funded VET students and 1.4 per cent of university students. Extension of Commonwealth supported higher education funding will allow TAFE Queensland to offer niche market qualifications and increase opportunities for students, including disadvantaged students, to access employment-focused higher education in Leichardt.
There has been a lot of comment from the community, but here I have to condemn the Labor Party for their careless and provocative scaremongering. The current debate about these changes has led to some inflated claims about likely fee levels and repayments for students. These claims should be treated with a great deal of caution. I can state unequivocally that the government is not increasing fees. Fees will be up to what universities choose to charge and students choose to pay. In addition, students who accept a Commonwealth supported place at higher education institutions after 13 May 2014 will fall under the existing arrangements until 1 January 2016, when they will move to the new system. For existing students there will be no change in fees.
There is no doubt that we live in a time of great change. The international economy is evolving and the employment market is changing. Global competition for higher education is intensifying, especially when there are world-class universities emerging on our doorstep in Asia and new technology driving the growth of online education. We must make sure that Australia's higher education providers are able to meet these demands in the 21st century, and we have a game-changing opportunity to do that now. I embrace this challenge and I call on the Senate crossbenchers to join with us. We can work together to create a better higher education system and a world-class system for our country.
I rise to speak on the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014 on the back of 16 years in universities—six years at the University of Sydney, four years at Harvard and six years teaching at the great Australian National University. It is with deep concern that I rise to speak on this bill, put forward by a political party with a very poor track record in education.
When the Howard government first came to office its immediate decision on higher education was to cut the higher education budget by five per cent. None of that was announced before the election—something of a pattern for the coalition—but the result was that direct public payments to tertiary institutions showed no real growth from 1995 to 2005. Per capita funding for universities fell by nine per cent. The Howard government brought in voluntary student unionism, reliving their student politics days, and they stripped the funding from campus services. That was the situation in which Labor found the university sector when we came to office in 2007.
From 2007 to 2013 Labor invested in Australia's universities. We commissioned the Bradley review, which looked at the situation of universities, and noted that we did have high-performing universities. For example, if we compare the Australian corporate sector with the Australian university sector, we have got just nine Australian companies in the Fortune Global 500, but we have 19 universities in the world's top 500 universities. I would always argue for us to aspire to do better, but we should also be proud of what Australian universities have achieved.
As a result of the Bradley review, Labor increased funding to Australian universities. One in four students at Australian universities is there today thanks to Labor. Between 2007 and 2013 we put 190,000 more students on campus; we boosted Indigenous student numbers by 26 per cent and regional student numbers by 30 per cent; and we increased the number of students from low-income families by 36,000. Labor in office increased per-student contributions by 10 per cent. That is an extra $1,700 per student. We changed the funding model. We committed to proper indexation of university funding, making universities better off to the tune of $3 billion compared to the situation if we had kept the funding model introduced by the Howard government. Real indexation was vital because university costs were rising significantly faster than CPI. If you increase university funding by the rise in prices then it is quickly outstripped by the cost of salaries and high-quality equipment, which we know that our universities need. Labor in office reformed Youth Allowance, offered the new Student Start-up Scholarship, and launched the MyUniversity website in 2012.
It is no surprise then, that when the coalition were discussing their education policies before the 2013 election, they did not reveal any of the plans that they had for universities. Why would they? They were looking at a government which had increased the per-student funding by 10 per cent, and which could claim credit for one-quarter of the students at university. In the 'Real Solutions' Liberal Party policy document—you don't see so much of 'Real Solutions' around these days, Deputy Speaker; it seems to have gone into witness protection!—on pages 40 to 41, it says: 'We will ensure the continuation of the current arrangements of university funding.' Tony Abbott said on Insiders on 1 September 2013: 'I want to give people this absolute assurance, no cuts to education'. Christopher Pyne on Sky News on 17 November 2013 said: 'We want university students to make their contribution, but we are not going to raise fees.' Pressed on Sky News—'Why not raise fees?'—the now minister responded, 'because we promised we wouldn't before the election.' In a media release on 26 August 2012, Christopher Pyne said, 'While we welcome debate over the quality and standards in our universities, we have no plans to increase fees or cap places.' All of this has been betrayed with some of the most radical plans for higher education that Australians have seen. Those opposite have described these as big changes: well, they are right—in the way that a stopped clock is right twice a day. But they are wrong if they think these are good changes for the Australian university sector.
As Bruce Chapman, architect of HECS and my former ANU colleague, has noted, these are changes which could well hurt the propensity of low-income students to attend university. And Bruce Chapman does not say that lightly: he has done research showing that the 1989 introduction of HECS did not deter low-income students from attending university. He has done research with Chris Ryan showing that the 1998 changes to the HECS bands did not deter low-income students from attending university. But this change, and in particular the introduction of a government bond rate on debts, is of great concern to Bruce Chapman. He has said in an interview with The Australian on 4 June 2014: 'Interest has been subsidised for a very good reason: to not disadvantage the people who do not do well out of the system.' He said, 'It is an ethical issue.' And he has warned that these reforms could 'lead to a situation where students are potentially charged more than the cost of the service; more than the cost of the teaching".
Indeed, modelling put together by Timothy Higgins and Bruce Chapman has concluded that poor graduates could pay 30 per cent more for a degree than their high-income counterparts. The reason for that is that, given the same starting debt, low-income graduates are hit harder by compounding interest on their debts because they spend more time out of the workforce and have lower salaries. The researchers conclude:
Using the long-term bond rate will be regressive and it is very hard to argue this is fair. HECS was designed to protect people who go to university but, because of bad luck or bad circumstances, don't get to enjoy the benefits. HECS should act as an insurance mechanism and that aspect of the scheme is being undermined.
When we talk about this as being regressive, it is a regressive reform like so much else this government is doing. This is a government which is raising superannuation taxes on those earning any less than $37,000 a year, but cutting superannuation taxes on those with more than $2 million in their accounts. This is a government that is changing Australia's fair parental leave scheme to an unfair parental leave scheme; benefiting those at the very top of the distribution, while at the very same time it is cutting away supports for low-income families—taking one tenth of their income out of the pockets of the poorest sole parents in Australia.
These changes will not only be regressive; they will disproportionately hurt women. We know that one of the great benefits of HECS—with debts indexed to inflation—is that if someone takes time out of the labour market to raise a child, then by the time they come back into the labour market, wages have grown faster than prices, and their debt, relative to wages, has become a smidgen smaller. But this government has taken a feature of HECS and turned it into a bug. The existing HECS system has debts growing at two per cent while wages grow at four per cent—so a time out of the labour market sees your debt grow more slowly than your wages. But under these proposed reforms—if we imagine prices growing at two per cent, wages at four per cent, and the government bond rate at six per cent—if someone takes time out of the labour market, their debts will grow faster than wages. Their debts will grow at six per cent—considerably faster than the four per cent that we might expect for wage growth.
It was my pleasure today, along with the member for Kingston, Senator Carr, and the Leader of the Opposition, to visit the University of Canberra. While we were there, we met researchers in the area of applied ecology who are engaged in looking at the genetics of reptiles—research which will help us better understand the world around us, and better understand human health. This research is absolutely vital research for the future of Australia. And yet the University of Canberra is vulnerable to cuts in its research budget. And we have a higher education minister who is threatening research grants—that is, threatening applied ecology; threatening medical research—if he does not get his own way. This is student politics on a national stage. We have the minister's petulance being taken out on the researchers of the future. Not only does this government not have a science minister, not only is it slashing 1,000 jobs in the CSIRO, but now they want to take out some of the best researchers from Australian universities. Those jobs at CSIRO going already. I have talked to CSIRO researchers who are losing their jobs who are specialists in eucalypt ecology. Where else in the world will we get good research on eucalypt ecology, or research on better understanding forestry management?
On top of that, as well as cutting those CSIRO jobs, as well as not having a science minister, this government is cutting into basic research. They have never met an expert they do not want to fire. When Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize winner in economics, visited Australia recently he urged the government not to go down this path. The government appears to be ignoring this advice and to be ignoring what is going on in the United States. The parallel is with climate change. In the area of climate change, under this government Australia is running backwards from the science and economics as fast as it can while Barack Obama's first priority was to put a price on carbon pollution.
In the area of higher education, this government is trying to trash Australia's great income-contingent loans system while in the United States the government is looking at how to improve that country's student loan system—how to get that country's student loan system into a place where students are not priced out of doing jobs in the community sector. An income-contingent loans system created in Australia in the late 1980s, thanks to people like Bruce Chapman and Bob Gregory and inspired indeed by work Milton Friedman did in the late 1960s, is now being taken up in countries as diverse as Britain, Germany, Israel, Thailand and Chile. But the income-contingent loans system works when debts are indexed to prices and not to the government bond rate. Not only is the government indexing debts to the government bond rate for those entering university; it is doing so for those already in university and for those who have graduated from university. One graduate who contacted Labor said:
I have been totally deceived by this and punished for helping some of the most disadvantaged kids in the state.
I have a partner, mortgage, 3 primary school kids and believe I had already been unfairly targeted in the budget. This Liberal Party (which I have never voted for) is really messing up people's lives.
How can an Australian Government allow people to make life defining decisions and then renege on an agreement? Without warning, my family has just been hit with a $14,000 debt, which will also be charged interest (but that's another story) and for reasons that are simply baseless.
As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out at this very dispatch box yesterday, putting a real interest rate onto the debts of people who have graduated from university does smack of regressivity. Those opposite are outraged whenever there is a measure before the House that looks like it might potentially be regressive, but where are they when this government is putting a real interest rate on the debts of people who have already graduated from university? Missing in action—that is where they are.
These changes are ultimately going to hurt the productive capacity of Australia. Education is not just the best economic policy we have devised—it is the best social policy we have devised. We know that if you want to close the Indigenous/non-Indigenous gaps, one of the best ways of doing that is to get more Indigenous students to university and encourage them to stay there. Just as women will be disadvantaged by these moves, so too students from low-income backgrounds and Indigenous backgrounds will be disproportionately affected. This government cannot cut its way to closing the gaps, and if these reckless changes go ahead they will, I fear, reduce the number of students who are the first in their family to attend university. I urge the government to rethink these changes and take them back to the drawing board.
It is a pleasure to follow the member for Fraser. I did not spend a day in university, while he spent 16 years there—I was not as fortunate as him—but I did learn to read while I was getting educated and one of the things I have read, in a book called Imagining Australia, is:
A deregulated or market-based HECS will make the student contribution system fairer, because the fees students pay will more closely approximate the value they receive through future earnings.
The author was Dr Andrew Leigh. I am pleased to speak on the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014, because like my coalition colleagues I believe in creating a higher education system that will provide our universities with the legislative framework they need to deliver internationally competitive courses and to ensure our students are receiving a world-class education. It has long been recognised that Australia's higher education system needs to be overhauled to ensure our students are not left behind. All members in this place would agree that we want the best for our students—the best courses, the best facilities and the best teachers. If we are to achieve this, we cannot afford to stick to the status quo.
It was only a couple of weeks ago that I had the pleasure of welcoming the Minister for Education, the member for Sturt, to my electorate of Swan to host a policy roundtable. This was the second roundtable in a series of discussions which brought together stakeholders, including academics, educators and advocates from across Australia, to inform future discussion on how to best support students with disability and learning difficulties in Australian schools—just one of many initiatives being developed as part of this government's plan to put students first. The bill before the House today is a critical part of this plan. It will amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003 and will pave the way for much needed reform to Australia's higher education system while saving an estimated $3.9 billion over the forward estimates. It is the overhaul our education providers have been calling for, and it is the overhaul our students need if they want to compete in the globally competitive employment market.
In my home state of Western Australia the state's leading university, the University of Western Australia, as recently as last week renewed their calls for the federal parliament to 'support the deregulation of Australian universities to ensure Australia retains a world-class higher education system.' The University's Vice-Chancellor, Professor Paul Johnson also stated:
The status quo is not feasible as it will over time erode the quality of our education and research activities—not a good position to be in when our nearest Asian competitors are investing so heavily in these areas.
I could not have said it better myself.
For our universities to provide market-leading courses, it is clear that reform is needed. For our students to continue accessing higher education subsidies, reform is needed. And for loan support assistance under Australia's HELP loan scheme to be sustainable, reform is needed. That is exactly what this bill will achieve. Firstly, the bill will amend our higher education legislative framework to deregulate fees. This will remove the provision that limits the maximum amount that a Commonwealth-supported student may be charged by a provider. These changes will encourage competition between providers, with the aim being to create greater choice and a higher quality of courses for students.
This amendment has stirred much debate in the media and the community about its impact on students. I note that this debate has been largely driven by the scaremongering campaign of those opposite, despite the fact that Labor cut $6.6 billion in funding to higher education while they were in office, including more than $3 billion in their last year in office alone. While those opposite continue to criticise these reform measures, even the architect of the former government's education reforms, David Gonski, has backed the need to deregulate the education sector. In yesterday's edition of the Australian Mr Gonski called on the Labor Party to back the government's budget reforms, stating that:
… leaving the future of all of us to a few crossbenchers is sad.
Again, I could not agree more. Mr Gonski also backed the need to deregulate, stating, and I will paraphrase here, that rather than making universities richer, these additional funds could be ploughed back into the universities to make them even greater.
I was appalled by the actions of the students who recently tried to burn effigies of Minister Pyne during protests against this bill's reform measures. I am a firm believer in our democratic system and the right to protest but was dismayed by the actions of these students and by ongoing provocation in the media from those opposite. The reality of what will take place if these reform measures are passed is much less dramatic and was summed up distinctly in a recent editorial in the Australian Financial Review entitled 'Let the market work for universities', which was published on 23 May. The editorial stated that:
Feared price gouging by monopoly providers is likely to be kept in check by competition between universities and between sectors after Mr Pyne extended the higher education subsidies to TAFEs and approved private colleges. And the universities' need to attract foreign students will provide another check on what they can charge Australian students.
The editorial went on to say:
Fears that higher fees may make it harder for students from disadvantaged backgrounds to get a university education are not supported by the UK experience.
Under these changes:
Government funding was cut by 20% and universities allowed to charge up to a cap of £9,000 pounds, or $16,400. After a brief hiatus, student numbers continued to increase and the proportion of students from low-income families remained the same.
This is a far cry from the $100,000 degrees those opposite have claimed will be standard and the idea that access to participation will be reduced.
I question whether those opposite have in fact read the proposed bill, since a key measure is to expand access to higher education. We are achieving this by providing financial assistance to students studying diplomas, advanced diplomas and associate degrees and to bachelor and sub-bachelor courses offered by private providers and non-university higher education providers such as TAFE. This measure will provide Commonwealth support for more than 80,000 additional students each year by 2018 at a cost of $820 million over three years. Further expansions to the act will also allow certain New Zealand citizens who are in a special category of visa holders to be eligible for HELP assistance from 1 January 2015, and vocational education and training students will be able to borrow for those course fees. They will also no longer have to pay the 20 per cent fee that is charged to them but not to undergraduates in public universities. This will go hand-in-hand with the government's already-announced trade support loans, which provide apprentices with access to HECS-style loans of up to $20,000 for everyday costs, which they do not have to repay until they earn a decent living—just like the university students.
As a former electrical apprentice I understand the financial and transport challenges that apprentices face. My first take-home pay as an apprentice back in 1974 was $39 for one week, and most of my meagre income went on getting to work and getting home from work and on feeding myself. I am pleased that apprentices' conditions and pay have improved significantly since then, and the government's $1.9 billion investment in trade support loans will help to ease the financial burden faced by more than 5,000 apprentices currently undertaking training in the electorate of Swan.
This government is focused on increasing access to higher education. We recognise that to achieve this, scholarships currently play and will continue to play a significant role in ensuring this is attainable. That is why a key provision in this bill is that from 1 January 2016 all higher education providers with 500 or more Commonwealth-supported places will be required to direct 20 per cent, or $1 in every $5, of additional revenue from the fee deregulation to a Commonwealth scholarship scheme. Providers will use this funding to provide opportunities for disadvantaged students through assistance with tuition, accommodation, travel, learning support and other living costs that might otherwise stand in the way of success. Although these are key reform measures to provide greater access to higher education, they are a part of a tiered plan by this government to support our education sector.
Last month I had the pleasure of representing Minister Pyne at the official launch of Curtin University's AHEAD project in my electorate of Swan. This fantastic initiative received more than $3.5 million in funding under the government's higher education participation program to support and enhance higher education access for those who face greater barriers than others to participation. This project directly supports people to raise their expectations and aspire to participating in higher education and improving the life that they will have beyond their studies. It is an initiative that I will be watching with interest.
It is no secret that university students earn about 75 per cent more than non-graduates, or about $1 million more over their lifetime. What a lot of people are not aware of, however, is the actual contribution these students make to their university education. Students currently pay around 40 per cent on average towards the cost of their education, with the taxpayer paying the remaining 60 per cent. Under the proposed reform measures, this government will be asking students to pay a small amount more towards these costs. From January 2016 students will instead be required to contribute around 50 per cent of the costs. They will be required to make this contribution, but the current safeguard of HELP loans will remain. The minimum repayment threshold for HELP debts will, however, change to 90 per cent of the current income threshold.
Currently, taxpayers are not required to start paying back their HELP loans until their annual incomes reach $53,345. The new threshold at which people will start repaying debts will be $50,638 in 2016-17. New indexation arrangements will also apply to HELP debts, with the current consumer price index rate being changed to the Treasury 10-year bond rate, which is the rate at which taxpayers borrow the funds. This will balance the rate at which students and taxpayers, as the lenders, borrow these funds—a rate that is far less expensive than a commercial loan. It is, however, important to note that students enrolled before the budget will continue to be charged under existing arrangements.
The bill will also discontinue the HECS-HELP benefit, due to low student intake, and will reduce subsidies for new students at universities by an average of 20 per cent. These reform measures are necessary to ensure Australia's HELP loans program and other subsidies are sustainable in the long term, with Australia's HELP debt increasing from around $16 billion in 2008 to around $30 billion in 2013. In the last year alone, the government provided about $5 billion in HELP loans, which is expected to increase to $10 billion in 2017. Those opposite have claimed that these changes will significantly impact on low-income earners' ability to maintain an adequate standard of living and may deter them from accessing higher education. However, as the bill's compatibility with human rights notes:
This will not impact on a person’s ability to enjoy an adequate standard of living as they do not have to repay their HELP loan until they reach a minimum income threshold. Additionally, the proportion of their annual income directed towards repayments will not change under this measure. Under the new indexation arrangements, students may take longer to repay their HELP loans, but will not suffer from a reduction in their annual disposable income as a result, and such will not alter their capacity to maintain an adequate standard of living.
Members in this place must also remember that HELP loans are not the only support measure available to students, who may also be eligible for youth allowance or Austudy assistance.
Other measures in the bill include expanding the Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching, known as QILT, to provide students with the performance details of each private and public higher education institution to assist students in making informed decision about what they would like to study and where. Information will also be provided about how successful previous graduates have been at finding jobs and what other students and employers think of the course. Reforms to the Australian Research Council Act 2011 will also be made to enable universities to charge Research Training Scheme students a capped tuition fee of $3,900 for high-cost courses and $1,700 for low-cost courses. Again, safeguards are in place, with eligible students able to defer these costs by applying for a HELP loan.
Further amendments to the act include $11 billion over four years towards research in Australian universities, including $139 million for the Future Fellowships scheme and $150 million in 2015-16 to continue the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure—two important initiatives which would have ceased to exist under the Labor government. Instead, this government has recognised that supporting research and future innovations is critical for Australia's future and committed to providing 100 four-year Future Fellowships each year. This is on top of $150 million in funding that has already been committed by the Australian government to fund 150 new fellowships across the country—$2.7 million of which I recently welcomed in Swan to support four potentially groundbreaking science projects at Curtin University.
Despite the scaremongering campaign by those opposite, it is clear that these reform measures are necessary to facilitate greater access to higher education and to ensure those who opt to pursue this path will receive a globally competitive education from leading institutions. I commend the bill to the House.
The Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014 is an attack on aspiration. This bill is designed to stop people from being able to access higher education unless they have the financial wherewithal to pay their way through. It is pricing people out and it is being widely condemned. Regardless of what people say in here, out in the broader community people know exactly what this is doing. This is injecting unfairness into Australian society, which has always valued at its core the fact that, with merit, people can get ahead and, with talent, they will have opportunity. They do not need to always be from a well-off background to be able to get ahead. We always celebrated the fact that in this country we were classless, but, when you see what is happening here, this is designed for one class of people—the people who have the financial resources and capacity. This is the only avenue. These are the people who will have the opportunity for a higher education, not anyone else.
In my region, I had the opportunity recently to talk with someone who was once the economics editor of the Sydney Morning Herald and had graduated from the high school I went to in Western Sydney, Mitchell High. He was the second person from my high school to go to university in the late 70s, the school being opened 50 years ago. In a short space of time after the Whitlam reforms, he was able to get into university, and the local community literally had a party. They literally celebrated the fact that someone from there, without necessarily having the resources, had opened up to them the chance to go to university. What do we have now? After all that progress, we have the winding back. We have the move to basically entrench university to privilege and income and to deny it to others.
When we raise these points, those opposite say, 'You're just engaging in class war.' You have opened up the class war. When you deny people the chance—people who have the ability but not the money to go to university—you are opening up the class war. So do not for one minute try and suggest that this is all about enacting or enraging a class war. You are opening it up with these very reforms. The University of Western Sydney—the university I was proud to graduate from—can basically boast, and it is something we should all celebrate: 65 out of every 100 students are the first ones in their family to be able to go to university. In my own family, when I look at my extended family overseas—my dad immigrated in the late 1960s—I could count on one hand those who actually got to university. How grateful are we in this nation that we have a chance to get ahead by going to university? So why would we want to do what is proposed in this legislation?
There are three elements to what is being proposed. The first is to cut public funding to universities by 37 per cent. The coalition know that the universities cannot survive with this funding ripped out, so what is the second thing they do? They say to the universities, 'We'll let you set the fees for the courses that you are providing.' The third thing they are doing is expanding the amount of debt that students have to carry in paying off their fees. In particular, they are changing the interest rate that is charged on loans, going from CPI to the bond rate, from about two per cent to six per cent in rough terms. They are lifting that, and when you consider the combination of those things you realise that this becomes a financial decision. Instead of being able to get ahead and improve themselves, people will actually have to weigh up whether or not they will be able to afford it. Saul Eslake said in the Hobart Mercury back in June:
It would be irrational for people not to consider the cost in relation to their working life, in the same way as when you borrow to buy a house …
He is referring to the fact that people will weigh up whether or not they can afford to go to university. This is wrong.
In trying to justify these reforms, the education minister said, 'Cleaners and nurses are paying for the education of university students.' I have never had anyone run up to me in the street, grab me by the shirt front and say, 'I don't want to pay for education. I want us to have a dumber nation, not a smarter one.' No-one ever runs up to you in the street and says that. Everyone recognises that education is not a cost to this nation; it is an investment in its future prosperity—not just for the individual but to make sure that there are people within our economy who have the skills to keep it running.
In a climate where we have skills shortages across a range of areas, to put in place a system or a scheme like this, that would deny people the ability to go into higher education and then deny our economy the talents of those people, defies logic. It defies logic to consider that that is a worthwhile scheme. But that is exactly what is being proposed.
I go back to the fact that in my region, in Western Sydney, where we finally got—as a result of the Dawkins reforms under the Hawke-Keating government—our own university. I was amongst the first wave of people to graduate from that university. We finally had our own university in Western Sydney so that we did not have to travel long distances—I am sure it was the same in other parts of the country too where they did not have tertiary education at their doorstep—to get that education. We have it in our region and it is now opening up the doors of universities to families who never thought they would be able to do it. Now we have people being priced out of it. This is what universities have told me is more than likely to happen: the stronger universities will jack up the fees for courses, and we have already heard a scale of fees likely to be confronting people—over $100,000 for some courses—forcing students to pay them off for the best part of their working lives. Some universities will jack up their fees but there will be others that will know that they cannot. For the people they tailor their courses to, and in the regions where they operate, they will not be able to lift their fees in the same way. So you will have this double-barrelled impact of not being able to charge the fees and, at the same time, you are trying to deal with the fact that you are not getting the funds and the support from government that once existed. What happens with those universities? They basically shrivel. They lose their capacity to deliver education to the same quality and standard that they previously did, while the big universities—the established universities that are concentrated in capital cities—flourish. How is that fair? How is it fair that you should have a different standard of education based on where you live? It is not right. It flies in the fact of everything we have done in terms of reform to make education in this nation more accessible.
I am just talking about my area of metropolitan Sydney. What about the area that the minister represents? What about the area that the Nationals represent? We have not heard one thing out of them resisting what is proposed. If the two-tiered system of education that denies a quality education to people who live in regions affects the people I represent in Western Sydney, what about the people that the minister or his colleagues in the National Party represent? I say to the minister at the table: the last time I checked, your surname was 'Joyce' not 'doorstep'. You are not a doormat allowing these people to walk all over the people you represent and deny them the right to get a quality education.
Mr Joyce interjecting—
The fact of the matter is, Minister, I have spoken up on issues when my community is affected. You are too busy talking and not listening; you would not remember the times that I have spoken up. The fact of the matter is: your side is allowing the other side of the coalition to bring in these reforms and to deny the people that you represent the quality education that they should have. What you should be doing, and what every National Party member should be doing, is joining with the Labor Party and saying, 'This is not good enough for the nation.' It is simply unacceptable to the welfare of the nation that you would allow this reform through.
There are other impacts in terms of what is being proposed. The legislation we are debating now, in terms of the $3.9 billion in cuts, will slash funding for Commonwealth supported places in undergraduate degrees by roughly 20 per cent, on average. For some courses it is nearly 40 per cent. It reduces the indexation arrangements for university funding to CPI in 2016, and it is down from the appropriate rate that Labor in government introduced. That means about $202 million in cuts over forward estimates—but it is a major contributor to a $2.5 billion per annum shortfall in 10 years time. Those are the statistics generated by the Parliamentary Budget Office. There are cuts of almost $174 million from research training schemes, which support the training of Australian research students. It introduces fees for PhDs and, as I reflected upon earlier, it introduces a real rate of interest on HECS moving from CPI to the 10-year bond rate capped at six per cent. These are just some of the changes that have been put forward.
In terms of fee deregulation, we are told that there will not be substantial fee hikes. But nowhere in the world has the deregulation of university fees led to the price competition that is being promised by those opposite and by the minister. It has not led to lower fees. In the UK, fees were deregulated in 2012. There was a cap of 9,000 pounds. For the 2015-16 academic year, there will only be two universities out of 123 that will not be charging a fee of 9,000 pounds. Why is that? It is because price is an indicator of quality—and those universities that initially charged less actually suffered because they were perceived to be not so good. So competition does not lead to lower prices. It actually leads to acceleration amongst universities to see who can jack up their prices to attract students.
We should be spending more time in attracting students and attracting quality education than going into a bidding war between universities. We have those opposite say, 'Well, the universities support us.' As I reflected yesterday, of course the universities are going to support this. What choice do they have? When you look at the universities who are potentially having their funding cut, they have no choice but to support fee deregulation. This is pretty much a case of the hostages reflecting favourably on the captors. They have nowhere else to go if they do not support fee deregulation. They are not going to get money out of the government. The only thing that universities have spoken up against is the move to change the interest rates on student loans. But that is not good enough. As educators, and as people who operate within their regions, they know that doing what the government is proposing will impact on the welfare of the people they work with, live with and feel responsibility towards.
I have listened to some of the contributions made by coalition MPs in this debate. They have said reform is not easy. They are making out that this is taking a great deal of courage. Oh, it is really courageous to tell people before an election that you will not do any of this, that you will not charge fees, that you will not cut university funding—and what you do when you come in? You cut it. And this is not just in terms of the changes here in higher education. We have already commented on and resisted strongly what is being done in terms of education. Look at the combined impact for health and education. There has been $80 billion cut there, plus these changes in terms of higher education, which is an absolute outrage. Where is the courage? Reform is not easy. Reform is easier when you are honest. Reform is easier when you are up front. Reform is easier when you have taken people into your confidence and let them know what you are doing and why. If the reform is hard, build the support for it. Don't do what you are doing now—which is breaking a promise and holding universities to ransom so that, if they do not support it, they will not get the money that is required to undertake education.
The other comment that I heard quite often—it must be in their talking points—is that you have to 'deal yourself into the game'. Really? In the last term of the previous parliament, when we were inviting everyone to work on big issues and trying to get cross-party groups together on some of the big issues like climate change, who was the only group that did not get involved? The coalition. And they are now saying to us that we should get involved in this process!
This is not an invitation to be involved in what they are doing. This is an invitation to underwrite the ripping apart of our university system and undermine education in this country. That is simply not something that we are prepared to do. As has rightly been pointed out, we will fight every step of the way—and we should fight every step of the way. For people in the area that I represent, we will fight this because it does not represent your best interests in the longer term. It does not represent the nation's best interest. More than anything else, it is a breach of trust by the coalition. A compliant National Party is allowing the Liberal Party to get away with blue murder.
I rise today in support of the government's Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014. This is a major reform that will transform the landscape of educational opportunity for 80,000 additional Australian students who want to further their qualifications. It has the potential to create more choice and opportunities for higher education in regions like the Central Coast. And importantly, as the Minister for Education said in his second reading speech to the House, it will enable Australia to achieve the best higher education system in the world and have some of the best universities in the world. Some may say these are bold words,. But these reforms are not just bold words. These reforms and this bill are the articulation of a vision for more opportunity for Australian students; more choice for those who live in regional areas; the best possible future for our third largest export, the $15 billion international education market; and the best possible future for our Australian universities.
Many members on this side of the House have already spoken, with great eloquence, about the importance of these reforms. In rising to add my voice to this great and very important debate, I think back to my own experience as a 17-year-old girl growing up in Point Clare in my electorate and facing a choice about which university I should attend. Mine was not a wealthy family—far from it. I have spoken before about my own experiences growing up in a largely single income family. I was the eldest of five children, and the daughter of a school principal. My parents could not afford to support me financially through my university degree, but they did encourage me to pursue my dreams. For me, that was studying English and History at university, with maybe a bit of music thrown in for good measure, through a Bachelor of Arts degree.
I studied hard at my school in Narara. I got a good TER, as it was called back then. That TER enabled me to have a range of options in terms of university choice. But no TER could have given me the choice to study locally—because even though we had a university campus on the Central Coast, the Ourimbah Campus of the highly esteemed University of Newcastle, the degree that I wanted to pursue, a general humanities degree, was not an option. I could travel two hours each way to Sydney or about the same length of time to Newcastle to study, but there was not the opportunity or the choice to study that degree in my home town. So I chose to study at the University of Sydney, an outstanding university with a wonderful history and reputation, and I received an excellent education, graduating with honours in English literature. I remain grateful for that opportunity and education.
If I look back at that moment in my personal history through the prism of these reforms, what strikes me is that my ultimate choice to study at Sydney university was not actually informed by the cost of my degree. I knew I could repay my course fees once I was earning above the threshold wage because of the HECS system, now known as HECS-HELP. My choice of where to study was partly informed by the quality and reputation of the degree on offer, it was partly informed by family history, as my parents had both studied and met at Sydney university, and it was partly informed on the raw reality that, while the HECS system paved a way for my fees to be deferred until I could reasonably re-pay them, I still had to deal with the reality of supporting myself through university—paying for board or travel, for food and books and the compulsory student union fees that we paid annually at the time.
As I look at the reforms contained in this bill, what impresses me greatly is the freedom of opportunity and choice they afford for more students of today and tomorrow, regardless of socioeconomic demographic, and the possibility of more opportunities and more choice that may be created tomorrow and in the future for students in regional areas like the Central Coast. A highlight of these reforms is the development of the greatest Commonwealth Scholarship Scheme in Australia's history, which gives more opportunities to students who need it most and in a way that is flexible and allows greater choice. For example, there are students in my electorate who have dreams to go to university but share with me their concerns about the struggle with meeting their everyday costs of living, travel, accommodation, tutorial support and assistance in other critical points in their study.
Under our Commonwealth Scholarship Scheme, however, universities and other providers will spend $1 in every $5 of additional revenue on these scholarships for students from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Our Commonwealth Scholarship Scheme will enable universities and higher education institutions to offer tailored, individualised support to disadvantaged students, including for example a needs based scholarship to help meet costs of living or for fee exemptions, or tutorial or other support. I know this will be of enormous benefit to students from regional areas, including the Central Coast.
This package of reforms strengthens the HECS system that I knew as a student. It is still the case that no-one is forced to pay a cent up front. The government is not increasing fees. Students will be able to complete their course, look for work and only when they hit an income of $50,000 will they need to start repaying the loan. We are working to make sure that students are not disadvantaged by these changes. HECS loans will continue to be available to assist students with the costs of their education.
We are also determined to create an environment where universities can remain at the forefront of research. A few examples include $150 million in 2015-16 for the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy and there will be $139.5 million to deliver 100 new four-year research positions per year under the Future Fellowships scheme. We are accelerating research into dementia by committing $26 million to this important area of research. This is all part of our plan to make our universities more internationally competitive in teaching and research. Our reforms include reducing the Commonwealth Grants Scheme by 20 per cent. This is the fund that pays each university the subsidies for student fees. But the current debate about these reforms has led to some inflated and, dare I say, inflammatory claims about fees. Let us be clear: the government is not mandating a fee increase. We are actually freeing universities to set their fees based on what an individual institution may choose to charge and what students who wish to attend that institution choose and agree to pay.
The reality is that in order for Australian universities to be some of the best in the world, in order for the higher education system to be financially sustainable and in order for high-quality teaching and learning to be delivered for decades to come, we need these changes to happen. Members opposite need to accept the reality that the coalition government is dealing with the mess that was left to us by the former Labor government, who, in their six years in government, cut $6.6 billion in funding to higher education, including more than $3 billion in their last year in office alone. They need to accept the reality that our reforms will help make our university sector more sustainable, by reducing the cost to the taxpayer of student education from an average of 60 per cent contribution from the public purse to around 50 per cent and they need to accept the reality that we are making the system fairer by asking students, who, on graduation, will on average earn 75 per cent more over their lifetime than non-graduates and who typically earn around $1 million more over their working lives than non-graduates, to make a fair contribution to the cost of their education.
A large and important part of our reforms is about creating more choice, for universities to respond to the market and to their own centres of excellence and expertise, and for students. I say for students because the government's reforms will extend the opportunity for study to another 80,000 higher education students every year supported by government subsidies by 2018. This includes an estimated 48,000 students in diploma, advanced diploma and associate degree courses and 35,000 additional students undertaking bachelor courses. Importantly, these students will include more people from disadvantaged backgrounds, rural and regional communities, people who require extra support to succeed at university and workers who want to update their skills and qualifications. This reform of extending the demand-driving Commonwealth funding system for students studying for higher education diplomas, advanced diplomas and associate degrees will cost $371.5 million over three years and was derived through consultation with the education sector.
In relation to my electorate of Robertson, at present 4,447 people are attending a university and 2,920 people attending a technical institution. Five point four per cent of my electorate attend a tertiary institution at present. We rank 90th out of 150 electorates in terms of tertiary institution attendance. Ten point nine per cent of my electorate have already obtained a bachelor degree, which is 3.17 percentage points below the national average and 3.87 below the New South Wales average. But my great hope—and I have no doubt that this will happen—is that these reforms will provide more opportunity for people in electorates like Robertson to pursue higher education. And the dream of so many people on the Central Coast is that our region, while not known as a region of educational advancement and career opportunity in the manner that cities such as Newcastle and Sydney perhaps are today, may become such a region tomorrow.
We know today that the workforce in my electorate has a lower proportion of people with tertiary qualifications than the New South Wales average. In saying that, it should also be noted that universities are not for everyone and that there are many people in my electorate of Robertson who have made a tremendous contribution to our community and who have achieved a strong technical education. In Robertson we have 22.88 per cent of people with a certificate level education, which is around four per cent above the national average and 4.42 per cent above the New South Wales average. I am proud of the fact that the coalition government values technical education and has a strong record of ensuring support for education opportunities right across the spectrum. But these higher education and research reforms make for a better tomorrow for regions like the Central Coast, because we are giving tertiary institutions greater freedom to respond to the demands of students, the market and, dare I say it, regional areas as well. Regional education providers will have the opportunity to set their own tuition fees and offer more courses. In doing so, they will be in a better position to successfully differentiate themselves from and compete against well-established city based institutions for student enrolments.
Competition is not a bad or a frightening thing for the future of world-class education in Australia, particularly for regional areas like the Central Coast. I only have to look at the interest that is being shown in my home town of Gosford by overseas university institutions who are talking with Gosford City Council about the possibility of establishing a university campus in the heart of the Gosford CBD, or the intention expressed by the University of Newcastle to establish a research hub, again in the Gosford CBD, or the statement made by the Group of Eight Australia in their response to the government's budget of 13 May 2014 titled 'Micro-economic reform of the Australian higher education industry', where they outline the increasing requirement for higher qualifications in the Australian workforce in the future. Their prediction is that in the next five years around 100,000 new jobs in Australia will require a diploma or associate degree, and around 300,000 new jobs will require a bachelor or higher qualification. In fact, their response goes further and outlines the possibilities of greater choice that these reforms may bring. In their submission, they say that some universities:
… may focus at the elite end. Prestigious universities from North America, Britain, Europe, Scandinavia and Asia might consider a presence in Australia, perhaps in joint ventures with Australian institutions or with other partners or independently. They may seek a share of Australia’s domestic and international student markets.
Imagine the possibilities borne by the choice and opportunity these reforms provide. Imagine the possibility for the future of regional cities like Gosford, with student accommodation, business opportunities and local employment being created hand in hand with any new or expanded university campus opportunity. In fact, our growth plan for the Central Coast encapsulates this, and it is precisely because we understand the crucial role that universities play in driving development in regional areas, through job creation and educating the community, that we committed before the election to work in partnership with the Central Coast community to identify further training and education opportunities for our region. Part of our commitment was to work with local governments on the Central Coast to progress necessary approvals to facilitate universities developing campuses on local government owned land. I know that both Wyong and Gosford city councils are currently working on such projects.
I believe these reforms will help to enable the realisation of the dream of people on the Central Coast to be known as a region of world-class excellence, particularly in educational opportunity. I am convinced that the legislation we are debating today will help to realise the dreams and aspirations of so many more people on the Central Coast. I commend the bill to the House. (Time expired)
I rise to join with my Labor colleagues today in opposing the insidious bill that is before the House—the Liberal plan for higher costs, higher debt and higher interest rates for our past, present and future university students; the Liberal plan for making regional universities, like my University of Newcastle, suffer greatly. It was very interesting to listen to the contribution of the member for Robertson just prior to me, because she would understand the role that regional universities play in a community like the Central Coast or indeed Newcastle and the Hunter. I would hope that she might appreciate, too, some of the stark regional demographics that play a very important role in this debate. Her constituents on the Central Coast, for example, have a median household income that is $444 less than those in greater Sydney, which equates to some $23,088 difference over a year. Likewise, the people of Newcastle have a lesser household income than the people of greater Sydney. So there is very much a question about people's capacity to pay for some of these higher costs, higher debts and higher interest rates in regions that have a vastly greater proportion of students and families from low socioeconomic backgrounds.
The Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014 seeks to implement the government's budget announcements on higher education. I would like to take a moment to emphasise that. The timing of these announcements was the budget in May this year, some four months ago now. This was not a position taken by the Liberal Party to an election. There can be no claim for a mandate for these so-called reforms. This was a budget announcement. And you would think that a government that continually references that they are there to deliver on their mandate from the Australian people, to deliver on their election commitments, would actually be doing so. But we know that that is not the case. We know the long list of promises broken by this government.
Now, for a moment, let us put aside the words spoken by the Prime Minister and the education minister about funding of education, because we know those words do not really mean much at all. We know well the famous commitment from the Prime Minister 12 months ago, when he said: 'No cuts to education, no cuts to health, no changes to pensions, no cuts to the ABC or SBS.' We know now—as, indeed, we suspected at the time—that the Prime Minister's words were untrue. All commitments have been broken and the cuts to funding are hurting Australians everywhere.
But it is not just the spoken words of the Prime Minister that are cause for concern. I refer to the government's famous pre-election brochure, Real solutions. Some would claim it is their mandate to govern—although it is hard to find a government member today who will proudly stand beside their blueprint for governing. What did that Real solutions booklet have to say about higher education? Apparently, a Liberal-National government would strengthen higher education and encourage Australians of all ages to further their education so that they could gain a comparative advantage and get ahead in the new global economy. And the Australian people were assured that current arrangements for university funding would continue. There was no ambiguity about these statements. This was the commitment on higher education that members opposite took to the last election. That was their so-called mandate.
On the front page of the Real solutions brochure, this book of broken promises, there is a badge with three simple words: 'hope', 'reward', and 'opportunity'. I will outline today how this government, through their proposed higher education reform, is in fact crushing hope, denying reward and cruelling opportunities for the students of today and tomorrow.
This higher education bill will increase the cost of university for students, increase the debt for students and increase the interest rates that students will have to pay on these increased costs and their spiralling debt. The Leader of the Opposition put it simply in his contribution to this debate yesterday:
Opportunity in education is a pact between generations … a solemn promise to pass on an education system that is better than the one you inherited … You do not meddle carelessly with one of the great markers of life—and education is indeed one of the great markers in the line of life.
Labor firmly believes that this government is breaking its pact with the Australian people and is recklessly tearing up the fabric of our educational foundations.
Labor believes in equality of opportunity. Labor believes in affordable, accessible higher education for all Australians. We will vote against the doubling and tripling of university fees. We will vote against a real compounding interest rate on student debt. We will vote time and time again against this government's cuts to university research. We will never consign the next generation of Australians to a debt sentence. We will not support a system where the cost of university degrees rises faster than the capacity of society to pay for them. We will never tell Australians that the quality of their education depends on their capacity to pay. Education is a birthright in Australia, not a privilege for the few.
We stand by these values not solely because we believe they are right; we stand by them because they are the want of the Australian people. Unlike the government, we have been listening to our communities—not talking at them or ruling over them, but listening to them.
In May, before the budget announcements of higher education vandalism, I attended a student rally at the University of Newcastle's city campus—a campus, I might add, that is to be significantly expanded, thanks to Labor's contribution to Newcastle through the higher education investment fund. At this rally were the students of today and the students of tomorrow, parents and their children, the retired and the elderly, the workers of today and the workers of tomorrow—in essence, our community at large. Their message was loud and clear. They did not vote for these changes to higher education funding; in fact, nobody did. They did not vote for grossly inflated education fees. And they most certainly did not vote for increased debt or higher interest rates on degrees. Again, last month, when I visited the University of Newcastle's main campus with the shadow higher education minister to meet with more students and educators alike, their message was the same as that at the rally in May.
I mentioned the story of one student in particular, who I met with the shadow minister, in a separate statement in this House yesterday, but it is worth repeating her story today. The woman I met was a prospective mature-age university student. She completed her Open Foundation program last year, and she was intending to attend university as a student for the first time. She had raised a family and worked in retail for more than a decade but wanted to undertake university study to try and improve her future employment prospects. She knew it would be tough to balance work, study and family life, but she was willing to work hard and thought that getting a degree would be worth it in the long run. But these so-called higher education reforms were a step too far. She told me: 'I've already got a mortgage, and I can't afford another one.'
I know this woman is not alone. I know that there are many more potential university students reconsidering their choice to study, based on this government's cruel reforms. I am sure she is not the only woman asking herself: 'Is it really worth it?' The people hurt most by these changes to higher education will be women who take time out of the workforce to start or raise a family.
NATSEM modelling estimates that an increase of just 20 percent in the cost of degrees, a conservative estimate in a deregulated environment, combined with the changes to the interest rate on HECS debts, will mean: a woman with a nursing degree is looking at the doubling of her student debt, from $23,000 to $46,000; a woman graduate teacher is looking at a debt of $63,000 and 16 years of repayment, compared with $32,000 over nine years for the same degree today; and a woman with a science degree will be looking at nearly tripling her student debt, from $44,000 to a staggering $123,000.
Again the government's conflicted commitments ring loud and clear. On the one hand—
Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
I rise to raise an issue of great concern to my community at the moment. It is a bad proposal and bad public policy. It comes hot on the heels of this government's abolition of Saturday opening hours for Blacktown Medicare. The issue is its proposal to move the Blacktown Medicare office from its current location in Westpoint Shopping Centre into the Centrelink office on First Avenue Blacktown.
The clear message from my constituents is that this relocation will negatively impact on the community. I make it clear that I oppose this. I would oppose this irrespective of any government which proposed it. The residents of Greenway need accessibility. They need to have opportunities to access these services. As an example, I quote to you from a constituent writing in the Blacktown Advocate:
I AGREE with Michelle Rowland.
… … …
I recently took a family member to the Centrelink office on First Ave, Blacktown.
The only parking is street parking and there's not much of that as it's not a very wide shopfront at Centrelink.
You can try the railway commuter parking or the open carpark, but as Michelle states, these are full very early in the morning. …
I don't understand why Centrelink did not think of the parking problem and provide parking.
It is a long way from the station and bus stops for older people and those with poor mobility.
Westpoint, on the other hand, has ample parking, a bus stop and a shorter distance to walk from the station.
How true that is. The current location of Medicare at Westpoint makes sense. There is plenty of parking. It is close to public transport, the medical centre and the offices of private health funds. I strongly oppose this move and my community does as well.
Today I rise to speak on the passing of Gordon Ralphs. The loss of Gordon has left Central Queensland's sporting community reeling. Gordon—or 'Sooty', as he was affectionately known—just turned 72. He died last week in a traffic accident. He leaves behind his wife, Daphne; sons, daughters and grandchildren.
Gordon's involvement in sport started when he started playing hockey in Rockhampton; he played with the Wanderers for 20 years—the last 10 years travelling from Biloela. While in Biloela, he became President of the Callide Dawson Cricket, Association whilst being a middle-order batsman for the Jambin club.
He moved to Moura 36 years ago and was Moura's main man in cricket, helping both seniors and juniors. Sooty helped the association move out to Biloela's Magavalis sports complex and he would drive across from Moura to assist maintaining the fields. He was a life member of Callide Valley Cricket Association, Central Queensland Cricket Association, North Queensland Cricket Association and Queensland Country Cricket Association. He was an active figure in the Moura community, serving as President of the Coal and Country Festival and the Recreation Reserve Committee. Rest in peace, Gordon.
I rise today to condemn the Abbott government for ripping billions of dollars away from the superannuation savings of millions of Australians. In a sneaky backroom deal yesterday with absolutely no warning, the government delayed increasing superannuation to 12 per cent—currently the case—from 2019 to 2034. This means nearly nine million Australians will have significantly lower superannuation savings when they retire. This is in stark contrast to Labor's plan that was increasing retirement savings for millions of Australians.
This is also a massive broken promise. Before the election, Tony Abbott promised:
Our clear, categoric commitment to the Australian people is that we are not going to make unexpected, adverse changes to superannuation.
Well, this is an adverse and unexpected change and it is against the interests of many working Australians. This will have an adverse consequence for the retirement of millions of Australians.
Tony Abbott misled the Australian people when he said he would not touch their superannuation and he misled the Australian people when he said he would not do background deals. Because of this dishonest, scheming Prime Minister, Australians will have $128 billion less in their superannuation by 2025. The government should be ashamed of their actions to date and need to reverse this poor decision.
I rise to welcome the passage of a bill through the Senate last week that will see more than $21 million flow to five councils within Page to fix local roads. Over the next five years these councils will receive more than what I am going to quote because in the years 2015 and 2016 we are actually going to double what they would normally have got.
Ballina Shire Council will receive more than $2.8 million over the next few years. Clarence Valley Council will receive over $7.3 million. Kyogle Shire Council will receive more than $3.7 million. Lismore City Council will receive more than $4.5 million. Richmond Valley Council will receive more than $3.4 million over the next five years.
The Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill passed the Senate and will see councils across Page get their first payments on time and in full. The primary intent of this legislation is to enable local councils to get on with the road and street work needed in local communities. I am glad that after the hold-up we can now provide this crucial funding for councils to improve our local roads. Importantly it is councils that choose the road and street projects that they want addressed.
I might add that this will be on top of the new program that we are starting in rural and regional Australia as well: the new $300 million Bridges Renewal Program. Applications for the first round of that have just closed. I know many councils in my region have put in applications and I am sure they will be successful. Thank you.
I wish to congratulate the staff and volunteers of the Sydney Children's Hospital, who recently launched their Spring Art Exhibition. On 21 August I was fortunate to help launch the Sydney Children's Hospital's Spring Art Exhibition, and the artworks are now brightening the lives of many of the visitors to the hospital. I am very proud to have one of Australia's leading medical, social, research and now artistic institutions in Randwick in my electorate.
The halls of that hospital are visited by 110,000 people each year. As all of us are aware, whether you are a visitor or a patient, a trip to hospital is not always the most pleasant of appointments. So, in order to improve the lives of the hospital's brave young patients, and inspire and enthral their families, carers and loved ones, each year the Sydney Children's Hospital Foundation runs an art program which transforms the halls of the hospital with exhibition spaces of colour, energy and light and certainly brightens the visit of the young kids to the hospital.
This year works were from established artists Pennie Pomroy, Sandra Garritano and Richard Hirst, and they have been joined by 94 brilliant creations from students in the local area and some of the children who are patients. Winners included Emily Liang, Jodie Sim, Angelica Georgopolous and Tempe and Georgia from Wenona. I would like to thank all the staff of the hospital—in particular, Tim Talty and Roxanne Fea—for the wonderful work that they do, and Louis Vuitton for sponsoring the exhibition.
I want to the commend the Treasurer for freezing the superannuation guarantee at 9½ per cent for the next seven years, with increases to 12 per cent by 2025, and also for retaining the low-income superannuation contribution, the income support bonus and the schoolkids bonus. Increases in economic growth should be shared by workers. The Henry tax review, however, found against the increase from nine per cent, saying that the increase in the employee's retirement income would be 'achieved by reducing their standard of living before retirement'. The increase simply comes by reducing people's earnings in the future.
I believe in choice. If a person chooses to take that increase in their wage and put that in their superannuation tax free, they should. But, if a person chooses to put that into paying off their home, this gives them the capacity. If a person chooses to put this into educational opportunities for their children, this gives them the capacity. The idea that somehow we are taking money away from people in future growth is wrong. Increases in income should be determined by the person who earns those. If they choose to put more money in their super that is their choice. But, if they choose to put it in their house, that is actually a better investment. I think the Treasurer has made the right decision by the workers of Australia.
I rise to speak to a petition signed by 8,139 people to save Medicare. The petition has been assessed as meeting the requirements of the House by the Standing Committee on Petitions. This petition draws to the House's attention deep community concerns on proposed changes to Medicare through the Abbott government's 2014-15 federal budget. Notably, the $7 co-payment for GP visits, blood tests and x-rays will mean that families and pensioners will pay more for their health care. Currently, over 93 per cent of GP services in the Scullin electorate are bulk-billed. Petitioners are asking the House to oppose the budget measure of a $7 co-payment and take urgent steps to reject Tony Abbott's plan to end universal bulk-billing.
These calls must be heeded. This petition demonstrates how important universal health care is to people in the electorate of Scullin and in electorates right around Australia. These petitioners—more than 8,000 of them, with many more petitions still arriving at my office—are asking members opposite essentially to do one simple thing: to keep their promise of no cuts to health and to stand up for their communities and to stand up for universal health care, which is the bedrock of the Australia Labor members are proud to fight for in this place.
Small business operators on Tasmania's east coast will get the opportunity to learn from national retail expert Debra Templar later this year thanks to a federal government funding boost. A travelling expofest will take expert advice and provide support to business owner/operators in towns along the east coast for three days in November. The expofest, with Ms Templar as the keynote speaker, is one of the extra activities that the Break O'Day Enterprise Centre has been able to organise to support businesses on the east coast in my electorate of Lyons after receiving new government funding of $40,000 from the federal Small Business Advisory Services program.
I was pleased to go to St Helens a couple of weeks ago to congratulate Break O'Day Enterprise Centre manager Nick Crawford and his board chairman Dina McGuiness on successfully applying for the funding. I know it will make a huge difference to the work of the innovative Break O'Day Enterprise Centre. It will enable the centre to organise a travelling expo, seminars and one-one-one training in towns including St Helens, St Marys, Fingal, Bicheno, Swansea, Coles Bay and Triabunna. These business owners do not have the luxury of being able to shut up shop or pay extra staff to cover for the time needed to go to training in major centres. The enterprise centre program will take the information and training sessions to them.
Small business is indeed the lifeblood of regional Tasmania. I thank the minister, Bruce Billson, and his very good team for recognising the benefits that will flow from this project in this part of Tasmania.
While I too support the importance of small business in rural and regional Australia, today I would like to talk about the importance of manufacturing and urge the government to prioritise finalisation of contract arrangements to provide stability for their Australian Munitions factories in Benalla and Mulwala. These factories are significant employers of skilled workers and provide great contributions to our armed forces. The importance of Australian Munitions extends beyond Indi and Murray and is an international player in the market.
When contemplating future contracts for the supply of munitions, I ask the government to consider all the wider costs and benefits of continuing support for this important local employer. Firstly, the government has already invested considerably in upgrading and modernising the Benalla and Mulwala facilities. Secondly, when large-scale local employers like the munitions factory lose government business, the Commonwealth inevitably incurs substantial costs as a consequence in the form of welfare payments and loss of income tax revenue. Finally, it is vitally important that Australia retain the skills and experience of hazardous industry workers, as these skills may be difficult or impossible to replace in the future.
Australian Munitions has a very successful track record as a leading manufacturer in Australia, particularly in rural and regional Australia. I ask the government to continue their successful investment in the company in the future. (Time expired)
This week is MoneySmart Week, a national initiative promoting the importance of financial literacy. I want to acknowledge the efforts of the many hardworking financial counsellors throughout the country who deliver services to the community to help people make sound decisions regarding their finances and household budgets. As we all know, making sound money decisions is a core skill in today's world and poor financial choices can have far-reaching consequences.
I want to especially acknowledge the community financial counselling services that are offered in my electorate at the Palm Beach Neighbourhood Centre, by a team headed by Samantha Way. Last month I was pleased to take the Minister for Social Services to the centre so he could see first-hand the great work being done, largely through federal funding.
Samantha and her team provided direct assistance to 525 local residents last year, and are about to launch a special campaign aimed at educating young people about avoiding debt. I thank them for their work and wish them all the best for their latest campaign. As we all know, debt can spiral and be a difficult situation to resolve with tough decisions having to be made as a result.
I was very pleased that the minister took the decision to maintain federal funding for community financial counselling services, which was due to expire last financial year. It is evidence that the coalition intrinsically understands the value of sound financial management.
Recently I attended a celebration evening with the City of Wyndham in my electorate to recognise the wonderful work of many volunteers in our community and to award the Citizen of the Year. So often our volunteers are the quiet achievers not seeking recognition. Giving their time to projects that contribute to our community is often satisfying in itself. However, it is important to stop and recognise those who give so much.
I would like to acknowledge the category winners: Frances Overmars for her care for the environment and sustainability; Aimee Lane for sports and recreation; Britney Penpraze, a young volunteer; Rosie Dunne for community engagement; Helen Gunn and Anne Marie Dey for community health and wellbeing; and Margaret Campbell for culture, arts and tourism. Margaret Campbell was also named Wyndham Citizen of the Year.
It was a privilege to witness Margaret receiving this acknowledgement. I have personally enjoyed working with Margaret on a variety of projects, most recently as panel member on the Anzac Centenary Local Grants Program. Margaret's self-sacrifice and genuine care for others has been demonstrated on numerous occasions for many years and for many organisations. Margaret is also a well-known historian and author who has written on several occasions about the history of our great community.
It was a great honour for me as the member for Braddon to present seven 'Saluting Their Service' certificates of appreciation at a recent ceremony at the Ulverstone RSL club. The certificates express Australia's thanks and appreciation to those who served in our Defence Forces or on the home front in the Second World War or in wars, conflicts and peace operations overseas since the Second World War.
I would like to briefly acknowledge to the Australian parliament the service of each of those veterans that received a certificate of appreciation: Mr Athol Brown, who served in the second World War; Mr George Williams, who served also in the Second World War; Mr Harold Wilson, Second World War; Mr John Reid from Devonport, who served in the Indonesian confrontation; Mr Ian McFarlane from Wynyard, who served in the Vietnam War; Mr Paul Sweeney, who served in the Vietnam War; and Ms Jessica Webster, who served in the Iraq war and in the war in Afghanistan.
All veterans deserve a 'Saluting Their Service' certificate in recognition of their service and sacrifice. I encourage all veterans or the families of veterans to contact my office or visit my website to get a copy of the appreciation certificate application. It would be my honour to make that presentation on behalf of the parliament. There is no higher calling in my view than to serve our nation in the interest of defence, peace keeping and humanitarian support.
Recently the Crusoe Secondary College in Bendigo formally launched their S.W.I.T.Ch program. S.W.I.T.Ch targets students in years 7 to 10 who are at risk of dropping out of education. This initiative gives these students a safe starting point to re-engage with their education. It dedicates flexible learning space and it has programs that offer support to students who are vulnerable to dropping out of school.
The S.W.I.T.Ch program works around two main concepts: education support and wellbeing. It incorporates youth workers, psychologists, teachers and outside agencies that work with small groups of students and their parents to re-engage them in education. The agencies S.W.I.T.Ch works with include headspace—we have a headspace in Bendigo; Youth Connections—well, at least until the end of the year; at school, teaching staff engagement officers and their college chaplain—a welfare officer who currently receives funding under the college chaplain program.
The students say that this program is helping. In their words:
I like to come to S.W.I.T.Ch. It is fun and I am enjoying learning again.
S.W.I.T.Ch is great because I get to meet and work with new people, people who I feel like are on my level.
I call on the government to reverse the decision around school chaplaincies and Youth Connections so programs like S.W.I.T.Ch can continue beyond this year. (Time expired)
On Sunday, I had the pleasure of hosting Mackillop Catholic College students: Alex Delosa, Alysha Pope, Cameron Perry, Liam Mulvahil, Nicholas Walkington, Tommy Vu, Bailey Maujean, Shaniad Hintz-Staunton, Emma Forsyth, Shannyn Flanagan, Sarah Spence, Allanah Wynd, Aiden Cross, Matthew Murphy, Ike O'Brien, Matthew Cox, Zoe Carrier, Brooke Steele, Tyrah May, Brodie Watkinson. The students were accompanied by teachers Jade Timmins, Brodie McCutcheon and Dominic Farrell.
We had a lovely afternoon. I was able to show them behind the scenes here in Parliament House because parliament was not sitting. The students really appreciated the fact that we could walk around and see what this place is like. We took them up to the Speaker's Gallery. We went past and saw the Prime Minister's suite but, unfortunately, the Prime Minister was not there. It was a wonderful opportunity.
The children asked about Hansard. I said to them that I would make a speech in this place today and record the visit and their names in Hansard so that their names could be forever recorded in history.
Two weeks ago some representatives from the Ethiopian diaspora came to talk to me in Fremantle about the dire human rights situation facing people from the Oromia and Ogaden ethnic communities in Ethiopia, including the recent violent crackdown by the Ethiopian security forces on peaceful protests in Oromia.
On 25 April, university students in Ambo started protests against the Ethiopian government's proposed Addis Ababa Integrated Development Master Plan, which will extend the municipal boundaries of the capital to include more than 15 communities in the surrounding Oromia region. This will displace local farmers and communities.
The protests in Ambo reportedly grew to include approximately 27,000 people from the surrounding region. The Ethiopian security forces responded to the protests by opening fire on unarmed groups, beating protestors, and taking them from the streets and campuses to places of detention.
The Ethiopian government has reported the death toll at nine. Given the restrictions on independent media and human rights monitoring in Ethiopia, it is difficult to corroborate the exact figures. However, witnesses told the BBC and Amnesty International that the number is more likely to be close to 50, with at least 70 people wounded and children as young as 11 among the dead.
Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have called for the Ethiopian government to investigate, to release those detained arbitrarily and to ensure accountability for the violations of human rights. Australia has an embassy in Addis Ababa. I urge the Australian government to raise these serious issues formally with the Ethiopian government.
With the approach of the first anniversary of the Abbott government and my tenure as the member for Lindsay, I would like to thank the people of Lindsay for putting their trust in me. As a small token of my appreciation I have invited all residents and their families to join me for a community barbecue at the Regentville Rural Fire Service open day on Saturday 13 September. The barbecue will be by gold coin donation, with all monies raised going directly to our local rural fire service.
Lindsay sits in the foothills of the majestic Blue Mountains and we all remember too well the devastating fires that hit our region last year. The Cumberland Rural Fire Service provides critical support to our friends in the mountains. As the bushfire season approaches, now is the crucial time that we as a community get behind this amazing group of volunteers who, year after year, devote themselves to protecting our community, our homes and our beautiful bushland that we all love and cherish so very much.
The barbecue will commence at 10 am and I look forward to seeing you all the people of Lindsay coming to join me.
Another day; another broken promise. Fourteen times before the last election the Prime Minister promised no adverse changes to superannuation. He must have a case of 'abbnesia' because yesterday he broke that promise. As the result of a dodgy deal in the Senate, they have scrapped superannuation increases for 8½ million Australians for the next seven years. That means millions of Australians will retire with thousands of dollars less.
As The Australian newspaper said today, if you are 40 and you are and $70,000 a year then you will retire with $19,000 less. If you are 30 and you are on $100 grand a year you will retire with about $39,000 less. Welcome to Tony Abbott's Australia, where you work longer and you retire with less—less in the pension and less in superannuation.
Superannuation is one of the biggest and most important economic reforms in this country in the last hundred years. It was created by Paul Keating and Bill Kelty. This mob voted against it at the time and they still do not believe in superannuation. It shows how out of touch they are and it shows the people of Australia that at the next election, if they vote Liberal, not only are they voting for a $7 tax to go to the doctor, to double cost of university degrees or to cut indexation to pensions; they will also be voting to have less money when they retire.
I am a proud member of the Australian Wombat Foundation. This organisation does wonderful work in helping to bring back from the brink of extinction the northern hairy-nosed wombat.
The northern hairy-nosed wombat is one of the world's most endangered species; in fact, it is even more endangered than the panda. The persistent work carried out by the Australian Wombat Foundation, however, is paying off. In the 1980s there were as few as 35 wombats remaining on the planet—all at Epping Forest National Park in Central Queensland. However, since the foundation established a second population in southern Queensland in 2009, the population has grown exponentially. The combined wombat population of the two sites is now estimated at more than 200 wombats.
Such wonderful results could not have been achieved without the help of Roz and Kev, who run Australia's first specialist wombat hospital. Currently only able to care for 25 wombats at one time, Roz aims to save even more and work towards more manage-free areas in the future. To facilitate this plan, however, an on-site digital x-ray machine is needed to ensure the animals avoid the stress suffered in transportation to the clinic.
I encourage all Australians to join the foundation in order to help save the iconic northern hairy-nosed wombats. I know that the students of Fig Tree Pocket State School, who are in the gallery this afternoon, share my cause.
On Sunday I had the pleasure of attending a family picnic day organised by the Fluffy Owners and Residents Action Group.
This day was a chance for Canberra and Queanbeyan families whose lives have been turned upside down by Mr Fluffy asbestos to come together on the lawns of Parliament House for a celebration. It was a chance to inspire hope in affected residents, to allow them to reclaim their lives and for their children to laugh, smile and have fun. It was also wonderful to meet so many of the families who I have spoken to in recent months.
The day was also the launch event of FOR Renewal, a fundraising and support organisation for displaced Mr Fluffy residents. I want to thank Clubs ACT, Maurice Blackburn and Zoo Advertising for their generous donations. These funds are being held in trust and will be applied 100 per cent to replace clothes, mattresses, linen, toys and fabric covered furniture for families who have been the hardest hit.
Congratulations to the event organisers and to FOR Renewal's cofounders: Natasha Parkinson, Elisa Thompson, Lisa Ziolkowski, Priya Reddy, Annabel Yagos and Brianna Heseltine. You are certainly proving the point that adversity makes our community stronger.
I would also like to take this opportunity to say 'hello 'to students from Alfred Deakin High School in my electorate of Canberra, who are in the gallery today. Hi Alfred Deakin—thanks for coming.
I rise to acknowledge the Northern Tourism 2014 Restaurant of the Year Award, won by Pierre's Brasserie in Launceston.
This is the latest award for a restaurant that already has four Australian Good Food Guide chef's hats under its belt. And it is no surprise when you consider they serve up innovative dishes with mainly Tasmanian produce. An example is their peppered venison with a Tasmanian sloe gin jus. Pierre's Restaurant co-owner Rohan Birchmore and his staff have an exceptional commitment to quality Tasmanian produce. On a daily basis, they give locals and visitors a very good reason to explore the diversity of food and drink that northern Tasmania has to offer.
An example of that diversity is a dinner I attended at Glen and Dinah Moore's onion shed near Scottsdale, to celebrate the Tasmanian Year of the Farmer. We ate the very best of what the north-east has to offer, and can I say that it was a paddock-to-plate experience of exceptional quality.
Awards like the one received by Pierre's helps us to market Launceston and the north of our state as a food-and-wine destination of international quality. And when you get here, you can also play a round of golf at Barnbougle Dunes, the world's 11th-best golf course, or enjoy a bike ride where Ritchie Porte grew up or visit the glorious Bridestowe Lavender Farm.
There are so many reasons to make Launceston your entry point to Tasmania and the recent award presented to Pierre's Brasserie only makes that case stronger.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
Today is Australian National Flag Day. This morning we held a flag-raising ceremony in the forecourt of the Parliament House raising the Centenary Flag, which was marched on by members of the Federation Guard and presented to the Prime Minister, after which it was raised. The Centenary Flag is the Australian National Flag, with its headband inscribed with details of the first flying the flag and incorporates a crimson stripe to represent the thread of kinship that stands at the heart of our Federation. The third of September 1901 was the day on which the Australian National Flag was first flown. The Centenary Flag was proclaimed an official flag of Australia by the then Governor-General, Sir William Deane, on 13 September 2001. Lapel pins of our flag are available from party whips.
Not only is this Australian National Flag Day; it is the 75th anniversary of Australia's entry into the Second World War. On 3 September 1939 at 9.15 pm, a statement by our then Prime Minister Robert Menzies was broadcast on radio stations across the country. Mr Menzies said:
It is my melancholy duty to inform you officially, that in consequence of a persistence by Germany in her invasion of Poland, Great Britain has declared war upon her and that, as a result, Australia is also at war. No harder task can fall to the lot of a democratic leader than to make this announcement.
Prime Minister Menzies subsequently set up the Department of Munitions. He dispatched the Second Australian Imperial Force and reintroduced compulsory military training for young men. After Menzies' fall in 1941, it was Prime Minister John Curtin who then led our country through the war in the Pacific and helped to bring victory to the Allies. Today, we honour the memory of the leaders who served our country and we salute the service of our people. Almost a million Australians served in the Second World War, some 40,000 died. We fought against Germany and Italy in Europe, the Mediterranean and North Africa; and against Japan in South-East Asia and other parts of the Pacific and, of course, the Australian mainland came under direct attack for the first time.
The Second World War was a defence of freedom against tyranny. It was fought against the evils of fascism and Nazism. It was fought to defend civilisation. On this 75th anniversary of the war's commencement for us, we remember our allies, especially Britain and the United States. We remember the sacrifice of the Australians who died, the suffering of those who were wounded or taken prisoner of war and the mental and physical scars of those who made it home. To them, we owe a debt of gratitude that can never be repaid.
Almost a million Australians would answer their country's call in the Second World War, human history's most destructive struggle between tyranny and freedom. Many more would serve in civilian occupations supporting this effort. At 9.15 on the evening of 3 September, 75 years ago today, Prime Minister Menzies spoke of the:
… calm fortitude which rests not upon the beating of drums, but upon the unconquerable spirit of man …
Today we pay tribute to the sacrifices and struggles of the great generation. Tested by the trials of the Depression, they nevertheless went forth again as volunteers to confront the grotesque challenges of the Nazism, fascism and Japanese militarism, from the Western Desert to the jungles of New Guinea, from the skies of Europe and the Sunda Strait to the unimaginable suffering on the Burma Thai railway and Sandakan, from the towns and skies of northern Australia to the seas around our great island continent. These were ordinary men and women, our grandparents and our great grandparents, who gave extraordinary service to our nation. As Prime Minister John Curtin said, 'Let Hitler boast that every citizen of Germany is a soldier, let us be proud that every Australian soldier is a citizen.' For these are citizens of our nation, the horrors of the First World War hovered in collective and individual memory. Yet, still again, they left behind their homes and their loved ones to risk their lives in Australia's name. It is their bravery, their sacrifice and the love of the ones whom they left behind that we remember them today and we honour them today.
We do now move to questions without notice.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to reports of the brutal murder of American journalist Steven Sotloff. Can the Prime Minister provide the Australian people with an update on the situation in Iraq?
Australians awoke this morning to yet another decapitation at the hands of this hideous movement, which I do not refer to as a state because it is a death cult. The ISIL movement is a threat not just to the people of Iraq and Syria; it is a threat to the entire Middle East and ultimately a threat to the wider world as well.
I have no reason to doubt that this atrocity has indeed been carried out by ISIL. I have no reason to doubt that there has not been involvement of people from several countries in this latest atrocity committed by ISIL. The extraordinary thing about this movement is that it does not simply do evil; it boasts of evil, it is proud of evil and it advertises its evil in a way almost never before seen at any time in the modern world. You have to go back to the Middle Ages to see this arrogance in atrocity which we have seen from the ISIL movement in recent months.
So, along with our allies and partners, Australia will do what it can to respond to this developing situation. As the House knows, Australian aircraft have twice delivered humanitarian airdrops, first, to the besieged people on Mt Sinjar and subsequently to the besieged town of Amirli in northern Iraq. We are in the process of airlifting equipment, including military equipment, at the request of the Americans and with the support of the Iraqi government to the Kurdish forces in Erbil. We have received no specific request to engage in actual military action against ISIL. Nevertheless, we have received a general request and we are considering what we may be able to make available. But I stress: no specific request has been received and no specific decision has been made. Any request would be judged against the criteria that I have previously laid before the House: is there a clear overall objective; is there a specific role for Australian forces; have all the risks specific and general been considered and is there an overall humanitarian objective that is consistent with Australia's national interest? Any decision would be made by cabinet. Obviously there would be consultation with the opposition as well. We will do what we can, Madam Speaker, to defend our national interest, support our citizens, advance our values and build a safer and more secure world.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House of the importance of stronger economic and security ties with our regional partners?
I do thank the member for Lindsay for her question. The government is determined to build a stronger Australia and a safer world. An important part of that is stronger relations with our key economic and security partners and, to that end, I am leaving tonight to visit India and Malaysia.
India is the world's second most populous nation. It is the world's third largest economy on a purchasing-power basis. It is the world's emerging democratic superpower. We have so much in common with India: democracy, the rule of law and the English language. It is already our fifth largest market. In some years it is our largest source of migrants; in most years it is our largest source of students. So my hope is to deepen the friendship between Australia and India at a time of renewed optimism in India under the new government of Prime Minister Modi. I am hoping to sign a nuclear cooperation agreement that will enable uranium sales from Australia to India. I am hoping to strengthen the trade relationship with a large delegation of very senior representatives of our mining, financial and educational institutions.
Malaysia is also an important security partner through the Five Power Defence Arrangements. It is an important trade partner and the friendship between Australia and Malaysia has recently been reinforced by our work together in dealing with the MH370 and MH17 disasters. I want to thank Prime Minister Najib Razak for his friendship, his leadership and Malaysia's contribution of some $30 million towards the MH370 search.
Peaceful, pluralist democracies committed to the rule of law have so much to contribute to the wider world, especially as we work together, as Australia intends to do with India and Malaysia.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that, for an average income earner, aged 25, his decision to freeze the superannuation guarantee will cost that person around $100,000 by the time they retire?
Honourable members interjecting—
I call the Prime Minister and there will be silence on my right and on my left. The question has been asked; we will have silence for the answer.
I can confirm, in response to the Leader of the Opposition, that money that would otherwise be squirrelled away in superannuation funds will instead be in the pockets of the workers of Australia because—
Honourable members interjecting—
The Prime Minister has the call and the cacophony will stop.
let us never forget what the Leader of the Opposition himself said, in one of his rare moments of lucidity, 'This money comes out of workers' pockets.'
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr Hockey interjecting—
Mr Perrett interjecting—
There will be silence on my left. The Treasurer will desist. And, if the member for Moreton has one more utterance, he will leave immediately.
I want to see for the next 10 years this money stay in the pockets of the workers of Australia. If the workers of Australia wish to invest that money in superannuation they are perfectly free to do so but, as far as I am concerned, for the next 10 years that money should stay in the pockets of the workers of Australia.
My question is again to the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister update the House on what new steps the government is taking in response to the security situation unfolding in Ukraine?
I do thank the member for Reid for his question. Australia and Ukraine are geographically distant, but we have grown close in responding to the MH17 atrocity in which 38 Australians were murdered by Russian backed rebels. Australia is truly grateful for Ukraine's help in recovering the victims and bringing home our dead. We are also grateful for Ukraine's strong support for the criminal investigation into this particular atrocity and their determination, which we share, to bring the perpetrators to justice.
The government—and I believe the Australian people—would like to repay Ukraine for its support and friendship, especially as Ukraine continues to be subject to active destabilisation and, indeed, outright invasion from Russia—a country it has never, ever sought to harm. So, today I announce that Australia will open an embassy in Kiev. This interim embassy will, amongst other things, support the nine Australian Federal Police investigators who remain in Ukraine. As well, along with our European partners and allies, we are considering short-term humanitarian assistance and non-lethal military assistance to Ukraine, and in the medium term we are considering civil and military capacity-building assistance to that country.
Australia's reach is not unlimited, but we will do what we can to help our friends and to uphold the rule of law around the world. I am pleased that our flag will shortly fly alongside Ukraine's as a sign of our support in these troubled times.
Madam Speaker, I would like to say on behalf of the Labor opposition that we support the establishment of the interim embassy that the Prime Minister has described. My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that, for a woman earning $37,000 a year, the scrapping of the low-income superannuation contribution will mean that she loses $500 each and every year from 2017 for the rest of her working life?
I am very concerned to ensure that women in particular have a decent superannuation nest egg to assist them in their retirement. That is why I support a fair dinkum paid parental leave scheme that includes superannuation. I wonder why the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has consistently opposed and voted against a fair dinkum paid parental leave scheme that includes contributions towards superannuation. We support a decent retirement policy. We support security for older Australians. We do support moving the superannuation contribution to 12 per cent, but in the right time, consistent with returning this budget to long-term sustainability. That is what this government is determined to do: return the budget to long-term sustainability. We must address Labor's debt and deficit disaster. I very much regret to say that members opposite are still in denial, not only about the election defeat that they suffered last year but in denial about the absolute need to build a strong and sustainable economy to return the budget to a sustainable surplus. This government is well and truly aware of that and we will deliver.
I advise that we have with us on the floor of the House today Mr Hilik Bar, the Deputy Speaker of the Knesset, from Israel, and we make him most welcome. We also have with us in the gallery a delegation from the Victoria Racing Club, led by the chairman, who have brought the Melbourne Cup to Canberra, which is currently on public display in the Marble Foyer today. As well, we have Minister Richard Bruton, the Irish Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, together with his Excellency Mr Noel White, the Ambassador for Ireland. We make all those people most welcome.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Prime Minister. In recent days, Vladimir Putin has threatened to invade Ukraine and boasted of Russia's nuclear prowess. Aren't we making the world less safe by agreeing to sell uranium to Vladimir Putin? Will you add uranium to our sanctions and end the agreement which allows uranium sales to Russia or will Vladimir Putin be allowed to buy our uranium again once the G20 is over?
I often disagree with the member for Melbourne, but not on this occasion. I do thank him for his question. I am very happy to indicate to him that there will be no Australian uranium sales to Russia. There will be no uranium sales to Russia until further notice, and Australia has no intention of selling uranium to a country which is so obviously in breach of international law, as Russia currently is.
My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on recent actions of our border agencies that are helping to protect Australians?
I thank the member for Hume for his question. Before I respond, I wish to note the announcement today of the appointment of my own department's secretary to be the secretary to the Department of Health. I am sure previous ministers for immigration would join with me in commending him on his service in that department. He is a fine public servant and an outstanding Australian. We wish him all the best.
This government is committed to border protection and to keeping Australians safe. That is why we have committed $49.6 million to establish counterterrorism units at airports around our country. This will ensure that there is increased CCTV surveillance at those airports; increased resources for officers to engage in physical examination of baggage, personal effects and other items; and increased ability to collect intelligence and to be engaged in the processing of persons who may be suspected of being involved in things of a criminal nature—as well as where they may be travelling or coming from.
In addition, as part of that major package $100 million has been put into the works of enhanced departure screening and enhanced biometrics at our airports which will also further bolster the work that is being done at our airports to keep Australians safe and to pursue the very important measures we are putting in place as part of that broader counterterrorism initiative. That is being done here as well as overseas, where we are working closely with airlines and other partners.
This will be supported by a package of legislation which will enforce, assist and enhance the value of these measures which are being put in place by the government. But these measures are not in isolation, because earlier this year the government put in place $88 million for increased screening of both air and sea cargo, and in 2013-14 alone saw, at least in air cargo, another 90,000 consignments screened as a result of that initiative. That comes on top of some $700 million and more which was put into the budget for the establishment of the Australian Border Force and the enhancement of the Customs and Border Protection Service's capacities in relation to all of their border protection operations.
That goes across the full gamut, but I note in particular that it has resulted in a continuation of drug detections at our airports. Just last month, 440 kilograms of illicit drugs and precursors were detected at our airports. In one case in particular there was 150 litres of brown camphor oil containing safarole. That is a prohibited chemical in Australia, commonly used as a precursor in the manufacture of MDA. That oil has the capacity to produce approximately one million ecstasy tablets. This is the strong and good work being done by our Customs and Border Protection Service, and our borders are strong as a result.
Before I call the honourable member for McMahon, we have more visitors with us today. We have with us in the northern gallery a delegation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women attending Oxfam's Straight Talk National Summit. We make you very welcome.
We also have with us Mr Mike Symon, the former member for Deakin. He is one of many former members who are in the House today, because the Association of Former Members of Parliament is gathering in the parliament today.
We also have with us now, and throughout the week, 17 Australian Defence Force personnel as part of the ADF Parliamentary Program Exchange. Each of these service men and women are attached to a parliamentary office to gain greater understanding of the workings and levels of government. It is another part of the program where parliamentarians join units. My congratulations to them. I hope they will enjoy their time with us.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is this government protecting people earning $100,000 or more in interest on their superannuation while punishing workers earning $37,000 or less by abolishing the low-income superannuation contribution?
As a result of the decisions which the government made yesterday and which the parliament passed yesterday, the mining tax is gone and the unsustainable spending associated with the mining tax is also gone. We have completely delivered on our pre-election commitments.
We are ensuring that, for the next 10 years, money that would otherwise be locked up in superannuation remains in workers' pockets. That is a good thing—to have money in workers' pockets—because, as the Leader of the Opposition well knows, compulsory superannuation takes money out of people's pay packets. That is what it does. It takes money out of people's pockets and puts it into the hands of the fund managers. In the right time, under the right circumstances, that is a good thing; but, given the budgetary position that this government is in, that money should stay in workers' pay packets until 2025.
Mr Shorten interjecting—
The Prime Minister has the call and the Leader of the Opposition will desist.
Madam Speaker, we have more confected indignation from an utterly hypocritical opposition, because when members opposite were in government they increased taxes on superannuation by $9 billion. That was the increase in taxes on superannuation—and that was one of the few competent taxes, I suppose. It did actually raise some money. But they not only hit superannuants with extra taxes of $9 billion; they also cut superannuation benefits to lower-income earners by more than $3.3 billion. Hypocrisy, thy name is Labor.
My question is to the Minister for Justice. Will the minister please inform the House how the additional funding for the Australian Crime Commission will assist in the fight against home-grown terrorism?
I thank the member for Petrie for his question. As has been noted in the House already, we have been reminded overnight about the extreme brutality of the enemy we face, with the reported murder of American journalist Steven Sotloff. The shocking images we have seen only focus the resolve of the government to do whatever is necessary to protect Australians and Australia. In response to this threat, the Abbott government is spending $630 million on a range of measures but $24.4 million of that will go to the Australian Crime Commission for the creation of a foreign fighters task force.
The ACC is the nation's criminal intelligence agency and it has already conducted 40 coercive hearings on 24 individuals, which has expanded our understanding of foreign fighters and their support networks. This task force will allow the ACC to use its existing wealth of criminal intelligence to continue this work and also explore the links between terrorism and organised crime. We know that terrorist groups internationally use organised crime to source both weapons and resources and we know that they actively participate in organised crime to fund their activities. The Australian government is concerned about this occurring in Australia—and this week we have seen reports out of the royal commission into union corruption that some Australian foreign fighters already have strong links to organised crime groups. The relationship between terrorism and organised crime remains a persistent threat and the ACC, as Australia's national criminal intelligence agency, is the agency that is best placed to disrupt these links and to fill any intelligence gaps.
Since coming to office, the coalition have introduced a range of measures to tackle the scourge of organised crime and we are committed to ensuring that extremists cannot use organised crime to fund their violent plans. The Foreign Fighters Taskforce will be able to use the specialised criminal intelligence capability of the ACC, and its close relationships with its state and territory law enforcement partners, to detect and disrupt these links between extremist groups and organised criminals. The ACC's Foreign Fighters Taskforce will be able to tackle this issue from a new angle and this will provide us with new leads, new intelligence and possibly new suspects. The new resourcing, the $24.4 million, combined with the ACC's unique coercive powers will open a new front in the battle to stop violent extremism from harming Australian citizens both here at home and abroad. This $24.4 million investment will allow the ACC to continue to use its far-reaching powers and its expertise to help Australians so we can have the most robust response possible to this national threat.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Last night millions of Australians learnt that the Prime Minister is raiding their retirement savings.
Government members interjecting—
Order! There will be silence on my right. Both the Treasurer and the Leader of the House will desist.
Why is the Prime Minister placing the interests of nine mining companies over the interests of almost nine million working Australians?
This morning Australians learnt that the Leader of the Opposition does not know what he stands for, does not know what he wants to do. The Leader of the Opposition was asked a very clear and simple question this morning: 'Would you reinstate higher compulsory contributions to superannuation at the next election?' If what the government is doing is as bad as the Leader of the Opposition claims, why wouldn't he want to remedy this situation? He was asked a very, very clear question.
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is no way that what the Prime Minister is referring to now is directly relevant to that question.
There is no point of order. It is a very wide-ranging question.
I was asked about compulsory superannuation and I am referring to statements made about compulsory superannuation this very morning. The Leader of the Opposition was asked: 'Would you reinstate higher compulsory contributions to superannuation at the next election?'
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The member for Isaacs will desist.
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Why does the Prime Minister back nine mining companies over nine million people?
The member will resume his seat.
Government members interjecting—
It is all right for you clowns, you have got your defined benefit. You are hypocrites.
The member for Maribyrnong will withdraw that unparliamentary language.
I withdraw.
We will have no vulgarities across the table from anyone.
You would think the Leader of the Opposition would be capable of giving a straight answer to a simple question: 'Would you reinstate higher compulsory contributions to superannuation at the next election?' You would think the man who is doing his angry union official impersonation now would be able to give a straight answer to that question. But what did he say? He said: 'We're not going to unveil our election policies now.'
Honourable members interjecting—
We know the Leader of the Opposition loved the carbon tax and is going to hit us with a carbon tax should Labor ever get re-elected. What we can conclude from this kind of prevarication is that he wants to restore the mining tax too.
My question is to the Treasurer. I ask the Treasurer to update the House on the state of the economy in light of the release of the June quarter national accounts earlier today. Further, what will a stronger economy mean for my constituents in the electorate of Casey?
I thank the honourable member for the question and note that he has vast experience in dealing with issues of an economic nature. The national accounts, released today by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, identified that in the June quarter the economy grew by 0.5 of one per cent—
Ms Collins interjecting—
The member for Franklin will desist.
following on from a 1.1 per cent increase in GDP in the March quarter. The overall result was 3.1 per cent through the year, which is around market expectations. The fact of the matter is that it was at the higher end of expectations for the last quarter. There are a number of positive indicators about the economy but what is clear is that Australia has now entered the 24th consecutive year of economic growth, something Australia should celebrate—24 consecutive years of economic growth—reflecting on the fact that Australia has always earned economic growth. It has done so by undertaking reform and by ensuring that overall Australia lives within its means. That is exactly what we are determined to do.
We are determined to lay down the foundations for future economic growth. And while this is a brief moment for positive reflection, we should steel up our determination as a nation to work towards further reform that is going to ensure that we have future years of economic growth. That will come about by making decisions in the national interest, decisions that help to grow the economy, like getting rid of the carbon tax, which is what we have done; like getting rid of the mining tax, which is what we have done; like signing new free trade agreements with Korea and Japan, which is what we have done; like approving $800 billion of new productive investments as a result of the initiatives of the Minister for the Environment, as we have done; like removing up to $800 million of red tape on small business, as we have done.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney will desist.
The coalition are laying down plans to deliver future prosperity and growth with proper, considered inquiries into the financial services system, which come around every 15 years, or competition policy, or delivering a taxation white paper or a federation white paper, to ensure that the federation works better than it has in the past. We cannot assume that there is a finishing line on growth. The coalition is determined to see more growth in the Australian economy.
My question is to the Prime Minister. One point three million Australian families will lose the schoolkids bonus because of this Prime Minister's dirty deal with the leader of the Palmer United Party, a cut that will mean a typical Australian family with two kids in school will be $15,000 worse off over the course of their children's schooling. Why is the Prime Minister putting the interests of nine mining companies ahead of 1.3 million Australian families?
I understand the shadow minister's frustration because her leader has dealt the Labor Party into complete irrelevance—complete, absolute and utter irrelevance. We went to the election with a very clear policy to abolish the mining tax because it was a bad and destructive tax that damaged jobs, damaged investment and it did not raise any real revenue. What it did do was harm jobs and investment. Not only did we say we would abolish the mining tax but also we were absolutely upfront and absolutely straight with the Australian people that we would also abolish the unsustainable spending that the mining tax was supposed to fund. We were absolutely upfront about this with the Australian people and we were attacked up hill and down dale by members opposite for doing precisely what we have done now. We are prepared to wear the political pain of this because we want to be straight and open with the Australian people.
Labor is in denial about the election result. Labor has dealt itself out of political relevance because of its intransigence. We will work with any members of this parliament who are prepared to work with us to bring about good policy. Even now if members opposite want to work with us, we will work with them, but I tell you what—
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The member for Jagajaga has asked a question and will remain silent.
we will work to put in place strong and responsible policies which do the right thing in the medium and long term for the people of Australia because, if you want to do the right thing by the people of Australia, you will get the budget back into balance. That is what this government is doing.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline how getting rid of the mining tax will help to boost investment and to create more and better jobs?
I thank the honourable member for the question—I really do—because the mining industry is hugely important to Australia. In the last year's national accounts, mining contributed a full one per cent of around three per cent of growth, about one-third of the growth, which is a significant number. In the June quarter alone, iron ore export volumes reached a record 181.4 million tonnes, which was 28 per cent higher than the same time last year. So in the last three months of the financial year we saw a 28 per cent increase in the export of iron ore. Yesterday I was intrigued to see a tweet from my friend the member for Lilley. He said:
As mining production expands, Australia is now without a profits based tax to collect a decent return for our resources.
He was moaning about the end of the mining tax. In the same quarter that the mining industry increased iron ore export volumes by 28 per cent, the mining tax raised 2½ cents per Australian. That was fantastic! And the Labor Party is still defending the mining tax. I thought: is this real? I asked myself: could this be real? So I went back to the budget of 2012, the one that the member for Lilley was incredibly proud of, where it said:
The core of this Budget is a plan to spread the benefits of the resources boom …
Two and a half cents, Swannie?
The Treasurer will address members by their correct names.
Two and a half cents to help families! It went on:
The Minerals Resource Rent Tax … is a historic economic reform which means the benefits of the boom can be invested in Australia's future.
All 2½c! I cannot even hold up 2½c. We do not strike the copper coins anymore. I would have to go to a halfpenny and strike a few of those. They used to be called half-monkeys, but I would need to call them half-Swannies. They would need to be half-Swannies because that is the only way I could distribute 2½c to every Australian.
Yet the Labor Party still believes it is a terrific tax. It raised one per cent—one per cent—of what was expected. Not even the Greeks could do that—come up with a tax that raises one per cent of expectations! The problem was that the worst Treasurer Australia has ever seen committed $17 billion in expenditure against a tax that raised no money. 'Spreading the benefits of the boom'? You give us your 2½c worth. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Three-point-two million—3.2 million—small businesses will have the instant asset write-off slashed from $6½ thousand to $1,000 because of the Prime Minister's dirty deal with the leader of the Palmer United Party. Why is the Prime Minister more interested in putting the interests of nine mining companies ahead of 3.2 million small businesses?
This question comes ill from a member of parliament who wants to restore the carbon tax and hit all the small businesses of Australia with a massive hit on their power bills and all the households of Australia with a massive hit on their power bills. This is a government which supports small business, which believes in small business. It is a government which comes from small business, unlike members opposite, who all come from the ranks of union officials and party officials.
As for the measures that the Leader of the Opposition refers to, we are still considering the commencement date for the repeal of those measures and we will have more to say in due course.
My question is to the Assistant Minister for Education. Will the minister explain what recent ABS data tells us about women's participation in the paid workforce; and why is it critical for Australian families to have affordable, flexible and accessible child care?
It is a pleasure to take a question from the member for Corangamite, who had a distinguished career in media, law, journalism and management before coming into this place, and we welcome her contribution; we really do. Recent ABS data reveal that just 57½ per cent of mothers with children under five are participating in the labour force, compared to 94 per cent of men with children of the same age. Now, up to a point, that is unsurprising, given that it is usually women who have the role of caring for children in those early years. But, when we consider that that figure rises sharply to 78 per cent of women once their children hit school age, we realise that this is quite concerning. The Productivity Commission's draft report found that the affordability of child care is the really big barrier to women's participation in the workforce, particularly for women with children under five. Labor made the problem worse by allowing fees to go up so massively during their six years in power. Out-of-pocket costs for parents went up 40 per cent, and Labor's bandaid solutions only made the problem worse.
The member for Sydney cried her latest instalment of crocodile tears in the House earlier this question time, talking about low-income superannuation and women's participation. I just would like to make this point: what is the single biggest factor that affects women's superannuation balances? It is time spent in the workforce—participation in the workforce. And what is the single biggest barrier to participation to the workforce? It is unaffordable and inaccessible child care. By the way, the other thing is a paid parental leave system that looks after superannuation.
So don't come in here with your grandstanding about the gender pay gap and your crocodile tears about low-income women, failing to recognise that—as your own response to the budget told us, found by your own agencies, just a six per cent increase in women's participation would add $25 billion to the economy—that is the very thing that your policy held back for six years. You spent that time putting politics before parents. It is parents, it is mothers, who are now paying the price. It is 700,000 parents unable to access the child care they need that need the response that this government will provide to solve the childcare crisis left by Labor.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is the Prime Minister placing the interests of one billionaire ahead of the interests of nine million working Australians, 1.3 million families and 3.2 million small businesses?
Well, Madam Speaker—
Mr Burke interjecting—
Mr Conroy interjecting—
The member for Watson and the member for Charlton will desist. The Prime Minister has the call.
If the Leader of the Opposition believes so strongly in the measures that he claims to be fighting for—if he believes so strongly in all of these: the schoolkids bonus, the low-income support payment—will the Leader of the Opposition stand up in this place today and guarantee to bring them back?
Honourable members interjecting—
There will be silence.
If he is not prepared to stand up and guarantee that they will be brought back, he is simply a fraud. Because the Leader of the Opposition has dealt the Labor Party into irrelevance, because the Leader of the Opposition has dealt himself into irrelevance, we will deal with—
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Madam Speaker, there has got to be something left of the relevance rule—something; even just a little bit of it—because this is a long way away.
I am listening attentively to the answer of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has the call.
As I said—
Mr Husic interjecting—
The Prime Minister has the call, and the member for Chifley will desist.
As I said, given that the Leader of the Opposition has dealt the Labor Party into irrelevance, we will deal with those members of this parliament who are prepared to deal with us. We will engage in constructive discussions—
Ms Owens interjecting—
The member for Parramatta is warned!
with the parliament, including the crossbench, that the people elected, and that is, frankly, what the people expect us to do. Once upon a time, even the Leader of the Opposition understood this. 'We worked with the Greens. We worked with the crossbenchers. And, you know, even sometimes we would work with the Liberals'—that is what he said back then.
Honourable members interjecting—
There will be silence from both sides.
He does not like being reminded of his rare lucid moments! He was prepared to work with the parliament that the people elected back then, and so are we now.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House how this government is supporting development in regional and rural communities?
I thank the honourable member for Lyne for his question, and, as a regional member, he knows how important it is to have strong, resilient regional communities. When our regions are strong, so is our nation. Regions in particular are very dependent upon having transport networks that work well, and so investments in highways and local roads are of particular importance. I am conscious of a number of significant projects in the member's electorate and on the Pacific Highway and other parts of northern New South Wales—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The member for Grayndler will obey the standing orders and sit in his seat.
that are examples of this government in action and delivering better facilities for regional communities.
I'm very popular!
Well, you might have to go outside and be popular.
When you want to actually build roads and other pieces of important infrastructure, you actually have to have real money. It is no good just having imaginary money from a tax that does not actually raise any money. You have actually got to have the resources to be able to do it.
An honourable member interjecting—
Well, perhaps you could be assisted for a lie-down in your suite.
Imaginary funds just produce imaginary projects. And it has been imaginary projects that Labor have been offering to regional communities over a long, long period of time.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The member for Moreton!
So we have the commitment. We have funded it. We have programmed it. And we are delivering it. This government is very much about providing infrastructure as a part of our $50 billion commitment to roads and rail around Australia over the next five years.
A number of projects of particular interest to local communities—like Roads to Recovery, the new Bridges Renewal Program, and the heavy vehicle program—will help make a difference to improving the transport network in those regions. We have received over 420 applications for funding for projects under the bridges program—
An honourable member interjecting—
You mightn't be here!
and the heavy vehicle program just in this next round. So there is clearly a demand, pent up over the years of Labor neglect, which we are determined now to get on with, to ensure that we are able to deliver the best possible infrastructure for those who live outside the capital cities. What this will do, on top of getting rid of the carbon tax and now the mining tax, is: it will be more economical for goods to travel in and out of regional communities. There will be more opportunities for growth in regional communities and to improve the quality of life for all Australians, even those who live outside the capital cities.
My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer confirm that his decision to freeze the increase to the superannuation guarantee will mean that Australians will lose $128 billion from their retirement savings?
No, because it is not right. And I will tell you why. I have not seen the assumptions that underpin that number, but, as a starting point—
Opposition members interjecting—
There will be silence on my left.
Mr Shorten interjecting—
The Leader of the Opposition will desist. The Treasurer has the call.
Feeling a little unwell, Bill?
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The deputy leader will also desist.
You know what? The fact is—
Mr Shorten interjecting—
The Leader of the Opposition is warned!
I want to pay acknowledgement to the Leader of the Opposition who identified it, not once but three times. Three times the cock crowed.
Mr Shorten interjecting—
I have got all your history here, buddy. Three times the cock crowed in relation to the Leader of the Opposition's—
Ms Collins interjecting—
The member for Franklin!
view about where superannuation actually comes from. Cock crow No. 1—cock-a-doodle-doo!—on 21 March 2012, on 3AW, Bill Shorten:
What will happen is that superannuation, the increases to superannuation, will be absorbed as part of people's pay rises.
Cock-a-doodle-doo No. 2—Bill Shorten on 3AW, 21 March 2012:
NEIL MITCHELL:
Okay. So you're saying that the superannuation increases will be paid for by absorbing money out of the wage increases.
BILL SHORTEN:
That's the evidence.
Cock-a-doodle-doo No. 3—
Honourable members interjecting—
There's a new breed of rooster!
Honourable members interjecting—
The Treasurer will resume his seat. There will be silence on my right.
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There are nine million Australians who deserve an adult government—not what we are seeing right now.
The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. The member knows that that was merely an intervention and not a proper standing order. The Treasurer has the call.
I tell you what: there were 23 million Australians disadvantaged under six years of Labor—23 million! Then there is strike No. 3: Bill Shorten's closing address to the OECD Global Forum on Private Pensions, and I quote:
Analysis suggests that, over time, Superannuation Guarantee increases have come out of wages, rather than profits.
So, if the Labor Party are crying crocodile tears about superannuation increases, they should note that the money for the superannuation increases comes out of the pockets of the workers of Australia. So, by not increasing at the speed that was suggested, according to what was previously laid before the Australian people, we have put more money into the pockets of Australian workers.
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Gorton will leave under 94(a).
The member for Gorton then left the chamber.
We make no apologies for being the best friend of Australian workers, because everything we do starts with a job and a well-paying job.
I call the Leader of the Opposition.
My question is to the Prime Minister.
Mr Randall interjecting—
Sorry, did I get the call or not, Speaker?
I beg your pardon.
I thought I got the call.
We will have two from that side next time.
Honourable members interjecting—
I am sorry. If Don needs to ask his question, it doesn't worry me. But anyway, my question is to the Prime Minister. Before the election—
Was the Leader of the Opposition offering to let the member for Canning ask his question?
No.
You have the call, Leader of the Opposition.
My question is to the Prime Minister.
Government members interjecting—
Madam Speaker, the hubbub from the rabble opposite!
Members on my right will desist.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The Leader of the House will desist.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Before the election one year ago, the Prime Minister promised: no cuts to health, no cuts to education, no changes to pensions, no cuts to higher education and no adverse changes to superannuation. Given that the Prime Minister has broken every one of those promises, how can Australians ever trust this Prime Minister again?
Yet again, the Leader of the Opposition is simply dead wrong. Every year, government funding in the areas that he mentions goes up: hospitals, up nine per cent this year, nine per cent next year, nine per cent the year after that, and six per cent in the final year—
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
The member for Rankin!
Schools: up nine per cent this year, nine per cent next year, nine per cent the year after that, and six per cent in the final year—
Ms King interjecting—
The member for Ballarat!
Mr Burke interjecting —
The member for Watson!
So what we have is an opposition that is mired in this culture of irrelevant complaint. They complain that we do not keep promises. They complain even louder when we do keep promises. All they ever do is complain. They are just the national complaints bureau; they are simply irrelevant. The Leader of the Opposition has dealt the Labor Party out of the national conversation, out of a constructive contribution to our national life. We will deal with the parliament, including the crossbench, that the people elected and with the people who are prepared to deal with us. That is what people expect and that is what we intend to do.
I call the honourable member for Canning, and I apologise for missing him earlier.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, for your great observance. My question is to the Minister for Education. Will the minister explain what the alternative to supporting the government's higher education reform bill will mean for students and research in universities?
I thank the member for Canning for that question without notice. I am asked about the alternatives to supporting the government's reform bill on higher education. Unfortunately, I think the most generous description of the alternative from the opposition is confused. We know that, when they were in government, they wanted to cut $6.6 billion from higher education. They wanted to mug the university system, without giving universities any opportunity to replace that revenue by increasing revenue from their students.
Yesterday the opposition leader gave a fire-and-brimstone speech about our higher education reform bill where he said he was voting against all of the reform bill. He said he was voting against increased research under the national collaborative research infrastructure scheme; against increasing research by establishing more future fellows; against the increase in research funding to the Australian Research Council; against expanding the demand-driven system to diplomas and associate degrees at the sub-bachelor level, meaning tens of thousands more places for Australian students. He is going to vote against all of those benefits for research and for students at university—benefits that accrue to the lowest socioeconomic status students in our community, to first generation university goers. That appears to be Labor's position. They are going to vote no to more money for research, and they are going to vote no to more students getting the opportunity to go to university.
But perhaps we were wrong. Perhaps I was wrong when I listened to the Leader of the Opposition's speech, because last night the shadow minister for education, Senator Kim Carr, put out a press release saying that in fact the Labor opposition was going to support elements of the reform bill. Senator Kim Carr, the shadow minister for education says that the opposition wants to support elements of the reform bill.
The Leader of the Opposition said, 'Yes, they do.' Apparently today they do. Yesterday, it was all or nothing; today it is a little bit of something.
Perhaps the answer lies in the deal that was done on the minerals resource rent tax. Perhaps Labor have worked out that, by saying 'No' to every measure the government puts up, it deals them out of the national conversation and renders them irrelevant to politics in Australia. Perhaps we are seeing a chink of light from the Labor Party, where they recognise that they need to work with the government to deliver great reform—just as the Howard and Peacock oppositions did in the 1980s, just as we did supporting Hawke and Keating and just as Kim Beazley supported the Howard government when it got the big calls right. A big Labor Party know when to support reform and when to deal themselves in. The one led by this little man does not know when to do it.
I am going to give the call to the member for—
McMahon?
No. I am going to give the call to the member for Page. Before the member for Page does ask his question, I will say that he was on his feet before the member for McMahon, so he is legitimately entitled to the call.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister for Agriculture. Will the minister update the House on what action this government is taking to support dairy farmers both in my electorate of Page and across Australia?
Honourable members interjecting—
I call the—
Honourable members interjecting—
I call the honourable member for agriculture. There was so much noise, it was hard to hear the beginning. I call the honourable member for agriculture.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am a little bit crestfallen that you have forgotten about me already. I thank the honourable member for Page for his question. It is very apt coming from his part of the world. In his part of the world, Norco have done a great job. They are currently exporting 30,000 litres of milk a week fresh into China, where they are getting between $7 and $9 a litre. What this actually means is that the farm gate price in that area has gone up to 56 cents per litre. The work that my department has been doing in getting the protocols right and working with the dairy farmers of that area has been absolutely exceptional. That is a record price, and it is happening under this government. It shows that a change of government and a change of circumstances has produced a better outcome for the people of Page.
It is also important to understand that this is not unique to the people of Page; we have also seen improvements in the dairy industry across our nation. These are good figures. The value of our exports has gone up by 35 per cent in butter; in skim milk powder by 52 per cent; and in whole milk powder by 71 per cent. Our total exports in dairy have gone up by 22 per cent. Our exports in dairy to China have gone up by 46 per cent. These are great numbers. Murray Goulburn, our biggest exporter of dairy, have a record price of 51 cents a litre at the farm gate. Their actual sales revenue has gone up by 17.8 per cent and their milk solids price has gone up by 37 per cent. Isn't it marvellous what a difference we have made in one year!
You might just think that this is just with dairy, but I have other figures. Meat and meat preparations have gone up by 29 per cent under us and close to 10 per cent is the increase for total rural goods—under our government and the changes that we have made. In addition, today—and this is hot off the press—we have the headline 'Victorian dairy farmers post a sixfold increase in earnings'. That is the sort of difference those who actually understand business can make. That is the difference that our side of the chamber makes.
But there are alternate policies: you could go back to the policy of Senator Joe Ludwig and close down the live cattle trade; you could go back to the policy of the member for Lilley and bring back the carbon tax; or you could go back to the policy of the member for Lilley and bring back the mining tax. But there is only one thing that is going to save them—and that is us.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I would like to briefly add to one answer. I regret to inform the House that I did inadvertently mislead the House. I am advised by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Infrastructure that Malaysia's contribution to the MH370 search is not $30 million but $60 million—and I thank them for that.
Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
I have received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip that he has nominated Ms Parke to be a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in place of Mr Griffin.
by leave—I move:
That Mr Griffin be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and that in his place Ms Parke be appointed a member of the committee.
Question agreed to.
I have received a letter from the honourable the Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government putting the interests of fewer than 10 mining companies ahead of more than nine million workers, 1.3 million families and 3.2 million small businesses.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
The government loves three-word slogans. So the opposition has one to suggest to them—'Hands off superannuation'.
What on earth was this government thinking when they made the decision to put the interests of a few mining companies ahead of nine million Australians, ahead of 3.2 million small businesses and ahead of 1.3 million families? It is how this government rolls. In a year of stupid and short-sighted decisions by this government, in a year where they have broken so many promises, and as the news of this dirty deal between the government and Palmer United Party emerged, I would submit to the parliament of Australia today that I believe that this decision is the stupidest most short-term decision I have seen this government make. It will have a generational impact and no doubt those opposite smirk. Why would they not? Their superannuation is fine. The problem is this government and these MPs do one thing for themselves yet they ask nine million Australians to do something else altogether.
This is, without a doubt, one of the most catastrophic decisions that we will see affect this generation. Well done, government. No-one in their wildest imaginings, when we thought about the potential damage this government could do, could imagine that this government would take $150 billion in retirement savings from Australians in the future. The immediate decision to freeze superannuation by keeping it at 9½ per cent for the next number of years, according to the Financial Services Council, will cost $128 billion.
What an arrogant Treasurer we have. What a cigar-chomping, out of touch, blow-hard Treasurer we have when he would declare 'oh no, it is not $128 billion gone'. Does this Treasurer think he is so smart that he knows more than the modelling of the Financial Services Council? It was truly one of the funniest moments in an otherwise disappointing day when the Treasurer in question time said, 'I have not seen the assumptions behind this modelling.' Treasurer, we have not seen any of your assumptions behind this hastily cobbled together deal.
The effect of this decision will be disastrous. We hear this government talk about what it all means and how it is going to give money back to people. Someone who is 25 years old earning an average income will be $100,000 worse off. This mob opposite screamed like cut cats about the carbon price yet they have gone to town and committed a cost impact on Australians, the effect of which will be felt for generations.
What do they do to show their priorities? Those people opposite want to give 16,000 people who have millions of dollars already in their superannuation and who earn in excess of $100,000 in interest—that is right; there are people who earn over $100,000 in interest alone—a tax break. Why did we not think of that?
We see beyond the cuts to the schoolkids bonus and the income support bonus. We actually have to look at the generational impact of this decision. It is deeper than even the immediate effect; it goes to one of philosophy. These people love to give a lecture about being lifters not leaners. If you believe them, they are into thrift, they are into accountability, they are into the good old fashioned work ethic and they want Australians to work hard and save. They are always complaining about debt. So what do they do when they are philosophically committed, apparently, to thrift and saving? They damage the single best institution in Australia for savings.
Tony Abbott said in 1995 that compulsory superannuation is a 'con job'. He just wants to give the money back. We see those opposite undermine universal access to Medicare. We see them undermine equitable access to universities. Now they are undermining the great good dream of ordinary Australians to have enough money when they retire. They say 'we kept our promise'; oh no they have not. This is most certainly an adverse change to superannuation and they want to talk about cocks crowing. I tell you what: their roosters would be hoarse because 14 times the Prime Minister said there will be no adverse changes. They would have laryngitis with the amount of untruths that spill from their throats.
Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—
The member for Herbert is not in his seat and may not interject.
Be careful, say nothing. They would attack one of the great savings vehicles of Australia. We know we are living longer and that is a good thing. We know that healthcare costs go up. What is this mendicant generation-wrecking government choosing to do? They are denying people the financial wherewithal to have enough money in their accounts to pay for their health care in retirement.
They love to talk about infrastructure. If infrastructure could be built by words alone then these would be the crane kings. We know that infrastructure is funded by superannuation and they are starving Australia of infrastructure funding by starving superannuation funds. What I particularly find galling in what they have done is that they have fed the beast of minority parties' publicity seeking with no interest in the long-term.
I get they have to do deals. I understand they do some horse trading. But never would I imagine that they would put on the chopping block Australia's great superannuation system. They are strangling the superannuation system and starving it of resources. They have managed to get the mining tax off the back of nine companies and the deal they got for it? Nine million people having their superannuation frozen. I would not send this mob to buy a litre of milk at the milk bar; they would end up selling the house on the way through.
They talk about wages. Getting a lecture about workers' wages from these people is insulting. I must concede, Tony Abbott has the hide of a rhinoceros or a sense of humour that no-one has yet discovered when he declares that he is the worker's best friend in giving them money. Let me be clear and let me remind Australia: the Liberal Party opposite—all of them—have never supported wage rises for workers. So be very careful: when you hear Tony Abbott promising a wage rise for workers it is time to panic—put the money in the shoebox!—because these people do not know. They think manual labour is a Spanish tennis star! They have never backed in Australian workers.
What they do is say, 'We're going to back in wages.' So this is the real story of the dirty deal done cheap by these people. What they first of all said was, 'We're not going to have Australians save for their retirement.' They said, 'We're going to get wage rises for workers.' As if! As if anyone believes that! The real reason—the only thing they have done here—is that they have given corporate profits a kick along, because without the savings—and we know that they do not back wages—the only people who benefit from this decision are some corporations who will increase their profits. And that is the essence of the Palmer-Abbott deal.
Who wins in this deal? Who wins by losing a mining tax? Mining companies, including Palmer. Who wins in this deal if you do not have to pay increased superannuation? Mining companies—they do not have to pay more in their wages and they do not have to pay more in their superannuation. This mob opposite favour offshore profits over onshore savings. Do not ever again, Prime Minister, talk to us about mandates. You have no mandate to wreck the superannuation system.
You have no mandate to lecture the Australian people on debt when, in fact, you are discouraging them from saving. They have this audacity—this stupid, short-term government—they have superannuation in their sights and they are freezing it and wrecking it. Why should nine million Australians retire with less money than they otherwise would have? What I find particularly galling in getting a lecture from the Prime Minister of Australia and the Treasurer of Australia is that none of their decisions will hurt them.
They make a decision which hurts nine million real people, 3.2 million small businesses and 1.3 million families, and there is no skin in the game from that mob opposite.
I say to the government: you have made super an election issue and we will win that fight. (Time expired)
The Leader of the Opposition has relevance deprivation syndrome after getting the lowest vote for the Labor Party in 100 years—since 1903. And then, after being looked over and turned over as the people's choice as the Leader of the Opposition, he has the call to come into this place and to pretend that we should be dealing with them when we are having success in the Senate.
We are getting things done in this, the 44th Parliament of Australia, by virtue of the quality of our policies and the quality of our ideas. The fact is, since coming to office, and after less than one year in office, we have repealed the carbon tax, we have given approval to more than $800 billion of infrastructure projects, we are building the roads of the 21st century, we have cut more than $700 million of red tape and we have stopped the boats. And we have done all those things without the help of those opposite.
And now, just yesterday, we have had another success and that success has seen the repeal of the mining tax—a tax which nobody wanted and which nobody needed. It was a tax which was introduced with no consultation by those opposite; a tax which the member for Lilley says was about redistributing the wealth of the resources sector amongst the wider Australian population. But do you know how much revenue that tax produced?
How much?
Well, firstly, let me ask you, member for Hughes: how much money was that tax expected to produce? It was $49.5 million when the mining tax was first conceived—$49.5 billion. But the reality is that after so much fanfare, after such a lack of consultation and after so much pain and heartache for our miners and our workers, this tax has just produced $340 million. That is just 2½ cents over the last 12 months for every Australian. Talk about redistributing wealth—that was an abject failure. It is not just bad to produce a tax that produces so little revenue but what is so bad about the mining tax and why we needed to act urgently was because those opposite attached $17 billion of expenditure to that tax—$17 billion of expenditure and only $340 million in revenue.
You do not need to be Einstein to realise that you have a budget problem if you have $17 billion of spending and just $340 million of revenue. So we have repealed this mining tax and, by virtue of repealing this mining tax, the budget repair job is well on its way. And more than $50 billion will be the improvement to the nation's finances over the next 10 years—more than $50 billion.
Let me tell you why that is so important: it is because the legacy of those opposite was a fiscal wreck job which we have not seen the likes of in this country before—$667 billion worth of debt. And those opposite say that we are now taking away thousands of dollars from people's super, which is not only a lie but it denies the fact that they have saddled every man, woman and child in Australia with $25,000 of debt. That is the number we should be debating in this chamber—the $25,000 worth of debt that those opposite have saddled every Australian man, woman and child with.
When the member for Maribyrnong—the Leader of the Opposition—comes in here and says, 'You've made broken promises and you will be getting laryngitis because something was said six times,' what about the member for Lilley and Senator Wong, who promised a budget surplus more than 400 times? Do you remember that moment when the member for Lilley came to this dispatch box and said, 'Tonight, I am announcing four years of surpluses'? I must have missed something because we have not seen one of those surpluses. We have just seen consecutive deficits.
The fact is that we knew that we needed to act. It was not just the coalition saying that we needed to act; it was independent players like the Parliamentary Budget Office and the Commission of Audit that projected deficits out as far as the eye could see, and others like the IMF and the OECD which looked at the rate of Australian government spending. The fact is in Australia we do have a structural deficit. When John Howard left office, government spending as a proportion of GDP was 23.1 per cent. Today it is 25.9 per cent. If we do nothing, it goes to 26.5 per cent. Why, those opposite may be asking, is this important? This is important because tax revenue is around 22 per cent. So you have a gap, the member for Sydney would understand, between 22 per cent and 25.9 per cent, and that is just the borrowings year upon year which Labor are saddling the next generation with. We should be having a debate in this place about the notion of fairness and the fact that Labor has saddled the next generation with an unfair level of debt.
Those opposite come in here and say that we are hurting small business. Do you know who hurt small business the most? Those opposite saw more than 400,000 jobs lost in small business. Just sitting with me at the table is a person who worked in small business as a builder. Sitting behind me is someone who worked as an electrician in small business. Also sitting behind me is another colleague and friend who worked as a publican in small business. We are the party of small business. Those opposite are the party of union officials who pay to look after their own. We understand that when you come into this place you cannot be like those opposite who are all care and no responsibility.
I want to remind the House that we went to the election and we told the Australian people that we would abolish the mining tax. That is exactly what we have done. It is not the historic reform that the member for Lilley promised and it no longer deserves to be on the statute books. So I am very proud of the fact that were able to abolish the mining tax.
The third thing I want to note in this place is something that the Prime Minister referred to during question time. It is fact that the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Maribyrnong, has said repeatedly in public that when you move to compulsory superannuation, you are taking money out of the pockets of workers—a point that he refuses to acknowledge in this place. I remind those opposite of the words of their own leader. Neil Mitchell from 3AW, in my home town of Melbourne, when he was talking to the member for Maribyrnong on 21 March 2012, said: 'Okay. So you are saying that the superannuation increases will be paid for by absorbing money out of the wage increases? Bill Shorten: That is the evidence.'
Again, just to prove it was not a fluke the first time, on 3 November 2010, in giving the closing address at the OECD/IOPS Global Forum on private pensions, Bill Shorten said:
Analysis suggests that, over time, Superannuation Guarantee increases have come out of wages, rather than profits.
The members opposite understand that their policy was leaving workers short-changed by taking money out of their pockets. This is a point confirmed by the Henry tax review, which in May 2010 said:
Although employers are required to make superannuation guarantee contributions, employees bear the cost of these contributions through lower wage growth.
There you have it—the Leader of the Opposition damned by his own words and by the Henry tax review, commissioned by the previous government. They destroyed small business in this country, killed hundreds of thousands of jobs and gave us a rotating cycle of small business ministers. Now they have the gall to come into this place and say that when we are fixing their mess it is not a good thing. I am proud of the fact that we have repealed the mining tax and I am sure the Australian people are with us too.
What you hear from the member for Kooyong's speech and what you have seen over the last 24 hours provides a real insight into the operations of this Abbott government. You see a government of broken promises. You see a government that is for the few not the many. You see a government that is focused on the short term not the long term. Think about the broken promises just for a minute. I am, frankly, tired of repeating their promises: no cuts to health, no cuts to education, no change to pensions, no increase in the GST, no new taxes, no adverse change to superannuation. Yes, I have repeated that once or twice. I will tell you why I have repeated that once or twice. It is because every Australian who voted for Tony Abbott put their faith in the fact that Tony Abbott was up there saying 'adult government', 'you can trust us', 'we will keep our words'. And what did he say as clear as he possibly could have said? 'No cuts to health, no cuts to education, no change to pensions, no cuts to the ABC, no cuts to the SBS, no change to higher education, no new taxes.'
This particular promise about superannuation he made 14 separate times. Fourteen separate times he made a clear, categorical commitment to the Australian people that he was not going to make unexpected adverse changes to superannuation. Do you reckon actually ripping super money off ordinary workers counts as an adverse change? I think it does. Maybe what he is quibbling with is the 'unexpected' bit. Maybe we should have expected it because this Prime Minister has said that superannuation is a con. We have heard it from the member for Kooyong as well. Is it not a bizarre thing to have a government that is arguing against national savings?
Since when have savings been a bad thing? We hear that $128 billion will be ripped out of our national savings pool because of the changes that it has announced.
Of course that hurts ordinary workers. Who else does it hurt? It hurts businesses in Australia that are trying to borrow money. It hurts our economy. One reason that Australia has coped so well with economic shocks is that we have had domestic sources of finance. We have had the ability to borrow money at home and this government would compromise that.
So they hurt individuals but, as well as hurting individuals and breaking their promise to individuals, they hurt Australian businesses by compromising our pool of national savings. I will tell you something else: this is a government of the few not the many. We heard about the dirty deal with Clive Palmer and the Palmer United Party. The Prime Minister is benefiting one big miner against who? Against almost nine million Australians who will miss out on superannuation; against 1.3 million Australian families, who will miss out on the schoolkids bonus, which is $15,000 for an average family with two kids going through school; and against 3.2 million small businesses. They claim to be the friend of small business.
Government members interjecting—
Those opposite are interjecting. I want to take this interjection, because those opposite are interjecting, 'Where's the revenue?' On the one hand, we have a government that say, 'This is an impost on the mining sector, jobs will be lost, businesses will be closed and investment will be stopped.' On the other hand, they argue that the tax did not raise enough. Is it too big or is it too small? Did it raise too much money or not enough? They cannot get their story straight. The real story is not that it is too big or too small; the real story is that it hurts their mates and they do not care that what they are doing is ripping savings off nine million Australians, 1.3 million families and 3.2 million small businesses. They will always go for the short term rather than the long term and they will always support their mates rather than ordinary Australians. This Prime Minister said 14 times, 'No adverse change to super.' Well, we have seen what his promises are worth. (Time expired)
The member for Watson, sitting opposite, has been to my electorate. He has seen how much food we grow.
They loved me when I came!
They did indeed—they couldn't wait to see the back of you. But, anyway, be that as it may. I have a personal explanation: that is, I cannot cook. My wife, Catherine, will back me up on that. But I am going to give Labor a little bit of a cooking lesson. The minerals resource rent tax was the magic pudding which failed to rise. Annabel Crabb and her Kitchen Cabinet would not come near my home were I to be actually at the stove anytime soon. To listen to Labor in government, you would be forgiven for thinking that the MRRT was indeed a magic pudding. The member for Lilley baked it, former Prime Minister Rudd choked on it and former Prime Minister Gillard not only reheated it but then doled it out so many times over that it actually cost more than it ever raised. This was a pudding that was high in sugar and very, very low in fibre. Had it not been scrapped, Labor's mining tax could have been expected to raise $668.5 million over the forward estimates—that is, from 2014-15 to 2017-18. The associated spending was to reach more than $17 billion—that is, $17,000 million—over the same period. No matter how thinly you cut the slices, you cannot pay for $17,000 million worth of spending with $668.5 million in revenue. That is the great con. Let us remember that around 125 taxpayers were required to comply with the tax without ever having to pay anything, wasting millions of dollars in compliance costs and red tape, the economic equivalent of empty calories, if you will.
We came to government with a promise to repeal the carbon tax and the mining tax. And, in one year, that is exactly what we have done. It is true that we have had to negotiate the passage of the mining tax repeal; we had to get it through the Senate. The Minister for Finance is to be particularly commended for his diligence and resolve in these negotiations. Our repeal package will still deliver a significant improvement to the budget over the forward estimates and beyond. We are eating our greens—I am not really that in favour of the Greens, but I do not mind eating them—but not banking on a pudding which will not rise and which will not deliver. Labor is having its cake and eating it too.
Opposition members interjecting—
You thought Bill Shorten could throw out the one-liners, but I tell you: these are better than Bill's. If Labor had not continued to frustrate the government's clear mandate—and that is what we were given last September—on the repeal of the mining tax, the changes the government has had to make may not have been necessary. You cannot refuse to budget and then make ridiculous claims about dirty deals. You cannot do that. Instead, we are making responsible changes to the phasing of the superannuation guarantee. Labor claims to care about workers, but increases in the superannuation guarantee are funded from reductions in take-home wages and business profits. We heard that from the member for Kooyong earlier.
If those opposite had been listening in question time today they would have heard the Treasurer. He is a good man and he is doing a very tough job. I do not envy him doing the job that he is doing. But I can tell you that he is doing a fine job of fixing up the mess that that mob opposite left us.
We heard from the Treasurer, the member for North Sydney, in question time today talk about 24 successive years of economic growth, probably not helped in part by the six years that Labor were in office, but be that as it may. We heard the Treasurer talking about making decisions in the national interest—
Mr Conroy interjecting—
I will just ignore the member for Charlton—I can tell you that his electorate will at the next election! We heard the Treasurer talk about how the mining sector is contributing one per cent of the three per cent—indeed, a third—of growth in the national accounts. That is significant. So why, with all that growth that the mining sector provides, would those opposite trying to slug the mining industry with a job-destroying mining tax? That is why, thank goodness, we got rid of it yesterday.
We heard about iron ore exports, a record 181.4 million tonnes in the June quarter alone. That is significant. That is 28 per cent higher than for the same period last year. We are getting on with the job of fixing the economy in the national interest. Those opposite just want to bring back a mining tax and a carbon tax. (Time expired)
I rise to speak against the dirty tactics this government has undertaken to the detriment of all Australians. Today is 3 September, and I remind those opposite that the B team they brought in, those intellectual giants, said this on exactly 6 September 2013 in an interview with David Koch, the president of the Port Adelaide Football Club and TV presenter. When asked about doing dirty deals with Independents, the now Prime Minister said:
Let's not let independents and minor parties muck up the next Parliament.
… … …
… I want to form a strong majority government …
But that is not what Clive wants to do. The Prime Minister in almost one year to the day has totally reversed that. When he was interviewed by David Speers and Kieran Gilbert on Sky News—a favourite of those opposite—he said: 'Kieran, we don't want another government depending on dodgy deals.' This government is depending purely on dodgy deals. It did dodgy deals with the Greens to lift the debt ceiling limit, and it has now done a dodgy deal to hurt the superannuation savings of nine million Australians because it wants to kowtow to the mining giants that lines its pockets.
There should be no mistake about this. Every single working Australian should always remember that Tony Abbott said the words, 'We as a coalition are against compulsory superannuation.' He has always stood by that, and he is always going to. So it is really a question of intelligence—which is why we keep those opposite out of the question, because they do not have any. It is a question of intelligence for the Australian people. They need to sit and think and realise that those opposite, in every fibre of their being, have fought every single wage increase, superannuation increase and support for jobs and benefits for working Australians to get ahead.
I had an email from a constituent of mine who said that, two years ago, she was asked to purchase netbooks for her two children. It would have cost $1,200 and she could not afford it; neither could the parents of about 12 other children in the class. You see, even with the schoolkids bonus, it is hard to keep up with the supplies that kids need in the modern day. Without it, I see the divide between the haves and have-nots in our public school system increasing. That is exactly what those opposite are doing—dividing Australians into haves and have-nots by attacking those who do not have lots of money to fly on planes to India for weddings. They are pitting the haves against those who go out there and do the hard work.
Not one of them across on that side will have their superannuation impacted on. Every single other Australian who goes out there and works day and night will have their life savings impacted on because this government lied to the Australian people when it said that it would not do dirty deals with Independent parties. It has. It has done a deal with a mining magnate to remove the mining tax at the expense of Australians, at the expense of kids going to school and at the expense of people who go to work every day and work hard to contribute to this country.
We should be having this government here today standing up and apologising for the fact that it got into office based on a lie. They should be made to come and apologise to every single Australian they have hurt. They sit there and say, 'We are the party of small business.' But what have they done? They have taken the loss carry-back away from small businesses, impacting on the mum-and-dad businesses that drive economy. We have seen the Minister for Small Business get up here and say, 'Small business is the engine room at the economy. ' He was not here today. He has gone away. Maybe he did not want to be in this parliament when the Prime Minister came in after doing his dodgy deal.
People under the age of 50 have now been cut adrift by this government. The government are impacting on those people's superannuation. They are also impacting on those under the age of 30. If you are under the age of 30 and you are trying to buy a house and raise a family, this pack of multimillionaires over there think that it is okay for you to get no government support for up to six months. For up to six months, you will not get any government support to pay your bills, to look after your kids or to take them to the doctor. So you are going to have to think twice about that. They want to put a $7 GP tax in place and put $7 on pathology and also radiology.
We have seen a government that, with every fibre they have, have come out and attacked working Australians in every possible way. They should be ashamed of what they have done. We know that at the next election we are going to see a lot of changes over there. There are a lot of temporary faces sitting there who came into this place on a lie, and that lie will come back and bite them at the next election.
Who said this? Who said:
If we don't have the revenue from the tax then we can't make the investments.
It must've been our side.
It was not our side. It was someone who sits over on that side. But he is not here. I will give you another hint. It is someone who has just written a book. It is someone who still defends the mining tax. It is someone who said a few years ago, 'We have temporary deficits.' It is someone who stood at that dispatch box a few years ago and said, 'I proudly announce surpluses tonight and into the future.' That is right—it was the member for Lilley back on 25 March 2011.
Let's not have members opposite, such as the member for McEwen, rewriting history. I am going to forgive the member for McEwen. I think the member for McEwen sticks to the script no matter what it is. Those opposite introduced a mining tax to raise money, to fund the things they are talking about—but it did not raise any money. It did not raise any money after they were warned it would not raise any money. I sat on the parliamentary committee that looked at the bill and witness after witness warned that they were irresponsibly locking in permanent expenditure on a shaky tax base that would never deliver.
Now you have the member for McEwen talking about a schoolkids bonus that three years ago they said had to be funded through a mining tax. Now the revenue is not there—and this is a real window into the Labor Party—they are more than happy to keep on keeping on irresponsibly. That is not what they said in government. In government they said they would raise the money and from that money they would fund these programs. But they raised none and went ahead and spent $17 billion. You only have to look at how this policy was born and then what happened to it to get the simplest explanation for Labor in power in the last two parliaments.
This mining tax, which the member for Lilley and those opposite were so proud of, was in its original form part of the Henry review. They sat on that review and sat on that review, and then they released this policy Pearl Harbour style on the mining industry. Then, of course, it started running off the rails. Where was the courageous member for Lilley then? He could not be seen; he handballed it to Kevin Rudd. Knowing that he had a control freak on his hands, he knew Kevin would delve into it. Kevin took responsibility and Kevin lost his job. Then along came Julia. She said to the member for Lilley, 'You've got to fix this mess you have created'. So, desperate to get a fix before the 2010 election, the member for Lilley altered the tax. It is now quite common knowledge that he did so without a single Treasury official in the room! From there, he legislated it and left us with the budget problem that we have today.
Those opposite are defiant; they are determined on the subject. Presumably they are going to reintroduce it if they ever have the chance, even though it will not raise the money to fund the things that the member for Lilley said they needed the revenue for. He said:
The mining tax linked investments cannot be made without mining tax revenue.
But they made the investments anyway. As I said, stubborn. I say to the member for McEwen that the coyote from Road Runner was stubborn too. You have to occasionally look at the quality of public policy. What we have seen in this debate, and what we have seen from the Leader of the Opposition, is no acknowledgement of failure.
Mr Conroy interjecting—
In the case of the three amigos, and the one always-smiling amigo—I will give you that, perhaps it is involuntary—what we see is ignorant acceptance of what they are told. This sums up everything about the former— (Time expired)
I am grateful for the opportunity to make a statement on the matter of public importance today on mining. I do so on behalf of my constituents in Hotham, on behalf of the nine million Australian workers who will lose superannuation under decisions made by this government, on behalf of 1.3 million families who will now go without the Schoolkids Bonus and on behalf of 3.2 million small businesses who will suffer from the decisions made yesterday just so that the biggest mining companies in Australia can make an extra few million dollars a year in profits.
I do not remember ever seeing such a flagrant display of a government supporting the powerful and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Australians. Never has a clearer articulation of priorities been made than through the dirty backroom deals that those opposite promised they would never make.
Let us go through the decision that was made. This is a tax break for the wealthiest mining companies in Australia coming at the expense of a Schoolkids Bonus that more than a thousand families in my electorate relied on to do things like buy school shoes for their children, starting the new year of school, and to buy school books and laptops. These are things that people in my electorate cannot afford to do without that bonus. It comes at the expense of retirement incomes of ordinary Australians that have been reduced by billions—$128 billion less in national savings due to this decision yesterday. It comes at the expense of support for small business—more than $5 billion in tax breaks have been removed. The income support bonus is gone—that was a bonus of just $215 a year that went to some of the lowest-income people in the whole of Australia. All these are gone for the benefit of nine mining companies.
I have worked for some of these companies. In general, they are run by good people who are trying to do the right thing. But let us be clear: the resources that they are mining, processing and exporting belong to the people in my electorate, they belong to me and they belong to those on the other side of the chamber. But instead of keeping a profit based policy in place, which would make sure that the people who own these resources are the people to whom benefits flow, those profits will go back to mining companies. We know that those increased profits—
To shareholders.
Yes, and do you know where those shareholders come from? The vast majority come from overseas.
An opposition member: Eighty per cent of dividends go overseas.
Eighty per cent of those dividends go overseas. These are the resources that belong to the people in my electorate who, because of the decision made yesterday, will get much less out of the resources that belong to them.
We should not be surprised, because this fits very well with the ethics that we have seen from this government. We are seeing time and time again from the Abbott government adherence to one principle. They are not very principled people, but they do seem to come back to this one principle—that the more you have and the better off you are, the more this government has got your back. Look at the education reforms proposed by the Minister for Education. On the weekend, modelling by the Pilbara Group was released showing that these education reforms will be a massive boon to the most-privileged, best-off universities in this country. Yet those in regional areas and those in the outer boroughs of our big cities stand to lose significantly from the education reforms.
The Paid Parental Leave scheme is probably the worst example of the fact that the more you earn, the more welfare you get. It is absolutely outrageous that amongst all the crowing on the other side about budget issues, we have a government that has found $6 billion to give a cash splash to some of the wealthiest women in the country. Labor's scheme gave the same to everyone. That is because it is just as difficult to have a baby if you are a rich woman as it is if you are on a lower income. That is just how it is. The same goes for the toxic and regressive changes that we have seen in health—that is, the $7 GP co-payment, the changes to pathology charges and an extra $5 every time you fill a script. The sicker you are, the bigger your family and the more frequently have to go to the doctor, the more tax you are going to have to pay. It is absolutely outrageous.
Labor has committed to carefully targeting the spending of taxpayer money in a way that maximises the value of every dollar. To frugally spend public money, we need to give a hand up to the people in need. That is what people in my electorate indicate to me that they are happy to pay taxes for, not to give the Liberals the opportunity to make life easier for people who already are advantaged.
Now I come back to the premise today. It is only people who live in ivory towers and who come from the cloistered world of the ministry on the other side of the House who think that young people do not work because they are not looking hard enough for a job, that people go to the doctor when they are not really sick just because they have nothing better to do, that lower income people do not drive cars and that the 10 biggest mining companies in this country need a tax break more than millions of struggling Australians do. You ask, 'Who could possibly hold these beliefs?' These are the values, beliefs and ethics of this government, and Labor will oppose them every step of the way. (Time expired)
Way back in 2011, when the Prime Minister of the day made a deal with the Greens, the mining tax was introduced. Our booming mining industry had more than 250,000 direct employees at that time. An extra 30 per cent super tax was imposed on top of all their other cost inputs. The Gillard-Rudd government expected $11 billion in revenue. The plan was to use this money—this imaginary revenue—to bolster low-income super, to fund infrastructure and to allow tax cuts. The revenue did not—I repeat did not—eventuate. The money had to be borrowed, the infrastructure investment had to be borrowed, and any minor economic gains to businesses were guzzled by the carbon tax.
Labor sheds tears and expresses mock horror about the effect of the repeal of the mining tax on nine million Australians. It is no wonder our budget is in such a dismal state. Those opposite have no understanding of the impact of the mining tax and the carbon tax. It is those opposite that have punished every single Australian with a tax on electricity, gas and groceries. It is those opposite who at every step put the interests of the Greens ahead of the interests of every Australian. It is those opposite that locked in $17 billion worth of new government spending and promised that it would be entirely paid for from the mining tax revenue. To bring that down to a household level, what the Labor Party have done is the same as spending $10,000 on a credit card even though they only earn 100 bucks a year. It is simply farcical.
This is a government that delivers on its promises, a government that sticks by its word and a government that is passionate about creating local jobs, not punishing businesses for being successful. The repeal of the mining tax is a win for every Australian. It is a win because it is good for investment, good for jobs and good for business. This is not just about a handful of mines somewhere in remote Western Australia. There are over 54,000 people in New South Wales who are directly employed in the mining industry. Mining contributes over $24 billion to the New South Wales economy and paid over $1.4 billion in state royalties last year alone. This does not even include company tax, income tax, payroll tax and so much more.
My electorate extends from the southern fringes of Shellharbour all the way down to the coast, almost to Batemans Bay. In 2012-13 the mining industry invested over $160 million in my community, with the Illawarra coalfields beginning mere kilometres from my northern and western borders and with many people employed at the coalfields living in Gilmore. Over 2,000 people are directly employed by the mining industry across the Illawarra and South Coast, with a total direct benefit to the region of $1.4 billion in 2012-13.
Just before the minerals resource rent tax became law, the previous member for Gilmore held employment forums for unemployed people wishing to get work in the Roy Hill mines. At that stage the company was looking for 8,500 workers. If we had been able to push forward with this after the forums were held, we would have brought the unemployment level in Gilmore down to zero. Yes, I repeat: zero. What stopped this? The mining tax became law and the investment in Roy Hill stopped.
The previous government have no idea what happens when they impose an extra tax on an industry that has long lead times to develop. The industry invest in other nations around the world where they get a better return on their investment and do not have to pay a mining tax. What else would they do? I am appalled at the apparent lack of understanding, yet it does explain why we have billions of dollars worth of debt. Those opposite rail about the changes to low-income superannuation. Have they spoken to the constituents who ask for help to access their super because they cannot afford to survive? We have to have a strong economy so that such people can get a job and earn even greater wages and get extra super. I congratulate the coalition team on repealing this legislation. The changes will inspire our mining industry to reinvest in Australia. All those unemployed who wanted to get work with Roy Hill mines may yet be able to get a job.
The rate of increase in super contributions is reduced, but the Leader of the Opposition, when in government, is quoted as saying that the super contributions supposedly generated by the mining tax would be compensation for the cheaper pay that workers would earn. I for one, right now, would prefer that the people of Gilmore had more dollars to spend in their pockets rather than dollars in their super accounts. We have not damaged any Australians, yet those opposite damaged the economic future for 23 million Australians and their children by their economic ineptitude.
It has been clear not just in this debate but by the comments made by the government in the media and in this House that those opposite just do not understand how superannuation works. When superannuation was introduced, the guarantee was a generational change. We are not talking about people who are retiring today having enough money in their superannuation accounts to live on. Low-paid workers will still need a pension. We are talking about a generation of young workers, the people who will have a working lifetime of superannuation when they retire. We are talking about people in their 30s who started to accrue super when they started working. They are the people who will really benefit from a working lifetime of superannuation.
People in my electorate who are older and a bit worried about what is in their superannuation accounts sometimes say to me, 'I feel a bit guilty about needing a pension.' I always say to them, 'You've worked hard, you've paid your taxes and you are entitled to a pension when you retire.' Let us not forget that superannuation was only introduced in the 1990s under the Hawke-Keating government. This is the point that the other side misses. The people you are really hurting by stopping the increase in the superannuation contribution are the young people, the people currently working in low-paid jobs. The Treasurer said on radio, 'But that is okay; they will get it in their wages.' I want to see legislation come before this House in which he increases their wages. He is relying on all those really good employers out there to increase their wages. I have never met an employer yet, particularly a big employer, who would just say: 'Guess what? We don't have to pay super, so we are going to give it to you in your next pay rise.' Is that what the government is relying on? If you are deadset serious about putting that money back into the wages of low-paid workers, then bring the bill before the House. To all those Nationals members that are sitting here: you have some of the most disadvantaged electorates—people on very low incomes, people working insecure jobs. Why are you not standing up for those workers to ensure that they have decent superannuation accounts when they retire? All that we have seen from this government, all we have seen from the coalition—all we have ever seen from them—is a tax. It is a tax on low paid workers.
Superannuation is a really good area to look at. When Labor was in government, we introduced a plan under which self-funded retirees whose incomes were over $100,000 paid some tax. It was a tax rate of 15 per cent, once their superannuation income was $100,000. To put it into context, we were asking those people to pay the same amount of tax as a worker on $68,000. As an example of this government's twisted priorities, one of the first things they did was to repeal that measure. In the legislation that they introduced yesterday, we now see them taking away superannuation from the lowest-paid workers—yet another example of the twisted priorities of this government. They are quite happy to look after their own, the people who do really well in the top end of the income bracket, and they are subsidising that by taking away from those who are on the lowest incomes. The only way we can ensure that people have enough self-funds, enough put away to retire on in the future, is by continuing to gradually increase the superannuation guarantee—so that people in their 30s will have enough to retire on in their 60s. That is how we get control of our pension bill—by empowering people, working people, to have enough in their superannuation accounts. The government have got their priorities wrong. They are putting a few mining companies ahead of nine million workers. They are putting mining companies ahead of 1.3 million families and ahead of 3.2 million small businesses. (Time expired)
I just noticed the member for Hunter yawning twice there, and it is no wonder! And my good colleague, the member for Macarthur, yawned. This debate has been a yawn from Labor. Where are they? They know that the mining tax is gone—and that it was a good day for South Australia yesterday, and a good day for Australia. And they would have seen the headline in The West Australianlet me read it out to them, just in case they did not see it—'Jobs hope as mining tax gets the axe'. It is all about jobs. We are creating more jobs, and they know it. And the mining tax was destroying jobs.
Let us look at South Australia as a case study. Our mining operations and our economy have been held back by this devious tax. The South Australian Premier said, 'the minerals resource rent tax has very little application here in South Australia'. How wrong he is. SACOME, the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy, said that the MRRT was an unfair and inefficient tax, and that it discriminated against South Australia in particular, due to the vast amounts of magnetite iron ore in South Australia. So did we see the Premier of South Australia jumping on a plane to meet with the Labor Prime Minister of the day? No. Where was he? Did we see him yesterday, thanking the government for removing the mining tax and helping the South Australian economy? No. Where was he? Nowhere to be seen. Significant mining activity in South Australia is going to come from magnetite iron ore in the Eyre Peninsula and other areas of our state, and this will be great news for our economy. In contrast to the Premier's short-sighted statement, the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy's Jonathon Forbes said:
The thing is, the next big wave of mines in South Australian is going to be in iron ore. The market expectation is that there will be five to six new mines in the next five to seven years. Eventually, those mines would have been affected by the mining tax.
If only the Premier would stop complaining about the great things that this government is doing for the nation, and for the state of South Australia, including an increase in education funding of $275 million over the next four years, and an increase in health funding of over $333 million over the next four years.
What are we doing? We have created a vision: jobs for South Australia. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, this is the most stupid tax ever devised. This is a tax that cost jobs and costs investment. Let us just talk about investment. Australian government representatives overseas identified taxes like the mining tax and the carbon tax as creating sovereign risk for our country—less investment from overseas in Australia; fewer jobs, and less economic activity. Those opposite do not want to see jobs and economic activity; they just talk down Australia and the economy going forward.
Let us look at the other ramifications of this mining tax, from a compliance perspective. Fewer than 20 companies have contributed to the mining tax, but over 125 have actually been required to submit mining tax statement instalment notices while making no net payments—more red tape, more compliance. That is why this government is on the right track, by removing the regulatory burden, and by removing compliance with red tape for companies. We are helping businesses; they are against businesses.
Let me finish today with what the coalition has done in recent times. We have scrapped the mining tax. We have scrapped the carbon tax. We have got on with delivering infrastructure for the 21st century—for example, South Road in South Australia, $1 billion and many jobs; and great progress in upgrading the north-south corridor which will help some mining companies—like Boart Longyear at Adelaide Airport, and Normet in Torrensville in my electorate—get their drilling equipment to the markets of north and south Australia, with more jobs, more economic activity, and a better result for all.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's 11th report of the 44th parliament, entitled Examination of legislation in accordance with the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011: bills introduced 26-28 August 2014, legislative instruments received 26 July-1 August 2014.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
by leave—The committee considered four bills. One bill does not require further scrutiny as it is compatible with human rights. The committee has decided to further defer its consideration of the other three bills. The committee has not identified any bills that it considers require further examination and for which it will seek further information. The committee also examined and made a number of recommendations in relation to one act previously identified as potentially giving rise to human rights concerns.
Of the bills considered, those that are scheduled for debate during the sitting week commencing 1 September 2014 include: Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme Bill 2014, Social Security Legislation Amendment (Stronger Penalties for Serious Failures) Bill 2014, and Mining Subsidies Legislation Amendment (Raising Revenue) Bill 2014. The report outlines the committee's assessment of the compatibility of these bills with human rights. With these comments, I commend the committee's 11th report of the 44th parliament to the House.
At the time same as insisting that Australian women carry the personal burden of higher costs, higher debt and higher interest rates for their education, this government refuses to give up on the Prime Minister's unaffordable rolled-gold Paid Parental Leave scheme at a cost of $5 billion to the nation—but we cannot afford to help women pursue higher education! The government's hypocrisy is truly astounding. The effect on students is just one side of the debate on this higher education reform. There is also the effect on universities and regional communities.
My electorate of Newcastle is proudly home to Australia's best university under the age of 50, with a standing in the top three per cent in the world. One of the top 10 universities in Australia for research funding and teacher quality is the University of Newcastle. At the University of Newcastle, excellence is always coupled with equity, not in spite of it. Excellence and equity are two sides of the one coin at the University of Newcastle, as it should be. That is something this government consistently fails to understand.
The student body is representative of the broader region, with students who are of lower than average socioeconomic status and are often the first university students from their family. Nearly a quarter of enrolled students are from low-socioeconomic backgrounds, which is well above the national average. Compared with the two Group of Eight universities in New South Wales, the University of Newcastle does considerably much more of the heavy lifting in terms of ensuring access, equity and opportunity for all.
Twenty-four per cent of students admitted to the University of Newcastle come from low-SES backgrounds, while the University of New South Wales and the University of Sydney—at about 8.5 per cent and about seven per cent, respectively—are well behind. The University of Newcastle has the highest number of Indigenous students in Australia and the highest rate of students beginning study through enabling programs rather than through the traditional pathways. They are students like the woman that I mentioned earlier, who is now reconsidering her options with this government's insidious reforms.
Despite the assertions from members opposite, like the member for Bass, regional universities will not benefit from these reforms; they are likely to suffer, as will their students and the regions they so richly contribute to. For research-intensive regional universities—like the University of Newcastle, with world-class research in high-cost disciplinary areas like engineering, medicine and health—adequate funding is vital to ensure their continuing excellence. Without adequate Commonwealth funding, funds will have to be sourced from the student body. While this bill would allow that to happen through deregulation, few students would be able to meet the cost without enduring lifelong, massive debt.
As already noted, the University of Newcastle's student body is drawn from lower-SES regions. The ability to recoup lost Commonwealth funds from students will be near impossible, even with deregulation of fees. Regional students simply will not be able to afford to study in high-cost disciplines and it will be difficult for research standards to be maintained with the loss of overall funding. I fear that these students may be lost to higher education altogether. Any proposal to reduce Commonwealth funding will also result in significant increases to the cost of highly technical disciplines, like teaching and nursing. These professions are critical to Australia's future. They are professions that are, however, low paid. There is higher debt and lower pay—you do the math. It would be a lifelong debt sentence with little reward.
Opportunity in education is a pact between generations and a pact we must keep. Funding universities properly is an investment in Australia's future and it is an investment in our people. This reform does not achieve that. The Liberals opposite can vote for $100,000 degrees and for the doubling and tripling of fees, but Labor will vote on the side of students. We will always be on the side of families and we will always be on the side of those who dream of better opportunities for their children and those who come after. We will stand up for young Australians and give them a voice in the national political debate about the future of this nation. We will stand up for equitable access for women, Indigenous students and students from low-SES backgrounds. We will stand up for mature Australians who have been dislocated by economic change. We will stand up for regional universities, who are the drivers of our regional economies. (Time expired)
I am very pleased to rise on the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014. In the time I have, I would first like to set out why there is need for reform. Firstly, our universities—like every business in today's economy—face a changing environment and a more competitive environment. Our universities, in particular, face greater competitiveness from universities in Asia, especially in China. If our universities are just standing still, then they are going backwards. This is most important, because our education export industry is actually our third largest export industry. It is only behind coal and iron ore. This is an industry that must continue to look to reform to reach world's best practice and to make sure that it maintains a source of investment, prosperity and growth for all Australians.
Professor Paul Johnson, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Western Australia, said of the need for change:
The status quo is not feasible as it will over time erode the quality of our education and research activities—not a good position to be in when our nearest Asian competitors are investing so heavily in these areas.
Professor Gareth Evans and Ian Young of the ANU said:
The bottom line is that if Australia is to develop universities which can truly compete internationally, that can provide an excellent educational experience for students and produce really outstanding graduates of the kind that are so vital to our nation's future, we have to not only allow, but encourage, diversity by removing the constraints that prevent innovation.
The other reason there is need for reform is that in so many areas we need to clean up the mess that has been left behind by the previous, Labor government.
I will mention just a few of the messes that need to be cleaned up. This Labor government that comes in here and talks about the importance of education actually cut $6.6 billion in funding to higher education when they were in office. In fact, in their last year of office it was a $3 billion cut. The previous, Labor government also put a cap on tax deductibility for self-education expenses, limiting it to $2,000. When many people spend a lot more than that on self-education, how can you seriously talk about the need for people to invest and for this country to invest in education and then set a $2,000 cap on tax deductibility? Under the Labor government we also saw large increases in red tape and regulation, as they did in almost every particular area. But what was most disturbing was that, under Labor, our international education exports actually went backwards. Our export income from education fell. These are the reasons reform is needed and these things need to be reversed.
We also need to create more opportunities for students from all backgrounds to go to university. We need to create more places, and that requires more funding, but we have to deal with the current funding environment we have. The previous government left us in a pile of debt, with deficits as far as the eye can see. Our question is: How can we fund it? How can we put more money into universities? How can we deal with the current budgetary mess and achieve those two things? During the debates today we have heard speakers from the Labor government. They seem to think that there is some type of magic pudding—just like Bill Barnacle and Bunyip Bluegum in that famous story where they had the pudding and they could eat it and it always reformed itself, and they could eat it again and again and again. That is how members of the opposition think the budget works. But you can only spend the money once. You cannot keep borrowing and borrowing and borrowing as they have done. All that does is condemn our children and our grandchildren to paying high levels of taxes and having fewer government services.
What is in the bill now? Many of my colleagues have covered this in great detail. Firstly, we deregulate fees. In relation to deregulating fees I would like to quote someone called Andrew Leigh, who I believe is now the member for Fraser. This is what he used to say when he was a free thinker, before he became one of those mindless sheep, those unquestioning foot soldiers for the political wing of the trade union movement. This is what he previously wrote, and I agree with him thoroughly. He said that Australian universities 'should be free to set student fees according to the market value of their degrees' and that universities will have a 'strong incentive to compete on price and quality and meet various requirements of the different segments of the student market'. He goes on to say:
Much-needed additional funding will be available to universities that capitalise on their strengths and develop compelling educational offerings. The result will be a better funded, more dynamic and competitive education sector.
Hear, hear! I agree with that Andrew Leigh, and I would only hope and pray that it is the same gentleman who sits on the other side of the chamber.
The other thing we are doing is extending Commonwealth funding to sub-bachelor degrees. So you will see a lot of other higher education facilities, such as diplomas, advanced diplomas and associate diplomas. People will now be able to get into those courses and start those courses without paying a single cent up-front. The biggest beneficiaries of that will be students of low-SES backgrounds, because they will not be held up by the income that they have or by the wealth of their parents. They will be able to get into that course without paying one cent up-front. That will see an extra 48,000 students get into higher education. There will also be an extra 35,000 students doing bachelor degrees, so there will be 35,000 students who would have missed out if these reforms had not been made and who are desperately waiting for these reforms to go through.
We are also increasing the fees that students will pay, but we need to put this into some perspective. Currently, a student pays 40 per cent of the cost of their degree, but that will increase to just 50 per cent of their costs. Putting that into some context, if a student goes to university, on average they will be gifted, by the taxpayer, 50 per cent of the cost of their degree, which they will never, ever have to pay back. That is a gift from the taxpayer to the student who goes on to do that degree. They will be loaned the other 50 per cent of that money by the Commonwealth without paying one cent up-front. And they will not have to pay back that loan at say, a credit card rate of 17 per cent; or at the cost of a personal loan, currently at 13 per cent; or a small business rate, currently around 10 per cent; or even at the rate of a housing loan, currently around six per cent. They will be able to pay that loan back at the rate the government borrows it on—the 10-year bond rate, which is currently 3.36 per cent. This is the best loan and the best deal someone in high school can ever get.
It is interesting to see what some are saying about these changes. I will go through a few quotes about what some people working closest to the coalface are saying. Firstly, Vicki Thomson of the Australian Technology Network of universities said:
Deregulating fees will provide students with increased choice and universities with flexibility. Will fees go up? Some may, but others would also decrease as we have the freedom to determine the size of our institutions and the degrees that we offer.
Professor Scott Johnson said:
… we are seeing lots of potential in these changes. We are licking our lips.
Professor Andrew Young of the ANU said:
The education reform package announced in the budget will allow the ANU to offer an education that is like no other in Australia, amongst the best in the world.
I strongly believe that the reforms announced tonight will see a great diversity of educational offerings and experiences at universities right across the nation, giving students more opportunity to do what suits them. The Group of Eight universities, in a media release, said:
The Group of Eight (Go8) unanimously supports the core elements of the Government's proposed reforms to higher education policy and financing …
These are historic reforms which reconcile access and quality and make growth affordable. The Australian Council for Private Education and Training said:
The changes the government has announced tonight—
the night of the budget—
offer all students funding support from the Commonwealth. They will support genuine student choice and competition amongst … Australia’s 173 higher education providers.
Navitas, in their press release, said:
Leading global education provider, Navitas has welcomed a suite of Government reforms to Australia’s higher education sector following the announcement of the federal budget today.
You could not get a more ringing endorsement from those at the coalface of these proposed reforms. Perhaps a by-name for education in this country is Professor Gonski. The Minister for Communications, sitting at the table, noted that Professor Gonski's name has sometimes become a verb, an adjective and a noun. Professor Gonski has given us the tick on these reforms. He said they would make universities 'even greater.' He said:
I think that the government are correct in this and I think that there is a real chance that the deregulation of fees—rather than making universities richer and so on—that they could produce further monies from doing that to be ploughed back to make them even greater … To improve the student experience, have higher teacher-student ratios, etc.
That is what the experts at the coalface are saying.
We have had some disgraceful scaremongering from members of the opposition during this debate, spreading absolute falsehoods. Why I find this so objectionable is that, by spreading these falsehoods, they are deterring students from going to university. I would ask members of the other side to have a good look at themselves in the mirror and have a good think about themselves. When they go out in their community, they should not spread these falsehoods and they should not make these false claims, because if they deter just one student from taking on a university degree because of all the false claims they talk about—the debt sentence, second mortgages for houses, doubling and tripling degrees, and phoney class wars—it verges on criminal. We have a job as members of parliament. When we go out to schools we should be spreading the message to students. We should be talking up the benefits of higher education. We should be telling those students, 'If you go to university, 50 per cent of the cost of that course, on average, will be gifted to you by the taxpayer.' Do you know what? The other 50 per cent of the cost will have to be paid off at the Commonwealth bond rate—3.36 per cent. We need to tell students, 'This is the best deal that you will ever get.' We need to let them know that, by having that degree, it gives them the opportunity over their lifetime to earn 75 per cent more, on average, than a student who leaves at year 12. Over a lifetime, there will be more than $1 million extra in wages or salary. And we have members of parliament scaremongering and talking students out of that. It is an absolutely shocking disgrace.
I would encourage all members of parliament, when they go to their electorates, to look at the report by the Grattan Institute called Graduate winners and quote this to their students:
Graduates do well out of higher education. They have attractive jobs, above-average pay and status. They take interesting courses and enjoy student life …
Benefits greatly outweigh the costs for most students and the minority of graduates who do not win through higher income never pay for their degrees as a result of the HELP scheme. In effect, today's tuition expenses redistribute income towards graduates at the expense of the general public, particular those who do not go on to university. That is the message that we should be sending out to students. We should be doing everything we can to talk up higher education and make sure we encourage high school students to go on to those degrees. That is our responsibility as members of parliament, rather than the shameful scaremongering we have seen from the other side. I commend this bill strongly to the House.
I am also rising to speak on the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014. My contribution is motivated by a visit I made to Griffith University Logan campus in the week after the budget. I am very fortunate to have been a graduate of Griffith University and particularly fortunate to be able to represent the Logan campus in this place. A lot of what I want to say today is motivated by the year 12 kids that I spoke to on that day as part of Griffith's Uni-Reach program, which gets a whole bunch of year 12 students into a room and talks to them about what it is like at university: what sorts of challenges there are and all of that sort of thing. I went along on 19 May. There were a whole range of schools there, but from my electorate there were kids from Marsden High, Mabel Park and also Springwood High. We spoke about how they arrange their studies and how they arrange their lives to be successful students at university. It was a great opportunity. I congratulate Griffith University for providing that kind of opportunity to kids. When I was thinking about speaking on this bill today, I was thinking: what kind of country and what kind of government would make those kids—some of them from quite disadvantaged areas—choose between going to university and other important life choices like a mortgage, starting a family or even starting a small business?
I will be forever in debt to the teachers and administrators at Griffith University for the education I got. Unfortunately, this bill and its mean-spirited changes will put kids forever in debt in a whole different way, to the Abbott government.
Not every young person wants to go to university, and we need to afford them a whole range of training opportunities, but we also need to make sure that we do not limit their choices. We do not want kids who get the right marks and qualify for university to decide not to go to university on the basis that they cannot afford it or that they do not want to spend 20, 30 or 40 years repaying debts for their degrees of $100,000 or more. We want to make sure that kids have that option. Unfortunately, this bill limits people's options and choices.
There is a very famous economist called Amartya Sen. Sen says that if you want to tackle inequality in a society you need to provide the ability to choose lives of value. You need to give people the capacity to succeed. I like to think of it as: you need to give people the tools of success so that they can work hard and get ahead in a modern market economy. I was thinking about Amartya Sen because what this bill does is to let some people but not others choose lives of values. I think that is unforgiveable in a modern, wealthy, first-world country like ours.
Just as individuals have choices, countries have choices too. Like I said, a wealthy country like ours does have to choose its priorities. I can think of no more important priority than making sure that university education is affordable and that kids from low-SES areas like mine are not priced out of the market—like this bill does. We need to make those kinds of choices. As the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday in a very good speech in this debate, he said, 'Our country has a choice between becoming smarter and becoming poorer.' That really does get to the nub of this issue.
We hear people on both sides of this House talk about how important it is for us to build productivity, and that is a crucial objective for our country and our economy. If we are serious about building productivity, we need to establish broad and deep pools of human capital. That means not excluding people on the basis of their socioeconomic status, it means not excluding kids from regional areas, it means not making it harder for women who want to go to university—not pricing them out of the market by making them contemplate paying back a university degree for all of their working life and jacking up the cost of degrees to $100,000 or more. We have to choose whether we are going to become smarter or poorer, whether we want bigger or smaller pools of human capital and whether we want a more inclusive economy or a less inclusive economy. These are the choices that nations have to make. The appalling thing about this bill is that it makes all the wrong choices when it comes to those crucial questions. And probably the most crucial question when it comes to higher education is: do you want the opportunities to flow to the many or do you want the opportunities to flow just to the few? Unfortunately, this government—true to form, I have to say—have chosen the latter, and they are doing it in a range of ways, including with superannuation. They have chosen the latter, disastrous path.
When Labor were in government and we thought about reforming the university sector—under great education ministers like Julia Gillard, Kim Carr and others who worked in this crucial area—we wanted to broaden and deepen the pool of human capital in our country. That is why we increased real revenue per student to universities by 10 per cent. There was an extra $1,700 for universities to spend on quality teaching for every single student. And that is why we lifted investment in universities, from $8 billion when we came to office to $14 billion by the time we left. If we had kept the model that existed under the Howard government, universities today would be worse off to the tune of $3 billion. So we do have a very proud record, and probably the proudest part of that record—certainly the part that I am proudest of, having played a peripheral role in some of the discussions—is what we did to make university more accessible to more people. Whether it was the student start-up scholarships, the relocation scholarships or the increased funding for regional universities, we did a great deal to make university more accessible. That is why one in every four of the 750,000 students at university today are the result of some of our measures. We have 190,000 more students on campus, we boosted Indigenous student numbers by 26 per cent, we boosted regional student numbers by 30 per cent, and there are more than 36,000 extra students from low-income families in universities now compared to 2007. On top of that, we have almost $4.5 billion in world-class research and teaching funding. These are things that we are very, very proud of. They are the choices we made.
Unfortunately, this bill chooses another path. It denies our economy and our community the creativity, the dynamism and the verve that flow from including more people in the remarkable opportunities that a first-world wealthy country like ours should be providing to not just to some of our young people but all of our young people if they have the talent, if they put in the work and if they qualify for university.
The rest of the region is investing heavily in education. They get it, they understand it, they know what is going on. They know that the future will be won by the countries who win when it comes to human capital. Other countries in our region know this; it beggars belief that our country is heading in a different direction. I could spend a long time, but I won't, going through all of the atrocities in this bill. I have already mentioned the degrees costing $100,000 or more and what those higher fees and higher interest rates mean for women, low-SES youngsters and regional kids who want to access university.
Let us boil down what this bill does. It allows unis to set much higher fees, which lead to substantial increases. It introduces a real interest rate of up to 6 per cent on HECS-HELP debt which, when it comes to CPI, is much more than what it currently is. These are the sorts of changes they are making to the fee structure.
What is making some universities support some of these changes is the really dramatic cuts that the government is making to the sector more broadly. Some $5.8 billion will be cut from higher education—$3.2 billion from HECS-HELP; $1.1 billion from Commonwealth supported places; $87 million from the HECS-HELP benefit; $120 million from Higher Education Reward funding; the scrapping of the Higher Education Participation and Partnerships program; $200 million from grants; and $504 million from the Student Start-up Scholarship program. The list goes on and on and on. These are serious cuts that are being made to the university system. Any one of those decisions would be a backwards step. But in combination they are devastating for a country like ours that rightly aspires to have the best educated people, the best educated workforce in the region and in the world.
I want to touch very briefly on an issue that is very close to my heart within this series of issues because of the very good New Zealand born population that I have in my electorate. I want to refer to schedule 10. I have had a lot of people contact me about the measures that the government is introducing in this space. We support theses measures. We actually announced them. My predecessor in Rankin, the great Craig Emerson, actually came up with this policy, and part of it is in this bill. I want to tell my great New Zealand born constituents that we want the government to introduce separate legislation for that part of the bill. Senator Kim Carr, who understands these issues, has put out a press release saying that we want to see HECS-HELP eligibility extended to New Zealand born citizens. We announced that before the last Labor budget. We consider this to be a very important measure. I know from so many conversations with people in my area how important this measure is. We will do our best to pass it. If the government will not split the bill, we will move a private member's bill. I look forward to being part of that process if the government does not see the sense in affording to New Zealand born kids the same opportunities that are afforded to Australian kids in my community and in south-east Queensland in particular. We will be keeping an eye on that issue. I assure my constituents of that.
One thing that really rubs salt into the wound when it comes to the changes that have been announced by the government is the breaking of various promises that are central to this. There are so many of them, I would need a couple of hours to run through them all. The Real Solutions policy document says, 'We'll ensure the continuation of the current arrangements.' On 1 September last year the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, gave people an absolute assurance that there would be no cuts to education. On 17 November Chris Pyne said, 'We're not going to raise fees.' But they have. Chris Pyne said in a media release in August 2012, 'We have no plans to increase fees, cap places, of course.' But that is exactly what they had plans to do.
Another thing that really offends people when they contemplate what the government is trying to do to them in the higher education system is that so many of the coalition frontbench—and our frontbench too—have benefited from either free education or affordable HECS. I mentioned earlier that I had the good fortune to go to Griffith University under an affordable HECS scheme. It was a great investment and it was a great time to learn from some quality educators. A punter in my area put a comment on my Facebook page the other day that 'the government have climbed the ladder and then pulled it up behind them'. I could not say it better myself. It is as though they have gone through the doorway and closed the door behind them.
When we see the education minister jump up and say he is making these changes, it is offensive to think that so many members of the government benefited from far more accommodating arrangements when it came to their own degrees—in the education minister's case, a law degree from the University of Adelaide. What he wants to do to kids studying law at the University of Adelaide—in my colleague's electorate—is appalling. When you contemplate the advantages the minister got from his own affordable degree, what he now wants to do to those law students in Adelaide and to all university students around the country, including in my electorate, is even more appalling. They have a real failure on that side of the House to understand the lives of others. It is not just the Treasury talking about poor people not driving cars. It is really a more fundamental problem with understanding that there are some kids, such as the ones I mentioned before at that Uni-Reach day the week after the budget, who are trying to work out whether they can go to university. They will have to make that choice and they will be priced out of the market by this.
The difference between the two sides of the chamber is that our side fans the flames of ambition and opportunity in every young person but their side wants to extinguish them—not for everyone, but for some. That is unacceptable in a wealthy First World country like ours. We have got a big chance in this country to set ourselves up for the future. If we can get the human capital right, if we can get inclusive economic growth, if we give every person the opportunity to succeed so that everyone gets a stake in our prosperity, we have got a big chance to go to the front of the line in our region and around the world. This bill does the opposite. That is unacceptable in our country and that is why we oppose it so vehemently.
As I make my contribution to the debate on the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014 I am very pleased to see students from Griffith East Public School present in the gallery. This legislation is going to affect them. It is going to give them a more sustainable higher education system that they will benefit from. Griffith has a special place in my heart. My daughter, Georgina, teaches at Griffith High School. She is certainly helping to turn out some very good students who hopefully will go on to tertiary degrees. If they choose to get a trade certificate, they will also benefit from some of the reforms that this government is bringing in to help kids who choose not to go on to higher education but to go a different pathway and into a trade.
Certainly as far as higher education is concerned and certainly for the kids from Griffith East Public School, I am sure that the reforms we are hoping to get through the parliament will make a significant change to their lives, for the better. I am pleased that the member for Hunter has also taken the time and trouble to join me in the chamber, as he promised earlier, because he is a good man and he keeps his word I am sure on most things. I would like to tell the member for Hunter that by placing university funding on a sustainable footing, expanding opportunities for more students and freeing universities to compete, the government is securing the future of higher education in Australia. Labor cut more than $3 billion from higher education in just their last year of office, including Labor cuts to higher education—
Ms Kate Ellis interjecting—
I hear the member for Adelaide. She will agree with me that they are now blocking in the Senate and now they are vowing to stand in the way of higher education reforms which higher education leaders overwhelmingly believe are necessary. The Leader of the Opposition and member for Maribyrnong, Labor and the unions are not only hypocrites but they are blocking supported access to higher education for 80,000 more Australians, but they have no plan for tertiary education. Meanwhile the government, this side, is getting on with the job of giving Australia the very best higher education system in the world. We have to because it is one of our highest export earners.
This bill will deliver the fundamental and historical reforms to change the higher education sector for the better. This is the biggest reform in higher education for well over 40 years and it is reform called for by the tertiary education sector. There are many elements within this reform bill which will bring significant benefits to universities and to students right across the country, including to Griffith East Public School. However, I would like to contribute to this debate by discussing the impact of this bill, particularly in rural and regional communities such as those in my electorate of the Riverina. Arguably, rural and regional Australians have the most to gain from the government's higher education reforms. Under this government, funding for higher education is increasing, including the total Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding for student places and regional loadings.
This is rubbish!
You had your go; now listen to me! Deregulation of the higher education sector will encourage competition and will enable all universities, in particular, regional based universities—
The students have gone.
They have to go to the War Memorial. They have to go to other places.
They've had enough.
They are probably going to fill in their university acceptance forms for 10 years hence—to position and market themselves based on their disciplinary specialities, a competitive price structure and improved quality of life for students. From a National Party perspective, these reforms will have a significant impact in the regions and will benefit regional students, regional universities, business and industry and the community more generally. These reforms will encourage competition, provide greater choice for students and ensure that Australia is innovative and competitive on a global scale. It is important for the nation that regional Australia can fully participate in the modern economy and drive upwards the value of higher education in this country and internationally. The first step in working to achieve this is to address the disparity between those who have a degree in regional Australia compared to those in metropolitan cities.
The statistics which compare regional students to their city counterparts and their uptake of tertiary education pathways are quite disturbing. The majority of regional young people do not go into higher education. This is due to a variety of factors, but the financial barriers which regional families face to enable their sons and daughters to move away from home to pursue a tertiary education pathway are significant. It is an impediment on many, which surely means they do not get to pursue their dreams.
The figures are concerning in that just 17 per cent of 25- to 34-year-olds from regional areas have a bachelor degree or above, compared with 36 per cent from the same age group who live in the cities. In remote areas the figure is even lower at 15.4 per cent. There is a lot of hard work that needs to be done to bridge the gap between regional and city based students. We, as the government, have an obligation to do what we can to facilitate an increase in regional student participation rates in higher education. That is why The Nationals in government with the Liberals are committed to supporting regional students and why these reforms will change higher education for the better.
The major proportion of the 80,000 additional students who will benefit as a result of the government opening up the higher education system will be from lower socioeconomic and disadvantaged families. For regional students, the new Commonwealth Scholarships Scheme will create major opportunities to enable them to attend university. This is the largest Commonwealth scholarship fund in Australia's history and will require universities and higher education institutions to provide dedicated support to disadvantaged students. Our best and brightest students from the most disadvantaged backgrounds will have greater opportunities to pathways in tertiary education and will be provided with financial supported to assist with living their costs. They will no longer be held back by financial barriers.
This bill will help to bridge the divide between rural, regional and metropolitan students and will increase participation for low socioeconomic students and regional students. A highlight of these higher education reforms is that we have expanded the Higher Education Loan Program to encompass an uncapped number of diplomas, advanced diplomas and associate degrees as a pathway to get into undergraduate degrees. Regional students will be big beneficiaries of this historic reform—and it is historic. These subdegree pathways are opportunities which our regional young people are more likely to take and are a proactive way of addressing trade and skills shortages in the regions. Consequently, regional universities will be able to offer more of these types of study options, attracting more students and therefore becoming more competitive within the tertiary education sector. Also, by setting their own fees from 2016, regional universities will be able to successfully compete to attract more students and the students will directly benefit from the greater competition between universities.
There is no doubt that under these reforms, the HELP loan scheme remains the very best loan available to an individual in the country. It is a great deal for students—a low interest loan, no upfront costs, the Commonwealth acts as a guarantor and not a cent is required to be paid back until they are receiving a decent income, $50,000, upon graduation as a result of their education.
I listened very carefully to your excellent contribution, Member for Hughes, when you said that the interest rate will be at the 10-year bond rate which, as you pointed out, is 3.36 per cent—compared to a personal loan of 12 to 13 per cent, credit cards of 17 to 20 per cent, small business loans around 10 per cent or housing loans around six per cent. As you said, Deputy Speaker Kelly, in your contribution, sticking up for the students in your electorate of Hughes, that is the very best loan that they will ever get in their lives. What a great deal. There are significant benefits for regional communities in attracting students from across the country to undertake study in a regional setting. By studying at a regional university, students will experience a better quality of life—I believe that it is a better quality of life in Wagga Wagga than in Adelaide, the seat of the shadow minister at the table, but that is just my opinion—and bring significant benefits into local communities.
I would like to point out that the majority of students who study in the regions are more likely to remain in regional and rural areas. In fact, estimates show that those who are from the regions and study in the regions are around 70 per cent more likely to stay there. Therefore, if a greater amount of regional students have a tertiary qualification, as they will under these reforms, we will be increasing human capital and thereby enhancing the value and capacity of the regions and the local communities. We want regional students to realise, to be able to reach, their full potential. By providing new pathways under these reforms, our students will be able to be experts in specialist fields and leaders on the national and global stages.
For the very first time, regional universities will be able to compete on price with their city counterparts. This government has committed $274 million in regional loading over the next four years to support regional universities. The government listened to the concerns of regional universities while constructing these crucial reforms. In July, the Minister for Education, Christopher Pyne, toured regional Australia, visiting universities in towns from Mildura to Dubbo, Lismore, Mackay and Rockhampton—and in Wagga Wagga, Charles Sturt University, in my own electorate. Throughout this tour, the minister saw firsthand the specialisation and type of education which makes the experience of studying at a regional university distinctly different from the educational experience in a metropolitan area. Regional universities have a lot to offer in a competitive, deregulated higher education sector.
James Cook University in northern Queensland is world renowned when it comes to marine science and biology. At La Trobe University in Bendigo, Victoria, they are experts in the field of water management efficiency, with direct relation to the Murray-Darling Basin of which I am so fond. La Trobe also run a renowned pharmacy program; indeed, I note that the national Pharmacy Student of the Year 2013 was a pharmacy student from La Trobe, Bendigo. The University of New England in Armidale is the leading Australian university in distance and online education. It is the third largest and has the equal highest course satisfaction rate and high graduate salaries. UNE are leaders nationally and internationally in research, with an emphasis on interdisciplinary research on tackling complex problems in rural and regional Australia. Former Prime Minister and Leader of the Country Party Sir Earle Page was the first chancellor of the then University of Sydney Armidale campus, and a residential college was named after him, as it should be, in his honour.
Charles Sturt University, which has a campus at Wagga Wagga, is a great example, with each of its regional campuses having a specific disciplinary focus and specialist area. Orange is renowned for dentistry, pharmacy and agriculture and viticultural science. Bathurst has well-regarded degrees in journalism and communications, teaching and business. CSU Albury are specialists in physio. In my own electorate, at CSU Wagga Wagga, the education, nursing and veterinary programs are highly regarded. CSU Wagga Wagga are internationally accredited leaders in animal research, and the current veterinary school is named after my predecessor as the member for Riverina, the wonderful Kay Hull.
I have had numerous conversations with CSU Wagga Wagga Vice-Chancellor Professor Andrew Vann about the government's higher education reforms. In fact, I sat with the professor at dinner on both 22 July and 21 August. Professor Vann and I have had our differences in relation to the government's reforms; I acknowledge that. I also acknowledge the professor's concerns about the affordability of higher education and tuition fees for regional students. But I would like to assure Professor Vann that affordability and support for students is something that my colleagues and I in the National Party are aware of and are certainly talking about.
At The Nationals Federal Council last weekend, right here in Canberra, the council endorsed a motion expressing support for university fee deregulation. The motion also encapsulated the intent to call for greater weighting of scholarships to regional universities on a needs basis, due to the greater capacity of larger, city based universities to allocate funds from their higher fees to offer more scholarships. The minister has established working groups to work through the detail of how we might structure Commonwealth scholarships to ensure they meet our goal of greater equity in accessing higher education so that students from regional and rural Australia will no longer be held back by financial barriers.
The disciplinary fields in which regional universities excel will drive domestic competition, build Australia's reputation in the education and research sector, and result in regional unis becoming global leaders. I am quite sure of that. By diversifying and expanding our tertiary education sector, regional universities will be less vulnerable and more competitive with metropolitan based universities. Given a third of the country's population lives in regional Australia, it is critically important that greater emphasis be placed on regional education.
By investing in our regional unis, we are investing in regional Australia's future, and that is so very important. In doing so, we are building national productivity growth, creating diversity and competiveness in the regions, building a platform for becoming global leaders and innovators, creating an insurance policy for regional Australia's future and ensuring that regional students can reach their full potential. Our regional universities can be world class. These reforms will give them the best chance, to date, of competing at the top.
I commend Senator Bridget McKenzie from The Nationals for her extensive and proactive work within higher education; she has engaged comprehensively with education providers and the wider tertiary sector, and is Chair of the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee. In fact, only yesterday afternoon, Senator McKenzie met with the Regional Universities Network here in parliament. The network supports reform of the higher education sector, and Chair Professor Peter Lee has said:
We are particularly pleased that the Government has decided to keep the demand driven system for bachelor places and extended it to sub-bachelor places. This will assist in providing pathways and lift participation in higher education in regional Australia for less well prepared students …
I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to place on the record my staunch opposition to the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill, which is currently before the House. I am disgusted that this piece of legislation would even come before the House but I am even more appalled that those opposite have the gall to sign up to and come into this House to try to sell this piece of legislation to the parliament and to the communities that each and every one of them went out of their way to deceive at the last election. Now, we are not short of examples of where the government have broken very clear election commitments—where they have made a clear promise to the Australian public and then turfed it aside the moment they got on the government benches—but I do not know that there are many examples that are clearer than this piece of legislation before us in the parliament.
Let us just be very, very clear about what the Australian public were told before the election. Before the election, the Prime Minister said: 'I want to give people this absolute assurance: no cuts to education,' he said, on 1 September. The now education minister went further when he said: 'We're not going to raise fees.' He said: 'We have no plans to increase fees.' If you have listened to the Prime Minister, he says that if you want to make sure that he really means what he says, you have to make sure you get it in writing. Well, we have it in writing—in the Liberal policy document which spelt out for Australians exactly what those opposite would do if they were elected to government. What they told the Australian public before the election, in their own Liberal policy document, was:
We will ensure the continuation of the current arrangements of university funding.
That is from the Real solutions document. I am going to repeat that, just so that those opposite can be reminded of their treachery—of their utter deception and betrayal of the communities that they are meant to come in here and represent. This is what they said before the election:
We will ensure the continuation of the current arrangements of university funding.
Well, don't we hear a different story from them now! The previous speaker from the government side, rather than saying that they 'will ensure the continuation of the current arrangements', was bragging about how 'the bill we have before the House is the biggest reform in over 40 years to the higher education sector'. There was no talk about that before the election. There was no talk about the sustainability that is required in the higher education system. In fact, on every single thing that those opposite told the Australian communities—that there would be no change; there would be no increase in fees; there would be no higher education reforms—haven't they shown just the extent of their dishonesty, yet again, in this appalling piece of legislation.
So let us have a look at what they are instead proposing to do. Now we have before us a proposal which we know will hurt future students but also former students, current students, Australia's economy and our future prosperity. In front of us, rather than sticking with their pre-election commitments—of the current arrangements of our higher education sector, of no cuts to education, of no increases to university fees—what we see is a 20 per cent cut to university funding, a cut of $5.8 billion from universities, including slashing funding for undergraduate places by up to 37 per cent. That certainly looks like a cut to education to me, and to anyone else who has a look at this bill.
We have in front of us legislation to deregulate fees, allowing universities to charge what they like, so that students may face degrees costing over $100,000, with absolutely no limit on what they can be charged. So much can fees increase that the education minister himself has conceded that he cannot tell the Australian public just how much fees will increase—that he simply does not know. But the one thing that we all know is that he cannot keep and not a single member from the government benches opposite can keep the commitment that they made to their communities that fees would not increase, because they will. We know that up to $3,900 per year for higher research degrees such as PhD and Masters programs can be charged.
We know that this bill introduces a compounding, real interest rate for all HECS-HELP debts, both future and existing, so that it will be indexed by the 10-year government bond rate rather than at the consumer price index, and that what we will see is fees just continuing to increase and increase further. In fact, the lower the income that you are on when you graduate from university, or the greater the amount of time that you have out of the workforce, the more you will pay for your degree, because that is the way that this government operates. It is the poorest, the lowest income earners, who will pay the most for their education, because this government does not know the meaning of the word fairness.
We also know that they are cutting almost $174 million from the Research Training Scheme. That scheme supports training of Australia's research students, the scientists and academics of tomorrow.
I am proud to stand here and oppose this, because I know that $324½ million will be cut from South Australian universities, all of which have campuses in the electorate of Adelaide which I represent: Flinders University—$85.9 million cut; Adelaide University—$114.3 million cut; the University of South Australia—$124.3 million cut.
These changes are asking students to make an impossible choice. What this piece of legislation is doing is asking students to have to choose between pursuing their education or perhaps getting a mortgage and buying a house; between pursuing their dreams of an education or starting the family that they would like to have.
This piece of legislation is not only a very clear demonstration of a broken promise by each and every one of those opposite to the communities they are meant to come here and represent but also a betrayal of every student who hopes to one day go on and get an education. There is no way that massively inflated student fees will not deter those from disadvantaged backgrounds from deciding that they are just not willing to take on more debt—more debt than their family have ever shouldered in their lifetime—in order to go and get an education, and take the risk that they will get a job at the end of that education which will allow them to pay it back. And, by deregulating fees, universities will be able to charge as much as they like. This will, no doubt, lead to higher fees for students as universities look to prove their value by charging more. Recent research shows that degrees could skyrocket to over $100,000.
Nowhere in the world has deregulation of university fees led to price competition and lower fees for students. So those opposite who come in here spreading this nonsense about what a great deal students are getting out of this should look at every single piece of international research about what has happened elsewhere.
In the UK, fees were deregulated in 2012, with a cap of £9,000—unlike here, where this government will not put any such cap in place—but, for the 2015-16 academic year, there will only be two universities out of 123 that will not be charging the maximum £9,000. We see there, as we have seen everywhere else around the world, what the real impact of deregulation is, and the real impact of deregulation is slugging students and then slugging students again.
In the United States—the system that our education minister seems so keen for us to emulate, for some reason—university fee rises are out of control, to the extent that student debt now exceeds credit card debt. That is quite a vision for the Australian higher education sector—after telling the Australian public there would be no changes to the university sector.
We know that the higher interest rate of debt will mean those who earn less once they graduate, or who take time off to look after children, will be hit hardest, as their debt accumulates substantial interest. But it is not just every potential future university student that will be hit and hit hard by these changes. It is quite clear that these changes will hurt future students—it will burden them with a choking debt, or deter them from going to university at all—but what many may not know is that the legislation that is currently before the House will hit every current student, and past students too.
There are currently around 1.2 million Australians with a HECS-HELP debt who entered university with the understanding that that debt would attract CPI interest. This legislation increases the interest up to a massive six per cent. These students did not agree to this. This was not part of the deal that they signed up for when they went about getting their university education. This government is proposing to change the rules on them after the event. The contract has been ripped up. It is simply deceitful and it is simply unfair.
The Minister for Education has been particularly devious, deceitful and malicious in trying to get support for these incredibly unpopular changes. After months of everybody jumping up and down—talking about what an absolute betrayal these proposals are, talking about the immense damage that these proposals will do to our education system—the education minister has a new tactic for trying to win this debate.
He says: 'Backed by legislation, let me slash education funding to our higher education institutions—sure, we'll let them make it up, by deregulating fees and slugging students—because if you don't, I will slash Australian universities' research budgets.' This is the only way he can try and win the argument. Isn't that a way to win a debate, a debate that never should have come to this House! This debate is built on the deceit of every one of those opposite at the last election—blackmailing every university, blackmailing our future research. This extortion is the best argument that their minister can put forward. It just shows what an absolute disgrace this bill is.
We know that the higher compounding interest on HECS-HELP debts will mean that those who take more time out of the workforce to raise children or those in lower paid jobs will be much worse off and these students statistically are commonly female. Debts of students studying nursing, teaching, early education and similar degrees could actually end up being far greater than the debts of those studying the higher paying careers of engineering, law and medicine, because those who are on low or middle incomes will again be hit by these changes and be hit by the changes to interest rates. Those people who are on low and middle incomes who take time out of the workforce to raise their children will be hit by their debt compounding each and every year that they stay out of the workforce. We know that the debt will just keep racking up because those opposite have the gall to come in here and propose to do exactly the opposite of what they told the Australian public before the election.
The impact of this legislation—coupled with this government's $1 billion in cuts already announced to our childcare sector—will have severe impacts on women's workforce participation. We know that many of the university vice chancellors have spoken out and spoken out strongly. But I want to use the remainder of my time here today to tell you about some of the views of the people that I represent, the people of Adelaide, who I have been absolutely upfront with. Unlike every one of those opposite, who has deceived their own constituents, I have said all along that I will always fight in this place for greater access to education, for improvements to equality around our education system; I will not shut the door and make it harder for the generations that come after us.
One of my constituents, Jane, wrote to me saying:
Education is the key for keeping a sense of equality and the way to make us a clever country.
Why cut funding to Universities? Hearing Vice Chancellors ask how can they keep up the status quo let alone advance without increasing fees. I am appalled.
Another, Chloe, said:
I fear that younger generations may not have the freedom to pursue their passions because they will be restricted to choosing a course which has reduced subsidies and will guarantee them a job. This is not what university is about.
Mia wrote, saying:
I don't think I'll be affected by University fee deregulation, but how will younger members of my family ever hope to pay off their degrees? As I know you know, we struggle enough.
And Tom said:
These measures would discourage young people such as myself from seeking further education, potentially resulting in a lack of skilled labour in the country. What I find particularly distasteful is the idea of applying this interest rate to existing debts which were entered into in good faith, often by relatively naive teenagers straight from school. This includes people like me.
This legislation is thoroughly unpopular; not just because it is an appalling proposal but because it absolutely epitomises the pure dishonesty of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Education. Members opposite have put their names on the speaking list and dared to tell their constituents before the last election that there would be no cuts to education, no changes to our university fees system. And now they come in here proposing all of a sudden: 'Surprise! We're going to introduce these radical and backwards reforms.' I oppose this legislation and I am very proud to do so.
I am very pleased to rise to speak on the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014—a bill which will amend the Higher Education Support Act to implement the measures contained in the 2014-15 budget dealing with higher education. This is an important bill which will expand opportunities for students and ensure that Australia has a world-class tertiary education system. In the time available to me this afternoon, I want to make three arguments: firstly, that universities are critical to our national economic performance; secondly, that Australian universities are seriously constrained in the way that they operate today; and, thirdly, that the government's changes will free up universities to be more competitive and flexible and, hence, to be higher performing.
Let me turn firstly to the point that universities are critical to our national economic performance. I want to touch on some indicators of the economic importance and significance of universities. There is evidence that improved investment in education delivers economic returns. For example, the OECD has estimated a net present value of around $104,000 per man and $71,000 per woman who are university educated, attributed mainly to the higher lifetime taxes paid by a university graduate in excess of the direct costs of funding the additional university place. Secondly, universities play a very important role as an employer. According to a policy note released by the Group of Eight universities, in 2012 there were 112,699 full-time equivalent employees in the public higher education system, and that system generated around $25 billion of revenue.
Another important argument is the return on investment in research and development. The Universities Australia pre-budget submission in 2014 looked at a large number of studies conducted in a wide range of countries over a 30-year period to the mid-nineties which consistently found that the rate of return on investment in research and development is high. Equally importantly, of course, is the fact that innovation from research and development—in which universities play a key role—is a key driver of per capita income growth, increasing productivity and living standards.
I think we can cast some further light on this subject of the importance of universities to economic performance by considering the experience of the United States—a country which is widely recognised as having the best research universities in the world. I would like to refer to a very interesting book written by Jonathan Cole, the former provost of Columbia University, entitled The Great American University: Its Rise to Preeminence, Its Indispensable National Role, Why It Must Be Protected. In his book, Dr Cole notes that as at 2009 40 of the top 50 universities in the world were in the United States, according to a research based assessment from the Shanghai Jiao Tong University. Since the 1930s, roughly 60 per cent of all Nobel prizes have gone to Americans, and a very high proportion of leading new industries in the United States—perhaps as many as 80 per cent—are derived from discoveries at US universities. He cites the laser, FM radio, the Google Search algorithm, GPS, DNA and fingerprinting, to name just a few. Dr Cole puts it this way:
… universities have evolved into creative machines unlike any other that we have known in our history—cranking out information and discoveries in a society increasingly dependent on knowledge as the source for its growth.
I think there are some important lessons for the Australian higher education sector in the observations made in his book regarding the importance of higher education in contributing to national economic competitiveness.
Indeed, my views in this area were confirmed or strengthened when I had the good fortune to visit Silicon Valley at the start of the year. Amongst other things, I attended a presentation given by Coursera—the well-known although relatively new company established by two Stanford University computer science professors. Coursera operates MOOCs, Massive Online Open Courses. Coursera's courses are now allowing millions of students to take courses online from well-known academics at Stanford and other prestigious universities around the world, including Melbourne University, the University of New South Wales and the University of Western Australia. These are exciting developments for these universities involved, but they mean also that every university needs to think very carefully about its competitiveness, including its competitiveness internationally, what its position in the market is and how it sustains that position.
The other important and interesting lesson to draw from the US experience is the importance of private funding as part of the overall funding mix in the United States system. According to the 2013 document issued by the OECD, Indicators: Education at a Glance, US expenditure on tertiary education as a percentage of GDP is significantly higher than the OECD average, but a significant proportion of that expenditure comes from private sources as opposed to government funding. In Australia, our total expenditure on tertiary education as a percentage of GDP is much lower than in the US. If we can get more funding into our system from private sources, we can increase total funding into the university system, we can make our university system stronger and we can make it a more important contributor than it already is to economic performance and innovation—something which is so critical in the modern knowledge economy.
The other trend which clearly emerges is that there is a substantial level of private funding at the tertiary level across most OECD countries and that over time that is growing. That is not something that is surprise, because the capacity of all governments to continue to fund without limit their tertiary education system when they face many other demands on the public purse is not endless. So governments around the world are facing many of the same issues as the Australian government.
That brings me to my second point, which is that universities in Australia today are seriously constrained in how they operate. Under the previous Labor government we saw an uncapping of Commonwealth supported places. That was a sensible thing to do—as far as it went—and this government is maintaining the demand-driven system. But in the deregulation of student numbers, the previous Labor government did only half the job—they failed to deregulate the setting of fees. In other words, they deregulated quantity but not price—a half-hearted attempt at deregulation. The consequences of this are significant. Today, universities have little scope to differentiate or, should they be able to, to capture a premium for being able to offer a premium product.
At the other end of the spectrum, the current system discourages universities from choosing to discount or compete on price. As a corollary of the current arrangements, there is very heavy reliance on international student fees as the principal area where universities are relatively free in their price setting. Ian Young, the vice-chancellor of the Australian National University and chair of the Group of Eight universities, had this to say recently in remarks which I think sum up the position very well:
We have universities that enrol large numbers of students, teach them as cheaply as possible, and then use the income to cover both education costs and meet the shortfall in research funding.
He went on to say:
This is why our major research universities typically have student populations of more than 40,000 students. Compare that to Stanford with 15,000 students, Cambridge with 18,000, Tokyo with 28,000, ETH Zurich with 18,000 and the outstanding Caltech with only 2200 students.
As the G8 universities have pointed out in a recent research paper, much of the problem we face goes back to Gough Whitlam. Whitlam set an expectation that the costs of those who benefit personally from higher education be paid substantially by those who do not. In doing that, he markedly changed the principle which had for a long time previously applied to higher education in Australia—namely, that because students derive very substantial private benefit from having a degree due to their increased earning power, it is fair that they contribute towards the cost of the degree. We are left today with a system which continues to be in large measure a legacy of Gough Whitlam in which by far the largest source of funding for universities is government. This creates significant constraints on universities at a time when they face ever more intense global competition, and we should be concerned that many top-ranking Australian universities are slipping in international ranks year-on-year.
I quoted earlier the Shanghai Jiao Tong University index that shows there are four Australian universities in the top 100. Again, I draw the contrast between that and the number I cited earlier of 40 American universities in the top 50 in 2009.
The changes contained in the package before the House this afternoon will improve the flexibility and competitiveness of our universities and lead to a higher-performing university system. Deregulation is the logical next step in an ongoing reform process. It will give universities more autonomy and flexibility and they will be free to compete on price and course offerings. Ian Young, ANU Vice-Chancellor said, 'Deregulation will enable universities to differentiate, to play to their strengths.'
The measures contained in the legislation before the House this afternoon are consistent with the course of higher education policy development in Australia over the last 30 years. They arise from a path of incremental steps that have been taken over time to improve responsiveness to changing education policy. I do want to emphasise that, despite some of the rhetoric from the other side of the House, the package contains a number of very important equity and fairness measures. The government has committed to maintaining the HELP loan scheme so that no student need pay a cent up-front for their higher education until they graduate and are earning a decent income over $50,000 a year as a result of their education. Additionally, the Commonwealth will require new Commonwealth scholarship schemes to support access to higher education. Universities will be required to spend $1 in $5 of additional revenue on scholarships for disadvantaged students.
Vice-Chancellor of the Australian Catholic University, Greg Craven, in an article in The Australian addressed some of the over stated and overblown claims that have been made about the equity impacts of the measures in the bill before the House today. He said:
… Pyne has retained and extended Labor's great initiative: open university entry for every qualified person, under the de-mand-driven system. In real equity terms, it is much more important the kid from Panania gets their chance than the price of decorative arts law at Sydney stays steady.
Third, in a scarcely remarked move, Pyne has moved decisively to protect students entering lowly paid but socially vital professions.
Yes, public support for students will decrease overall, but the cut to nurses and teachers, for example, will be noticeably less, recognising their relatively limited earning opportunities, as well as the comparatively low cost of providing their degrees.
That is an important recognition from the Vice-Chancellor of a university, which, as he notes in his article, educates quite a number of Australia's nurses and teachers. That is important recognition of the equity aspects of the package before the House this afternoon and highlights the point that some of the criticisms that have been made of the equity implications of the package are very much overblown.
A key priority for a coalition government always is to consider the impact of any set of measures on regional Australia and, in this case, on regional universities. An important aspect of this package is that the government will also continue to support regional higher education directly through $274 million in regional loading over the next four years in recognition of the higher costs of regional campuses.
There has also been a lot of overblown speculation about the impact on fees if universities are free to set prices as they judge appropriate. Much of that overblown commentary tends to ignore the reality that the universities will be operating in a competitive market; they will face a market discipline. It will not be open to a university to set fees which are conspicuously above those charged by its competitors. They will be subject to the same market disciplines as anybody operating in a market.
The package before the House this afternoon is a very important package because what it does is continue a reform direction in education that has been under way for some time. It recognises the importance of our universities being high performing. It recognises the importance of universities being free to chart their own course and gives them much greater freedom to do that than they have had under the previous heavily regulated arrangements. That is important for universities, that is important for students but, most of all, it is important for our national economic performance because universities are such a critical part of our economy. As we become more and more a knowledge economy, that will only increase.
the Higher Education Research and Reform Amendment Bill 2014 is bad legislation from a bad government that has total disrespect for Australia's future.
The legislation is another broken promise from a government that said one thing before the election and another thing after the election. It is an attack on universities. It is an attack on students. It is an attack on research. And it is an attack on Australia's future. It was very interesting to hear the previous speaker, the member for Bradfield, talk about Australia's economic future. I do not think there is any piece of legislation that we have discussed in this parliament in recent times that has the potential to be a greater attack on Australia's economic future as a 'Knowledge Nation'.
Unfortunately, the Abbott government, and previously the Howard government, have always believed that university education should only be enjoyed by those in our society who they consider are the right type of people: people who are wealthy, people who have the money to pay. It has no commitment to a fair go. It has always been committed to some form of social engineering whereby it ensures that those people who they deem are the right kind of people to undertake a university education are the ones who do so. It is the Liberal way.
When Brendan Nelson, the former member for Bradfield, was the Minister for Education, he made very, very telling comments. In one newspaper—and I am paraphrasing his words—the former education minister said that introducing fee flexibility would mean some courses would rise, some courses would drop and some would stay the same according to demand. He also said that some courses may increase their tuition fees in some disciplines, some institutions intended to reduce their fees and some university vice-chancellors had always said that they would not charge their HECS charges, and that it was quite wrong for critics to say that every HECS charge will go up by 30 per cent. Does that sound familiar? That is exactly what Christopher Pyne is saying when he talks about this legislation and those statements that Brendan Nelson made at the time were proven wrong.
This legislation is opposed by most of the people who I represent in this parliament. This government is committed to the $200,000 degrees, which will come from fee deregulation. We on this side of the parliament are opposed to cutting public funding. We are opposed to the Americanisation of our world-class university system. Every step along the way and every piece of legislation that this government introduces in the parliament is taking us towards the Americanisation of universities and health, and the government has no consideration whatsoever for the overall value that universities and health play in our society.
The opposition values the role of universities. We value this role not only in the way it helps to educate individuals but also in its contribution to communities—communities like the community I come from, where the University of Newcastle plays a vital role. I must put on the record that that university has some very serious concerns about the impact of this legislation. It does oppose, I believe, any scenario which would reduce funding either to the Commonwealth Grants Scheme or to research allocations to universities. Unfortunately, this legislation has the potential to do that.
Research-intensive universities located in regions, such as the University of Newcastle, are uniquely vulnerable to the proposed cuts. Newcastle university conducts world-class research, so it is not only the increase in the cost of a degree but it is the impact that it will have on research. Newcastle university understands that fee deregulation will impact on students attending the university and the university itself.
I have read through literature that shows when fees were deregulated in the UK it led to an increase in the cost of university education. Education at universities in the US is practically unaffordable. Every single university over there really makes it very difficult for students actually to attend.
It seems to me that this is the vision that this government has for universities. It is pretty much what the Minister for Education has to say about deregulation. We heard about what Brendan Nelson said previously and those words are mimicked by Christopher Pyne when he talks about full fee deregulation. Every single university will end up having a 20 per cent cut to funding and that will put enormous stress upon the universities.
I do value the role of universities and, coming from the area that I do, I acknowledge that it has only been by government supporting universities that the Newcastle university has grown to the position it is in at the moment. It is one of the top universities in Australia and it is respected worldwide. It is only because of the support that has been given to universities such as Newcastle, which are located in disadvantaged areas, that they can continue to deliver world-class research and innovation in their communities. In a deregulated market it is going to be very difficult for that to continue. The University of Newcastle is ranked in the top three per cent of universities in the world, in the top 10 universities in Australia for research and for quality teaching, and is the top university in Australia under 50 years of age. Not a bad performing university.
The Shortland electorate has a fairly low median income. The median weekly income is $1,287, compared to some Liberal electorates like Wentworth where the median income is $2,643 or even the member Sturt electorate where it is over $1,500 a week. I notice the member for Dobell is sitting in the chamber. I know that people living on the Central Coast have a low-median weekly income and she acknowledges that. There have been enormous problems with students on the Central Coast being able to access university and the retention rate at schools is very low. We need every incentive possible to enable those students to attend university.
This legislation before us today will make it harder for those students. When those students are faced with the thought of having to repay loans, that is one of the major blocks to them undertaking university. We should be encouraging and facilitating all those young people who want to go to university to go to university, but this legislation has so many blocks in place—blocks to research and the development of that side of university and blocks to encouraging disadvantaged students to attend university.
Another feature of Newcastle university is that more than 60 per cent of the undergraduate students are considered non-school leavers. I attended Newcastle university. When I left school, I decided I needed time off before I went to university. I could have gone straight to university, but I did not. When I did decide to go to university, there was absolutely no way I would have considered going if I had been confronted with the possibility of incurring a debt, the kind of debt that students will incur going to university under this legislation and debt that will attract a real rate of interest.
This will discourage mature-age people from going to university. I am sure there are some on the other side of this House who would prefer that I had not gone back to university. I feel that our community has really benefited enormously from mature-age students. I have a number of friends who went to university as their children got older and did the Open Foundation and became teachers and nurses. This is something that Newcastle university nurtures. I believe that this legislation is anti-student, anti-university, anti-research and anti-Australian. Deregulation has not made university fees any cheaper overseas. In fact, it has led to universities charging higher fees. When the real interest rates are put in place on HECS loans, we know they will go up and go up substantially. These loans are really a hidden subsidy. The indexing of HECS-HELP loans at CPI is a core part of the scheme's original design. The architect of HECS, Bruce Chapman, described it as having insurance. Now to apply real interest rates to HECS is regressive. Everybody to whom I have spoken to oppose this. I have met with a number of parents and with students, and they are very worried about this.
Under the current proposal for the Commonwealth Scholarship Scheme, the wealthier students and the higher-charging courses will end up with more money to give to those scholarships. It is very unfair in the way it will work. One in $5 of the additional revenue universities raise above their per student capita will go towards this scheme. That will entrench even further an unfair system, a system that is going to attack our universities, attack our students. It will mean that the already privileged universities will be able to use the money for other students and regional universities will have to choose between raising fees to offer scholarships.
This will work against universities in regions like Newcastle. Newcastle university is strong under every single criteria. It is a great university for research. It is very innovative. It has done a lot to welcome and encourage students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds as well as providing very high-quality courses. I strongly oppose this legislation. It is bad legislation on every possible front and the government needs to go back to the drawing board and come up with something that is fair and equitable.
The member for Shortland and I do not agree on much, but one thing we do agree on is how outstanding Newcastle university is. I rise to support this government's higher education reforms proposed by the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014. They give effect to providing opportunity to more students, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds and rural and regional areas. The bill introduces, inter alia, a range of measures to place Australia on the global map as a provider of world-leading university education. The reforms proposed within this bill expand opportunities for students by supporting more courses, which will provide greater diversity and higher skills to meet shifting job skills demand; increasing support for disadvantaged rural and regional students through Australia's greatest scholarship scheme; and ensuring Australian universities are not left behind at a time of rising performance by growing international university systems within our region and worldwide.
This bill also guarantees that our higher education system is sustainable into the future and that our third largest export, the $15 billion international education market, is protected and that growth is encouraged. These reforms are necessary to prevent Australian education institutions from being left behind. Our current system is outdated and if the status quo remains we will see Australian universities become uncompetitive with international institutions. Unfortunately, we are now seeing Australian universities declining in world rankings. In 2014, The Times higher education reputation rankings listed only five Australian universities in the world's top 100, compared to six the previous year. Five years ago there were no Chinese universities ranked in the world's top 200 universities. Today there are six. Higher education institutions require the flexibility to respond appropriately to increasing challenges, including student mobility, technological advancement and rapid innovation.
Many institutions have been frustrated by the restriction of regulation, stifling the development of creative means to compete with international providers. To secure the sustainability of our future workforce, Australia needs a diverse economy capable of adapting to global competition. These reforms will see our tertiary institutions afforded new incentives and opportunities to develop partnerships and encourage innovative courses which will deliver the skills and capabilities as demanded by local employers and industry.
Higher education has a vital role in our society as a catalyst of economic growth through educating and upskilling our future and current workforce, in addition to producing quality research. These reforms expand choice and opportunity and will strengthen this vital section of our economy.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene. I would like to ask the member a question.
Is the member for Dobell willing to give way?
No, I am not taking it, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The intervention is not accepted.
This bill will enable, by 2018, an additional 80,000 higher education students per year to gain access to government subsidies. For the first time ever students will receive Commonwealth support to undertake and complete diplomas, advanced diploma and associate degrees. All Australian undergraduate students in registered higher education institutions will be supported for all accredited courses.
This bill enhances opportunity. For an electorate such as Dobell, this measure will see more people afforded the opportunity to engage in higher education, in addition to attracting quality jobs as a result of a highly educated labour market. By extending Commonwealth support to diploma courses, we are providing an important pathway to higher education for those students seeking later admission to university studies.
Providing students the opportunity to develop the skills required to successfully undertake higher education, ensures that they have the best chance of attending university and attaining a tertiary qualification. This is especially important in regional and low-socioeconomic areas where students are currently afforded less opportunity to enter into higher education, as compared to students living in metropolitan areas.
In Dobell, only 50 per cent of students attain year 12 qualifications. Students who do not complete their Higher School Certificate are often denied the opportunity to attend university. On the Central Coast, only 16 per cent of residents possess a tertiary qualification. It is my aim to see that number increase.
By extending student access to the HELP scheme, we will open the door to people who were previously unable to meet the up-front costs of a diploma pathway course, which allows more people to participate in undergraduate studies at university.
We are also extending Commonwealth support to enable private universities and non-university higher education institutions to compete for students. By doing so, we acknowledge the role played by private institutions in contributing to the diversity of Australian higher education. By extending support to private institutions we are welcoming and encouraging them to play a greater role in providing higher education.
Again, this will benefit regional communities where non-traditional providers can meet the demand for higher education services. This is a significant reform for regional communities such as the Central Coast.
The University of Newcastle has demonstrated a commitment to the Central Coast, with the establishment of its Ourimbah campus, which is currently celebrating its 25th anniversary. The Ourimbah campus offers 16 undergraduate degrees, four of them exclusively, and sees a partnership with TAFE that provides diverse educational opportunities.
The Ourimbah campus partnership with TAFE will benefit from funding for pathway and other diploma courses, which will see more people provided the opportunity to succeed at university. Unfortunately, despite the outstanding work of the University of Newcastle, many local students have no option but to travel to Sydney or Newcastle to study their chosen course.
Unfortunately, once qualified, few return to the Central Coast to undertake employment, settle down and raise families. So this is seeing us exporting our best and brightest to metropolitan areas. Figures released by Wyong Shire Council have estimated a shortfall of 7,600 university places within the Central Coast and the Hunter Valley.
Based on forecasted population growth it is expected that this number will increase to 8,600 by 2031. Our growth plan for the Central Coast recognised this shortfall and included a commitment to facilitate the approval process for university development in our region. This commitment is forged from the understanding that universities play a crucial role in driving development in regional areas through job creation and educating the community.
I am proud to be working with Wyong Shire Council, as they develop a master plan for a new university precinct at Warnervale. On the back of these reforms is a vision that this precinct will be home to a diverse range of education providers, including a university, a TAFE and other private education institutions.
Private institutions and non-university higher education providers will be encouraged to establish themselves in regions such as the Central Coast as they will now be able to offer Commonwealth subsidised courses to a market in which courses are currently not available. For the people of Dobell, this is critically important in ensuring that they have access to world-class education facilities that will unlock the prosperity of our region for years to come.
This reform package also empowers universities to determine the appropriate fees for their courses, which will generate a competitive market for students between a greater range of providers. Currently, higher education institutions have little means to distinguish themselves within the market and demonstrate the true monetary value of their courses. It is fair to say that universities have been operating with one arm tied behind their back.
Despite the government not being in a positon to know the true cost for a university to deliver a course, it had been imposing upon universities how much they can charge their students. This is unique within the Australian economy and has undoubtedly restricted the growth of university standards when compared to foreign universities. Competition between higher education providers will benefit students as they will now have a greater array of choice when it comes to course offerings and prices. Fees will be set on the basis of supply and demand in a competitive market. This competition will drive quality and encourage providers to be more responsive to the needs of their students and the needs of business and industry. Ultimately, all providers will be required to compete on price and quality, meaning more flexibility and choice for students.
As previously highlighted, the Central Coast has a below average number of people completing secondary education, undertaking tertiary education or possessing a tertiary qualification. The contributing factors include but are not limited to: a shortfall in available local university courses; costs associated with transport or relocation to metropolitan areas; and below average education attainment rates. This government is determined to assist people who find themselves in these difficult situations. This is why this government will establish the new Commonwealth scholarship scheme. These scholarships will deliver major new support for regional students to attend university.
Under the proposed higher education system, we will require universities and other higher education providers to spend $1 in every $5 of additional revenue raised on scholarships for disadvantaged students. Universities and higher education institutions will be able to provide tailored, individualised support to students of a low socioeconomic status. This may include needs based scholarships to help meet the costs of living, fee exceptions or tutorial support. For a Dobell school leaver unable to afford to relocate to Sydney, such assistance can result in them having the opportunity to attend university and achieve a sustained path of employment and investment in their future. These scholarships will be of enormous benefit to students from regions, including the Central Coast.
I struggle to understand why members opposite are so committed in their opposition to these reforms. It is one thing to oppose these measures in parliament on ideological grounds, but to see members opposite parading around university campuses and blatantly peddling lies to scare students away from higher education is shameful. This government is not—I repeat not—increasing fees. Fees will be set by universities who will determine what to charge. Competition between higher education providers will ensure universities are reasonable when setting their fees. Higher education providers will compete for students. The truth is that, under these reforms, more students will have the opportunity to attend university and they will not face any up-front costs.
The government is maintaining the Higher Education Loan Program scheme, meaning no student will pay a cent up-front for their higher education until they have graduated and are earning a reasonable income of over $50,000. As a government, we believe that it is fair that students contribute equitably to the cost of their education. We are asking students to pay for 50 per cent of their higher education costs. The Australian taxpayer will pay the other 50 per cent. Under the current system, the Australian taxpayer is meeting 60 per cent of the cost, with students paying the other 40 per cent. It is folly to suggest that somehow these reforms are delivering a cut to education funding.
This government's expenditure on higher education increases each year. Compared with Labor's 2013-14 budget, where total education funding was $8.97 billion, our budget shows higher education funding growing to $9.47 billion by 2017-18. We are supporting more access for people to attend university and other higher education institutions. Members opposite would have you think that there is no support for these reforms. Vice-chancellors across Australia overwhelmingly support this government's reform package, with Professors Gareth Evans and Ian Young of the Australian National University stating:
The bottom line is that if Australia is to develop universities which can truly compete internationally … and produce really outstanding graduates of the kind that are so vital to our nation’s future, we have to not only allow, but encourage, diversity by removing the constraints that prevent innovation.
I look forward to the unlocked potential these reforms will deliver, in particular for regions such as the Central Coast. We will see renewed investment from higher education providers and greater opportunity for local students. We will see higher paid jobs as a result of industry and business being attracted to regional areas through the provision of a better educated workforce.
Students need not fear these reforms. Students should embrace the endless opportunities afforded to them by this nation's great universal education system and have the confidence to say, 'I can follow my dreams and there are no barriers to prevent me from reaching my full potential.' The possibilities are truly endless. I commend this legislation to the House.
I, like many on this side of the House, rise tonight to speak in opposition to the government's Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014. Listening to the previous speaker, the member for Dobell, outlining her support for this bill was truly amazing. I challenge her to go to the people of Dobell and read that speech to young families who are concerned about their children's future and how they will ever be able to access university. This bill will be detrimental to the families of Dobell and it will mean that people from regional areas like Dobell will not be able to attend university, and she should tell them that.
This bill is another broken promise. It is an unfair plan which will result in an increase in the cost of degrees—up to $100,000. It will also result in crippling debt and vicious cuts to university course funding. The bill is a fundamental attack on one of the most basic rights, and that is the right to access a decent education. It is particularly hard for those people who live in regional and rural areas. In terms of regional areas, such as my electorate of Richmond, I have pointed out many times in this House that there are vast differences between members of the Labor Party and members of the National Party, who often represent other regional areas. The difference in relation to this issue is a massive one. It really goes to the core of what value you place on education. Whilst Labor is absolutely committed to making sure that everyone is able to access a decent education, wherever they may live, it is the National Party who are selling out regional Australia by supporting this legislation. It is an absolute disgrace and it is an issue that we will fight the Nationals on, every day up until the next election.
Locals on the North Coast in my electorate are already under attack by this government's cruel and unfair budget. We have already seen the government's plans for bringing in the $7 doctor tax, for cutting pensions, for the petrol tax, and now they want to bring in extreme university fees. Make no mistake: the families on the North Coast will hold the National Party responsible for their plans to take away the ability of regional students to access university. Make absolutely no mistake about that. The Nationals will be taking away the opportunity for students from our rural and regional areas to access the skills and the education to advance their careers and to have opportunities into the future.
It is the Nationals who will be held responsible for the fact that young people will not be able to go to university and mature age students will not be able to get into university. Those from struggling families will not be able to get in, women will not be able to get in, and all those people from rural and regional areas will not be able to get in to university, and they will hold the National Party to account.
My message tonight is very specific to the National Party. You cannot hide out on this one. When you come into the chamber and you vote in support of this unfair legislation, you are abandoning the people of regional and rural Australia and you will be held to account. Not only do these measures make it more difficult for those from regional areas to attend university; they also make it more difficult for regional universities to compete with larger, city-based institutions and to remain viable in the face of some of these changes.
This bill has a range of harsh measures which will result in increases in university fees—including, firstly, the unrestrained student fees or the fee deregulation. This essentially removes the price controls for students' contributions to the cost of their degrees and allows universities to set much higher fees. Labor totally opposes this measure, as the removal of price controls means that university degrees will in fact dramatically increase—in some cases to $100,000. Currently the fees are capped on what the student is studying. By removing the cap the prices will soar. That is the reality and it is the reality we have seen in many examples overseas when similar deregulation has occurred. People are very much aware of this. Many locals have told me that this is one of their primary concerns.
Secondly, the bill also includes cuts to public funding for university courses by up to 37 per cent. This part of the legislation cuts 20 per cent from Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding. An average reduction of 20 per cent in funding for Commonwealth-supported places means that universities will be forced to increase their fees by as much as 60 per cent for some degrees, just to cover the funding cut. The government's own figures reveal that the cuts to the subsidy the Commonwealth offers for the teaching of courses will rip $1.9 billion from universities. That is a huge amount. Thirdly, the bill also includes changes to the HECS repayment indexation rate and thresholds, which will place huge financial burdens on students.
This government has broken so many promises to the Australian people and this is certainly the case when it comes to education. I would like to remind the House of the Prime Minister's promise to the Australian people and to Australian students a little over a year ago. On 28 August 2013, in the last week before the election, the Prime Minister told the Australian people that there would be 'no cuts to education'. Indeed, in my area we had all the National Party candidates running around saying, 'No cuts to education, none of that will be happening here—no cuts at all'. Look what has happened. The Prime Minister has broken his promise, the Liberal Party have broken their promise and the National Party have broken their promise yet again.
Have no doubt: this bill before the House represents the single biggest assault on students and their families by any government. It is appalling. This attack represents a plan by this government to essentially make massive cuts to higher education funding and to shift the shortfall of debt onto students. The attack on students and families involves an unfair move to deregulate university fees and to heighten in real terms the interest rate payable on student loans by changes to the indexation and the 20 per cent cut to overall Commonwealth funding.
The changes to the indexation in HECS debts is particularly cruel. This change will effectively mean that university students and graduates with existing HECS debts—currently is about 1.2 million people—will be hit by thousands of dollars extra in interest on their loans. This is fundamentally unfair as the goal posts have now changed for those who do have HECS debts. Those who are planning and organising their lives will now have a massive increase in those.
Both existing and new HECS debts will feel the impact of this Liberal-National Party government's changes to interest rates from the current rate of CPI indexation, presently at two per cent, to what they are putting it to—the government bond rate, which is capped at six per cent. That will make a huge difference. We are talking about a massive amount of debt. The current outstanding HECS debt was estimated at $26 billion in the 2013-14 budget papers. By the end of the current forward estimates, the debt is projected to grow to $42 billion. That is without factoring in the Abbott government's changes. It is not a stretch to calculate how compound interest on these sums will run into the billions—all of which the Prime Minister and his government will impose on students. It creates a very unfair burden for young adults starting out in their lives to have these massive debts burdening them, particularly for people from regional and rural areas. They sometimes might go away to study but they want to come back the regional areas. It will be a lot more difficult for them if they are carrying these massive debts.
The fact is that the fee deregulation will mean that students and families in my electorate will pay so much more for the degrees they have to get. It means that the reality for families and young people is that they just cannot go to university. Families have told me that it is just not on their radar. They cannot afford it. It will not be an option for their families. Quite honestly, I find it sickening and appalling that this government would so harshly slug Australia's youth with such huge prices for degrees and such massive debts.
In terms of these changes to the funding of our universities, there has been widespread criticism. In fact, many respected academics and, indeed, former government advisors have criticised the Liberal and National Party's attempt to Americanise our university sector. One in particular is Professor Kwong Lee Dow, former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Melbourne, who said:
In poorer communities, including regional and rural communities, families will not be able to meet these higher fees, so the institutions will have less funding and so become less competitive over time.
This totally refutes the claims we have heard from across the chamber that the government's regulatory framework will bring freedom, lower fees and competiveness. In reality, their changes will harm regional universities. Another academic, Professor Linda Kristjanson, said that 'deregulation will inevitably lead to much higher fees for our students'. That is a reality. It is a plain fact that, in particular, women, students from low-income backgrounds and students from regional Australia will be hardest hit by the higher fees and higher interest rates on student loans. These are the people who will be impacted most. I know many people in Richmond who already struggle enough under current fee and repayment arrangements. So to impose increased unfair changes will simply mean that fewer people from regional communities will get a chance to get a higher education. It is fundamentally cruel to deny those from regional and rural areas the opportunity to attain greater skills and greater employment prospects.
These reforms are also going to hurt regional universities and their students. Southern Cross University is a great university on the north coast of New South Wales. They do an outstanding job. Many students live and work in the Richmond electorate. Following the government's planned cuts and deregulation the Vice-Chancellor of Southern Cross University, Professor Peter Lee, expressed concern for the higher education sector and, in particular, regional universities. He said: 'Southern Cross University, as a smaller regional university, has no capacity to absorb this 20 per cent cut without fee deregulation. Indeed, the thin markets and student demographics of many regional universities mean it may be harder for us to break even, given the market dominance of many larger city based universities.'
However, the government wrongly claims it can overcome this blatant regional disadvantage by requiring universities to establish a scholarship fund from 20 per cent of additional revenue. This appears in schedule 2 of this bill. The government argues this will protect regional students from the negative effects of fee increases. I totally dispute that claim by the government. Firstly, no Commonwealth money is allocated to these funds. These funds will be on the basis of additional fees charged to students. Secondly, as Professor Lee said, regional universities are concerned that the capacity of major universities to charge higher fees will mean regional universities are disadvantaged by comparison. It is so unfair to regional universities. In other words, the scholarship funds will be used to entrench market position and market power. The modelling suggests that the big universities will have the capacity to raise millions of dollars in the first year of operation. On the other hand, Labor has been told by one regional university that they will raise perhaps only $200,000 in the first year. You can see the massive difference.
These cuts to universities and higher education, through changing the indexation of loan repayments and fee deregulation, will hurt regional universities and the people in my electorate who rely on them. We on this side of the House will fight to protect future students and their families. We do not want students to carry around a 'debt sentence' their whole life. We think that is incredibly unfair.
Labor believes in the benefits of an accessible and affordable education regardless of where you live or how much your family earns. We think people should have the right to access a decent education and have all the opportunities in life to follow the career paths they have the capacity for. We have always believed in that, and we always will. We will always fight for it. Indeed, that is why we are opposing this legislation today. At the heart of it, we believe that a person's intellectual capacity and commitment should be the basis for determining their ability to get into university, not how much money they have to buy their way in. That is what Labor has always believed.
The fact is that Australian students cannot afford these degrees—in particular, they cannot afford $100,000 degrees. It is quite simply unfair. It is more than unfair. It is cruel, heartless and nasty. I find it very difficult to understand how members opposite, particularly those from regional areas, will be able to explain to their electorates exactly what they are supporting and voting for. Members from the National Party represent some of the most disadvantaged areas of this country in terms of the struggling nature of many of the lower socioeconomic areas in our regional and rural areas. They will have to go back and face people there and explain to them that they are essentially voting to stop their children from ever going to university, to stop people from entering university as mature-age students and to stop disadvantaged people from going to university. That is what they are doing. We will certainly be making sure that we are telling everyone that. That is precisely what the National Party is doing in those regional areas, and it is truly shameful. People should be able to access universities.
This bill is another bad policy from a bad government. We have seen it on so many occasions, particularly in terms of broken promises. Before the election, everyone from Prime Minister to candidate was running around saying, 'There'll be no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no cuts to pensions.' Well, we have seen all of that in place—all equally cruel and equally harsh. In terms of some of those long-term propositions, the education cuts are incredibly harsh. In my community, people are very much aware of it. They are very angry. They know that the opportunities for their children and their grandchildren are being severely limited because this government has broken its promise when it comes to education.
This bill is bad policy from a bad government. We will be opposing this legislation in the strongest possible terms. I am very proud to be opposing this legislation. I stand with my community and with the Labor Party in opposing this legislation and fighting for the right of young people from regional areas to access university as they rightly should be able to do.
I rise to speak on the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014. I will focus my remarks on three areas, one of which I believe is one of the reasons that reform is needed, secondly is the importance of the uncapped number of diplomas, advanced diplomas and associate degrees, and finally, the government's investment in research. For those in this House—I see Parliamentary Secretary Fletcher at the table—we certainly understand that the university and higher education sector in Australia is facing a number of challenges. Universities have made this particularly clear. Reform and flexibility are absolutely necessary. Universities themselves acknowledge that reform and flexibility are necessary for several reasons. Australian universities are competing in a global education market and they literally cannot afford to stand still. The 'business-as-usual' model is not an option for them. Our universities are not only competing with the constantly improving performances by universities around the world for both international and domestic students but they also have to deal with major changes in the way higher education is being delivered to students of all ages, driven by the internet. This is one reason I believe flexibility for our university and higher education sector is so important.
We are seeing increasingly sophisticated, constantly evolving new digital technologies delivering not just online courses but complete online degrees. I am not just talking about MOOCS—the Massive Open Online Courses—mostly provided by Cousera, edX and Udacity. We all know that the most prestigious universities in the world—for instance, Harvard, Stanford and MIT—are offering completely free online courses. We also know that millions of people around the world are taking up this opportunity. They are often mature aged students who have to be flexible in how, when and where they learn. Pure online courses in Australia are growing at 19 per cent per annum. I understand that 60 per cent of American higher education institutions are now offering complete online programs.
Improvements in this sector are absolutely guaranteed to the delivery of online degrees by prestigious international universities. That makes the environment in which our universities are competing even tougher. In time, as we know, we may well see some of the best courses in this space coming out of India and China, I suspect partly through demand and opportunity and partly through necessity. Given their vast populations, this will provide potentially millions of students of all ages with access to courses at the same time. Almost every Australian university is already providing some online courses. As well, several of our regional universities have built on their traditional distance education models to provide strong online platforms.
As I said, the market has changed and it will continue to change and there are viable challenges to traditional university models. They are coming in all forms. Standing still is not an option. By the same token, changes and challenges are providing opportunities for our Australian universities. Many of our higher education institutions are moving to take advantage of this. They are very well aware that they need to be able to respond to constant change, both in the domestic and international market, which is why this reform bill has been supported by the higher education sector. They know that a 'business as usual' policy is simply not an option. As Professors Gareth Evans and Ian Young of the ANU said:
The bottom line is that if Australia is to develop universities which can truly compete internationally, that can provide an excellent educational experience for students and produce really outstanding graduates of the kind that are so vital to our nation’s future, we have to not only allow, but encourage, diversity by removing the constraints that prevent innovation.
It is a very clear statement which reaffirms the need for the very reforms contained in this legislation. The second issue I want to cover is that this bill will give a new cohort of students the support they so badly need, particularly those from low SES backgrounds and those from regional areas who find it much more difficult to get to university. I see this all the time, as you do Deputy Speaker Randall. I saw graphically in my electorate—and have heard some interesting comments made in this chamber by members of the other side—the effects of changes the previous government made to access to independent youth allowance, the profound impact on young people and their families, the changes they had to make to their education decisions, their plans and dreams and the absolute despair in families having to decide which one of their children they could afford to send to university in Perth.
I strongly support expansion of the demand driven system to over 80,000 students each year by 2018 who will be provided additional federal government support. Through the measures in this bill, an estimated 48,000 students in diploma, advanced diploma and associate degree courses and 35,000 additional students in bachelor courses will be supported. I want to see regional education providers and regional students taking advantage of this. That is exactly what we need to see in regional areas.
What an opportunity for our great young Australians and for students of all ages who need to or have to use a variety of pathways to get achieve their higher education. They will now get that opportunity and they will be supported. This support will improve their access, expand their choices and, most of all, expand the opportunities for students in the higher education sector. The Regional Universities Network also said:
The provision of demand driven places to non-university providers could build on the significant partnerships or dual arrangements that already exist between regional TAFEs and regional universities. More options for higher education study, including sub-bachelor pathways, would be available to regional Australians, including low SES students. The reforms would be good for regional Australia. More highly skilled graduates are what our economy and communities need.
… Extension of the demand driven system to sub-bachelor places would allow universities to be more responsive to the needs of less academically prepared students.
Like other university students, none of this new category of Commonwealth supported students will have to pay their tuition fees up-front—none—and no student will have to repay their HECS-HELP loan until they are out in the workforce and they are earning over $50,000 a year.
As well, the government is removing all FEE-HELP and VET FEE-HELP loan fees. I hope this offers opportunities to students in the South West Institute of Technology in Bunbury. I also must mention Busselton, where I have been working for several years with a higher education task force—a community and stakeholder working group that has been looking at options to offer higher education in Busselton. We have been working on a potential dual-delivery model with the proposed new SWIT Busselton campus. I see the reforms that are contained in this bill as being very useful in that process, offering more opportunity to young people—and people of all ages, not just young people—in my region. Education is a lifetime opportunity.
I also want to briefly touch on our commitment to securing Australia's position at the forefront of research, through—and this is significant—$150 million in 2015-16 for the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy and $139.5 million for 100 new four-year research positions a year under the Future Fellowships scheme. Then there is $26 million to accelerate research in dementia. What an extremely worthwhile cause that is. There would be very few people in this place whose families have not been affected by dementia in some form. There is also $42 million to support new research in tropical disease and $24 million to support the Antarctic Gateway partnership.
This bill is the main piece of legislation providing funding for higher education in Australia. Through it, the government seeks to expand opportunity and choice in higher education in Australia. The safety net is protected. The HECS-HELP scheme in Australia is the safety net that allows all tertiary students to defer their HECS-HELP debt and pay it off once they join the workforce. This allows all Australian students the opportunity to study.
The Commonwealth subsidy for places at non-university higher education providers will be discounted to recognise the unique responsibilities of universities, while still ensuring that providers receive sufficient funding to compete with universities. These changes put alternative higher education options back in reach for all Australian students by supporting equitable treatment of students, regardless of where they choose to study. The Australian Council for Private Education and Training said:
The government's higher education reforms are a major milestone, and deliver equity and fairness for the growing number of higher education students choosing to undertake their degree or sub-degree program at a non-university institution. Currently students outside the university system are significantly disadvantaged with additional administrative costs on top of their income contingent loans and they are currently ruled out from receiving any government support.
They went on to say:
In what is clearly a difficult budget environment, the government is to be commended for its commitment to significant reforms to the tertiary sector to provide more support to more students and enhance Australia’s productivity.
The one thing that we cannot ignore—and I am very interested to hear the speakers on the opposite side recognise this—is that it is, as that last quote said, a very difficult situation that we inherited. I am sure all the members on this side understand the issue of $1 billion a month in interest that this country has been left with by the previous government—$12 billion a year. That is the type of funding that could have many applications. We have to deal with the reality of what we have been left with, and that is exactly what we are doing. I am supporting the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014.
I too would like to make a contribution in respect of the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014. I am one of those on this side of the House who are very, very concerned about the passage of this legislation. These amendments are not only destructive for the future of young people looking to pursue a tertiary qualification but, to any of us who have any understanding of economics, they are destructive to the long-term economic and social development of our nation.
Higher education is an issue very near and dear to the hearts of many parents and students in my electorate, as I would expect would be the case for any member here in the House of Representatives. I know that parents in my electorate place particularly high importance on a university education for their children, as they see that a tertiary qualification is important to succeed in a society like Australia's. Part of that probably comes from the fact that it is a very multicultural community, but it is probably more entrenched because mine is also a community that has significant pockets of disadvantage.
I ask members here to recall that, before the last election, Tony Abbott promised that a Liberal government would not make any cuts to education. Just let me quote from what the Prime Minister said. He said this: 'I want to give the people an absolute assurance: no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no changes to pensions, and no changes to the GST.' In that very short list there are probably not many promises that have not been broken so far. But, for the purposes of this debate, I want to concentrate on that promise that he made on education.
Now, a year on from the election, we see this conga line of broken promises and, as to education, a $5.8 billion cut to the higher education sector. We see the slashing of funds from the Commonwealth supported places in undergraduate degrees by 20 per cent, the reduction in indexation arrangements for university funding to the consumer price index, the cutting of almost $174 million from the Research Training Scheme, and the introduction of PhD fees. But one of the things that really concerns a lot of people in my electorate, just judging by the phone calls and emails I have had of late, is the introduction of the real rate of interest for HECS debt.
We have seen education come under attack from this government time and time again. We have seen the government backflip on school based education. Those opposite do not have to take Labor members' views on this; they only have to make contact with New South Wales Minister for Education Adrian Piccoli, who will probably confirm for them that Gonski is gone—that the whole basis for an education revolution in this country, the whole basis of giving this country the opportunity to compete with the best and smartest minds in the world, has been undermined by this government. They should stop to think of what the impact of these so-called reforms is going to amount to—but, particularly for this debate, they would not need to go any further than thinking about what they are proposing to do to students striving to gain a tertiary qualification. I am not just talking about young people graduating from high school and going to university. You yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell, raised, in question time the other day, the issue of a mature-age student, a father of four, in your electorate, who was holding down a part-time job—
A full-time job.
sorry; a full-time job—and still trying to secure a university qualification. You saw how that commentary was derided by those opposite, when a person in that position should have received every bit of assistance possible—but that was just indicative of the approach that this government is taking to the education debate.
What is particularly scary for students is what is to come into effect on 1 January 2016—the deregulation of university fees. And students are scared for very good reason, I would suggest.
Whilst my electorate of Fowler, sadly, does not boast university campuses within its boundaries, the University of Western Sydney, nevertheless, operates campuses in both Campbelltown and Parramatta, which many of the students in my electorate attend. While Campbelltown—an area near where I live—may not be the largest campus in Australia, I acknowledge the significant role that it plays in providing education, particularly for culturally and linguistically diverse communities, who very much predominantly reside in south-west Sydney. Universities such as UWS have not gone out there and campaigned on the inadequacy of the current fee structure to conduct their programs, and universities like UWS are not part of this gang of eight—the sandstone universities, as they are referred to—that are so totally fixated on the dollar and also very much on the business model of attracting foreign students into their universities. The universities operating in south-west Sydney like UWS are there to provide an opportunity for young people—an opportunity to get a university qualification and so to get an opportunity in life. With the proposed higher education reforms looming, universities like UWS will have no choice but to increase their fees—the suggestion is, by around 30 per cent—to account for the direct cuts that this government is making through the slashing of the Commonwealth's financial support.
If anything, this has to be seen as a classic cost-shifting exercise. Normally you would see cost-shifting between the Commonwealth and the states, but this is between the Commonwealth and individual students. The shortfall in Commonwealth funding is intended to be made up by an increase in student fees, and I would submit that they are not only the people probably least able to afford these costs but also the people that we are relying on to gain those qualifications, for our very future.
Australian undergraduates are currently paying amongst the highest tuition fees in the world. According to the OECD's 2008 report, Australia ranked 23rd out of 31 OECD countries in terms of students' ability to finance their own education costs.
Due to these financial restraints, research also shows that students in the bottom income quartile are four times more likely not to graduate than those in the top income quartile. This is particularly concerning for students and young people living in my area, most of whom do not come from wealthy backgrounds.
Domestic and international experience suggests that uncapping university fees will inevitably lead to a very significant increase in university tuition fees, putting tertiary education beyond the reach of many young people—particularly those coming from low-socioeconomic backgrounds.
Regrettably, my electorate, I think, is classified as the second-lowest socioeconomic area—so this directly impacts many families that I have the honour of representing. Cost will become a very big consideration when thinking about undertaking a degree or other tertiary qualifications. I know many local residents with kids currently studying at universities across Sydney and they have told me that, without the current level of HECS support, it would be close to impossible for their kids to pursue higher education.
As I have indicated many times here, my electorate is the most multicultural community in the country. It is something we are very proud of. Regrettably, there are large pockets of disadvantage, with many families coming from low-socioeconomic backgrounds. Many of them are refugees and people who did not have the opportunity to access a higher education. For that reason, they place their children's education at the forefront of everything. They work very hard, putting in long hours to support their families. They go to great lengths to emphasise that education is very important. They strive to provide the best opportunities for their kids. They see it as important for young people to be successful in a society like Australia. They strive for a better future than theirs. In most cases their pasts were devoid of proper opportunities for higher education.
I would like to talk about one family in particular. A local resident, Mr Van Nguyen works part time in a bottleshop in Lansvale. He classifies himself as a low-income earner. He tells me he earns no more than $500 a week. His wife, Hoa Tran, works on a casual basis in the garment industry, also in my electorate. Since arriving in Australia in 1989 as refugees from Vietnam, both parents have worked tirelessly, dedicating their entire lives to the future of their children. Their daughter, Yen, was a very bright student and was admitted to study a Bachelor of Medical Science and a Bachelor of Law at the University of Technology Sydney.
These parents are very proud of their daughter and her achievements, which were on display during her graduation. Coming from a low-income household, they find it incomprehensible that Yen now has a HECS debt close to $50,000. If this is the sort of financial obligation that current students are already racking up upon graduating, what position will our future students be in? They will be looking at $100,000 degrees.
According to the 2011 census data, 6.7 per cent of my electorate's population undertakes a higher education. That is close to 10,000 people each year. For an electorate with people aspiring to a future outside of a low income, that is good and something that should be encouraged. Certainly parents are playing a role in that. It is hard to think of what will become of these future students, most of whom will be graduating with a debt equivalent to a first home mortgage. These are huge financial pressures at such a young age. I am not sure what that is going to do for our future economy either. This will have intergenerational aspects attached to it.
It is undeniable that with these reforms, our education system is heading into a direction where it is no longer based on merit but rather based on price discrimination. Equality of access will be affected, particularly combined with the restrictive aspects that are going to apply to the HELP lifetime limits. As I have stated earlier, higher education is a key factor in our economic, cultural and social development. The long-term prosperity of Australia will be influenced by the future activities of higher education graduates.
However, higher education, and university education in particular, continues to suffer at the hands of the Liberal government, who want to put it in the hands of the wealthy rather than operate it on a merit based system. If they want to tax education to that extent, they do not have the interests of our country at heart when it comes to investing in our future.
I rise to speak on the higher education reform package which is contained in the legislation before us here tonight, the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014. The starting point for this debate is really about the issue of almost national pride as a country. Depending on how you measure it, we are essentially a top eight economy across the globe—yet we do not have a single university in the top eight. I think when we are excelling on so many different fronts across the globe, surely it is reasonable to expect that Australian students have the right to a world-class education, particularly a world-class higher education system, in this country. Surely Australian students have a right to expect that, when they go to a university in this country, that university is competing with the world's best—whether in the United States, the United Kingdom or, particularly, within our growing region in Asia. The reforms that we are talking about here tonight will be the key that unlocks the door to that reform that allows our universities to compete in the global marketplace and ensure that Australians are studying at world-class institutions—ones that compete with our friends across the globe.
It is also important that we maintain higher education as something that we export to the world. We know that higher education was the third largest export for our nation—something that we should be proud of. But, as we have over a billion people coming into the middle class in Asia, it is right to expect that our universities maintain their high standards and reach further so that we can continue to attract students from across the globe to study here in Australia. That is something that we should be proud of and we should be seeking to expand—because, not only is that an issue of pride; it is also an important economic issue. As we face significant challenges with an intergenerational debt burden, with the potential coming off of the mining boom, it is important that we can export other things.
As I said, education was the third largest export for our nation. Under the former Labor government, a government that was too timid to reform in this place, we saw international student enrolments in Australia fall by 130,000 places—a fall of 16 per cent. It is so important that, as we look at those long-term structural economic challenges that we face, we are able to say that our neighbours do not just want to buy our minerals resources and they just want to buy our agricultural goods but they also want to buy our services and they want to learn and study here. It is something that we should not be afraid of reaching further for as a nation.
The other issue that these reforms address is putting our university system on a sustainable funding model. The former Labor government essentially deregulated student numbers to create a demand-driven model. I do not think members in this House have large contention around that. But what they did not do was deregulate the fees which actually provided the funding for a demand-driven model. Paul Kelly, in the Australian, put it quite simply: you have a system where you have a demand-driven model in terms of the student numbers, which created the cart, but, without the funding stream to do that—without the deregulation of university fees—you do not have the horse to drive the cart.
This is an incredibly important reform that we have to go through. It is the next stage of reform to ensure that our universities can reach that global standard and are accessible to Australian students regardless of their background. I note that the former speaker was sort of deriding the Group of Eight universities and saying that students in western Sydney only want to go to average universities and they do not want to go to the best universities in the world. I am the first person in my family to finish high school and the first person in my family to go to university, and I say that, in this country, regardless of your background, you have every right to expect that the university you study in is a world-leading institution.
These reforms will ensure that, regardless of where you come from, you have the ability to study in a university that can compete with the best universities across the globe. These reforms will ensure that we have an opportunity to have the best universities in the world. They will ensure that we have a market to drive more international students to come here and increase export nations as a nation and they will ensure that these universities are put onto a sustainable funding model that meets a demand-driven model for student numbers.
I think that it is important that we have a look at what people in higher education have to say about these reforms. I might go through some of them from Paul Kelly's article which I mentioned before. The peak body representing Australia’s universities says that these reforms represent a 'once in a generation opportunity' to shape a higher education system 'that is sustainable, affordable and equitable' for students and the nation. Universities Australia chief executive Belinda Robinson said that failure of the package will condemn the university system to 'inevitable decline. The Group of Eight universities told the Inquirer:
Unless there is reform we will continue to drift, we will fall behind the emerging universities of Asia and we will fall out of touch with the vital global centres of knowledge.
The current Group of Eight chairman and ANU Vice-Chancellor Ian Young said that in the current system, the unreformed system:
We have created a perverse incentive that rewards universities for enrolling as many students as possible and teaching them as cheaply as possible.
Adelaide University vice-chancellor told the Sydney Institute these reforms will more diversity, less centralisation, more choice, better value and superior teaching. If that is what those in the higher education sector are saying about these reforms, I do not think as a nation we should step back and say that we do not want to engage in something that will enable us to be world leaders in higher education.
I think it is important that we go through what this actually means for students—for people like myself who are the first people in their family to decide that they want to go to university; for everyday Australian students regardless of their background. The first point that I would make is that education has not been free in this country for a very long time. The Labor Party introduced the HECS based system—a system that essentially means that students do not pay a dollar up-front for their education and they only pay back the money that is expended on their education when they earn over $50,000. That system does not change with this legislation. You will not have to pay a dollar up-front for your university education.
Today we have about 40 per cent of Australians getting a university degree and taxpayers fund about 60 per cent of that degree. These reforms would mean that that might go to between 40 per cent and 50 per cent. Really, these reforms are saying that you are going from taxpayers paying 60 per cent of your degree to taxpayers now perhaps paying 40 per cent of your degree and you will then have a loan for the rest of your degree, and you will not pay back a dollar of that degree until you earn over $50,000. This is a really important point, because, if the impediment is the cost of the degree and you are saying that your social economic background will determine whether or not you go to university, you will not actually pay a single dollar up-front to go to university and you will not pay it back until you earn over $50,000. We know that those 40 per cent of Australians who get university degrees earn, on average, over 75 per cent more than Australians who do not have a university degree. So their ability to pay back what has been quite a generous contribution from the Commonwealth is greatly enhanced by their university degree and they are going to earn about 75 per cent more than an Australian who does not have that degree—on average, over a million dollars in extra income. It simply means that when you choose to go to a university, the degree that you study will have the best teachers, will be a part of the best institution and will enhance your ability to have a greater income later in life.
The other thing we have done in this reform package—and something that the Labor Party likes to sort of forget—is we have expanded the HECS system for the first time ever to include diplomas, advanced diplomas and the trades. I will start with the diplomas and the advanced diplomas. If you come from a background where people have not gone to university before in your family or if you come from a low-socioeconomic background, often you would not go straight into the university, you would study a diploma or an advanced diploma. For the first time ever, you do not have to pay a dollar up-front to get a diploma or an advanced diploma, which could be your great stepping stone, particularly if you are coming from a disadvantaged background, to get into university. We have made a significant change there.
We said if it is fair enough for people going to university to have this scheme, it should be fair enough for people that are getting a trade. We have said that the hardest part of getting through a trade apprenticeship is often the first few years and we have expanded the system to include trades, so you can now get a $20,000-loan up-front where you do not pay a dollar until you earn over $50,000. It is about creating greater equity for young people who are making choices about what they do with their life. Surely a person who gets a trade deserves the same opportunity as somebody who goes to university.
The other thing we have done in this reform package is radically expand the Commonwealth Scholarship Program so if universities are making greater revenue or charging more for fees because they are offering a better service, some of that money has to be re-invested back into the Commonwealth Scholarship Program, which directly assists people coming from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. We expect that there could be thousands of new scholarships created to ensure that people from the most disadvantaged backgrounds have the opportunity to go to university for the first time, to give them that financial assistance. They will be studying in world class institutions, which is the fundamental principle of this policy. When an Australian student decides to study, they should have the right to study in a world class institution.
I will go through and debunk some of the scare campaign that the Labor Party is trying to put forward.
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
I notice the shadow minister interjecting so he probably wants to listen to what we have in this funding proposal. The Labor Party likes to say that we are cutting funding. We are actually increasing funding every year for the next four years in universities. There is actually $37 billion in funding for higher education in the next four years. We are also continuing to support regional higher education directly through the regional loading, worth $274 million over the next four years, which will help those people in regional communities get into university and help those regional institutions.
We also think that universities play an important role in research. In the budget there is $150 million in 2015-16 for the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy to ensure that we can have world-leading research taking place in our universities. The other thing we are doing is providing $139.5 million to deliver 100 new four-year research positions per year. We are putting an enormous amount of money into higher education. Anything to the contrary is factually wrong.
Let us have a look at what Labor did when they were in government. They are running a scare campaign at the moment but they like to quickly forget what they actually did. Labor cut $6.6 billion in funding for higher education. They cut $3 billion in their last year in office alone. They left the university system facing regulation compliance and reporting red tape worth $280 million a year—that is, money that could have been spent on delivering better outcomes for students or on helping students get to university but it was caught up in university bureaucracy.
What I think was the biggest shame when it comes to higher education in the last decade was the former coalition government had set up the Higher Education Endowment Fund, which had, when we left office, $6 billion in it. It was a capital fund that would grow over time. The interest from that fund would give universities sustainable funding for the long term. It was a long-term visionary project that ensured our universities had the funding they deserved. So what did the Labor Party do? They dismantled that fund. We no longer have the Higher Education Endowment Fund with a large amount of money sitting there with interest being incurred to ensure long-term sustainable funding. I think that is the greatest shame in the higher education sector in the last decade.
I think it is important that we get the facts on the table. I am proud to support these reforms because these are reforms that ensure students from the most disadvantaged backgrounds can go to world class institutions, get an education and get a degree that is as good as one that they can expect from the United States, from the United Kingdom or from universities in our region. It will ensure that our higher education system provides a significant export market, helps grow tax collections and revenues to deal with the long-term economic challenges that we face and meets a growing demand as we see over a billion people come into the middle class in Asia.
I am proud to support these reforms and I commend this bill to the House.
I rise to oppose the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014 and I do so for a variety of reasons, not least because this is a very significant cut to higher education in this country. Higher education is absolutely vital for our nation, for our economy and, indeed, for our people. The fact that the government wants to dress this up as an opportunity, as the previous member had suggested, for disadvantaged students, I think, is quite absurd because the evidence does not bear out that at all.
I, like the previous speaker, was also the first person or first generation to have the opportunity to go to university in my family. That, of course, arose from the great reforms of the Whitlam government opening up opportunities for students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds to even contemplate enrolling in university. There were some limited scholarship opportunities but those reforms really did change the whole manner in which people thought of tertiary education and they did provide great opportunities for people of all walks of life in this nation to enrol in a course at a university. Of course there were many beneficiaries of those policies—many on the other side, including the Minister for Education, who wants to cut so much of the resources to universities. And those cuts are enclosed within this bill.
So there were beneficiaries. Those iconic reforms by the Whitlam government did lead to the opening up of universities and, yes, there were changes. The member for Longman mentioned the changes that occurred through the Dawkins reforms, where there was an understanding and a view that there should be a contribution made by students in order to enrol in university.
Yes, we would, in most instances, delay that cost to the student. But I think that where the previous speaker and other members on the other side have failed to convince me in relation to their arguments is their suggestion that somehow, because there were reforms introduced by a previous Labor government that provided for students to contribute to their higher education, if they just make some changes—for example, to the price of fees, to the rate of interest on those fees and to the point at which a person must commence contributing to pay back those fees—then that is not going to cause some problems.
The fact is that this bill will, of course, open up and enable universities to charge much higher fees to students if it is enacted. We will see fees at universities increasing, in some cases by 20 per cent and in some cases by a much greater rate. That is going to have a huge impact upon students, upon their capacity to pay and upon their life beyond the finalisation of degree. Further to that, it is going to influence students when they contemplate whether they are in a position to enrol at a university. It is going to make it harder for people who do not have the wherewithal and the resources to contemplate a huge impost—a massive loan—to be paid back after the completion of a course. In my view, it is going to alter the behaviour of students and alter their attitude, and we are going to see fewer people of talent taking up opportunities because of that.
The other concern I have is that this will apply to current students. You might recall that the Prime Minister and others said that this would not impact on current students, but that was untrue. There is an immediate impact. There is an impact during the life of the degrees that are currently being undertaken by undergraduates and it is going to be an impost on the students. And, of course, none of this was contemplated before the election and it is therefore a fundamental breach of faith with students and with the higher education sector to introduce such changes now.
The government says, of course, that in opening up the capacity for universities to set their own fees that they are opening up competition; and once you open up competition that competition will drive down prices. That may well be fine rhetoric but there is no evidence either here, when this was last undertaken by a previous coalition government—when Brendan Nelson was minister—or, indeed, when it was undertaken in Great Britain, when they opened up competition. There is no evidence to show that fees went down. In fact, in almost every circumstance fees not only went up but they went up significantly. This had a great adverse impact upon students and people set their sights lower as a result.
We think this is a terrible reform. Fundamentally, it is a shifting of cost from the Commonwealth to students. It is going to change the nature in which higher education will be accessible to students in this country. Labor will vote against these cuts to university funding and student support. Labor will not support a system of higher fees, bigger student debt, reduced access and greater inequality. We will never tell Australians that the quality of their education depends on their capacity to pay.
I made that clear in my first speech in 2002, that we should not determine those who go to university based on their money; we should be focused on people's merit, their capacity to learn and their capacity to undertake a course. But I am quite concerned that some of the degrees currently being provided by universities will be beyond the reach of students from many families, who will just be priced out of the market. That is, of course, a great concern.
Since the budget, we have seen that it is not only Labor that opposes the government's unfair and short-sighted higher education package; Australians generally oppose these measures. They oppose cutting public funding to undergraduate courses by up to 37 per cent. They oppose the $100,000 degrees that are likely to result from fee deregulation. They oppose the Americanisation of what is our world-class university system. Australians oppose these things because they understand the value of universities. I think that is something that is lost on the government and it is something that the government really needs to rethink.
The previous speaker mentioned a number of spokespeople in the higher education sector and what they think. I would like to place on the Hansard a number of comments made by very esteemed people in the universities and their views of some of these proposed reforms. Universities Australia chair, Professor Sandra Harding, warns that the changes are being rushed:
There are grave risks here.
Universities are being asked to set fees in an unprecedented market environment.
Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sydney, Professor Michael Spence, warns that fee deregulation risked pricing middle-class families out of a tertiary education and he said:
It's the ordinary Australians that I think aren't getting enough of a guernsey in this conversation.
The Vice-Chancellor of the University of Adelaide, Professor Warren Bebbington, said aspects of the changes were 'unworkable' and 'unduly harsh' and:
The compounding interest here [means] we might deliver debts to students of $70,000, $80,000, $100,000 and no-one here wanted that.
The University of Queensland Vice-Chancellor, Professor Peter Hoj, revealed that the budget would cost his university at least $60 million and will hurt students. He said:
I am generally concerned about the changes to the loan repayments. I do think that was very unexpected and I think that this is one of these things that really make the cuts to Government funding for students sting more than we had anticipated.
The HECS architect, Dr Bruce Chapman, who knows a great deal about this area of public policy warns 'the changes could lead to profiteering' and he said:
If universities have price discretion they will all take it … and could actually end up charging more than what it actually costs.
The UTS Vice-Chancellor, Ross Milburn, said:
I am genuinely concerned about the changes to the loan repayments. I do think that was very unexpected and I think that this is one of these things that really makes the cuts to Government funding for students sting more than we had anticipated.
The Swinburne University of Technology Vice-Chancellor, Linda Kristjanson, comprehensively trashed the Pyne package. In a message to Swinburne university staff on 27 May, the vice-chancellor, said:
Deregulation will inevitably lead to much higher fees for our students. Over time full fee deregulation will lead to a higher education characterised by the 'haves' and the 'have-nots'.
This is not me saying this, this is not Bill Shorten saying this, this is not members of the opposition saying this; these are quotes directly from those who are running universities in this country who are concerned about the changes that will be wrought if this bill is enacted and inflicted upon the higher education sector in this country. It is completely and utterly contrary to the so-called reasoning being proposed by those contributing to this debate from the government.
We have this strange world in which the vice-chancellors of universities have raised all of these concerns with the minister, who has clearly turned his back on them, and we have an array of government members coming to this place and of course repeating the same mantra that is fundamentally at odds with the vice-chancellors whom I have just quoted. Those experts in the field understand the consequences of this legislation. What is worse, so too do the government. Never mind what they are saying in this place—the government fully understand and indeed intend to deprive students from entering university by deregulating fees and enabling those price rises.
One after the other, university vice-chancellors and others, highly esteemed people in the sector, have raised concerns and not once has the minister acceded to the logic and concerns expressed by those whom I have quoted in this contribution tonight. So the government not only understand; the government do not care that this is the consequence of their action, because ultimately the government believe in a society where some people should get opportunities in certain universities and others should not even apply. That is their view of the world—some people should get opportunities and others should not apply.
I should take to task the member for Longman, who made an assertion about the expenditure by the previous government in higher education. Whatever cuts were made late in the piece by the previous government during its two terms, the resources we dedicated to higher education were unprecedented. We opened up opportunities for thousands and thousands of students, and ensured that fees did not rise at a rate that would price many students out of higher education. We had a demand-driven arrangement to enable students to enter great universities in this country and have opportunities that they may not have imagined without the support of government. The government has a role here and it is not about pretending that if you deregulate you are going to see a fall in prices. It has not happened anywhere else. Look at the prices and the fees at American institutions. Look at what happened when the British deregulated fees there and the increases that occurred. The fact is this is a terrible bill. We will oppose it. We will support the students, we will support their parents and we will oppose this to the bitter end. (Time expired)
It gives me great pleasure to rise in support of the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014. This reform is good news for all Australian universities, especially those universities in my electorate of Lindsay, in particular the University of Western Sydney, of which I am an alumni.
Hear, hear!
Thank you. It is good to have the member for Macquarie here, who also has a UWS campus in her electorate.
This reform is good news for the people of Lindsay, who are young and aspirational. It is good news for them because it gives them more opportunity. The opposition's scare campaign around this issue is merely hot air and has no substance. Some of the arguments from those opposite would be laughable if they were not so ridiculous.
These higher education reforms introduced by the Minister for Education are all about providing opportunity, opportunity for more Australians to access higher education and opportunity for our local universities to excel and become some of the best in the Asia-Pacific region and ultimately the world.
On budget night, the Treasurer made the following statement, and I quote:
Fellow Australians, we should have at least one university in the top 20 in the world, but we do not, and we should have more in the top 100.
I ask the Leader of the Opposition: what is wrong with Australia wanting to excel on the international stage? Why does Labor want to hold back Australia? We should strive for greatness. I am pleased that these reforms will go a long way in allowing the Australian university sector to achieve these noble goals.
Broadly speaking, these reforms will, firstly, ensure Australia's universities are not left behind at a time of rising performance by universities around the world. Secondly, they will ensure that Australia's higher education system is sustainable well into the future and that our third largest export, that of higher education—the $15 billion international education market—is protected and is able to flourish and grow. Thirdly, they will expand opportunities for students. In fact, these reforms will create an additional 80,000 university places.
Fourthly, they will offer more support for disadvantaged students through Australia's scholarship scheme. And, finally, they will support more courses, greater diversity and more skills for our workforce.
Since these reforms were presented in the federal budget by the Treasurer and then introduced by the Minister for Education, I have consulted widely with my community and, more specifically, with the University of Western Sydney. I would like to recognise and thank the chancellor of the University of Western Sydney, Peter Shergold. He was chair of the ministers' Quality, Deregulation and Information Working Group.
I understand Professor Shergold has made significant contributions to this working group and has provided assistance to the minister in the area of deregulation of higher education. While the University of Western Sydney proposed amendments to the government's higher education reforms, they do, as do most of the Australian university sector, broadly support the deregulation of the sector.
A robust discussion is critical to democracy and I thank the university for its contribution to this debate. I would also like to thank the vice-chancellor of the University of Western Sydney, Barney Glover, for his personal support and also his business comments and guidance with regard to these reforms. He has said that the sector needs stability in policy and that there appears to be a strong belief that this government is providing just that. I quote:
The University of Western Sydney, like the rest of Australia's higher education sector, needs certainty regarding the policy, funding and regulatory environment in which it operates. This is critical to ensuring we are able to compete internationally, but also pivotal to enabling us to help drive the development of Western Sydney, Australia's third-largest economy.
These reforms will provide the university with the autonomy and certainty which will allow them to thrive in a changing marketplace. I am also pleased to note the reforms in this amending legislation will better enable the
University of Western Sydney to better target their programs and courses to the specific needs of their students and those of GreaterWestern Sydney. UWS itself identifies the need for this in a briefing it supplied to Western Sydney MPs. I quote:
With in excess of $3.5 billion in government infrastructure commitments and a population set to reach three million by 2036, Western Sydney's significance to the national economy cannot be overstated. The supply of a highly skilled, productive and diverse labour force will be critical to the region's economic contribution and the success of the Commonwealth's large scale investments in the region. Increasing access to higher education is an essential part of meeting that challenge."
It continues:
Western Sydney's political representatives have the opportunity to ensure Australia's higher education sector can deliver on the Commonwealth's impressive range of policy commitments, by influencing the Budget's higher education reforms as they progress through the senate.
As UWS clearly points out, with the growth and potential of Western Sydney being realised through the reforms of this coalition government, there will be an increasing need for the local university to provide courses that also match the needs of this growing and thriving region. For this reason, UWS clearly support this reform, which creates more autonomy in our universities. As the Treasurer stated on budget night:
With greater autonomy, universities will be free to compete and improve the quality of the courses they offer.
It is the intent of this amending legislation to build a higher education sector that is more diverse, more innovative and more responsive to student needs. Deregulating and creating a demand-driven sector will allow universities to set their own fees and compete for students. This competition will enhance quality and will make higher education providers more responsive to the needs of the labour market but, more importantly, it will provide more opportunity for students. This does not mean $100,000 degrees, like the opposition would have you believe. In fact, in some cases it could mean that the cost of degrees will in fact fall.
Rather than the government regulating the cost of degrees, universities will have the flexibility to set their own
costs based on market demand. They will compete for student enrolments, based on quality and cost. When universities and colleges compete, students win. It is that simple. The current system distorts an individual's capacity to distinguish between the two different opportunities of education within the sector.
An economics degree costs virtually the same at every university. Institutions simply cannot use price to distinguish themselves in the market and offer true value. With respect to economics 101 teachers, price often acts as an indicator of quality, with a direct correlation to demand.
It simply drives behaviour. This is what we need if we are to lift the quality, deliver courses that students and employers demand and, in turn, create a truly world-class system that keeps up with other established and rising national institutions.
We need each of our universities to become accountable to the market but, more importantly, to their students and also with respect to the type and quality of courses that are offered and deliver these things accordingly. This does not mean that universities will immediately escalate their fees, as the opposition would have you believe. On the contrary, most Australian universities are acting responsibly with regard to this aspect. The University of Western Sydney, for instance, was the first university in New South Wales to freeze student fees for 2014 to ensure certainty for its students. This is a responsible move by the university and it is a strong indicator of how the sector will respond to the demand-driven—
In the last few weeks, Parramatta has lost two of its best—two people who lived full, rich lives with family, friends and community service. Roy Worrall and Margaret Russo lived in the hearts of their families and the hearts of the Labor movement, and we will miss them.
Margaret Russo was born on 31 January 1938. She was a longstanding parishioner at St Patrick's Cathedral in Parramatta where she was always actively involved in the local parish activities. Like her commitment to her church, Margaret was also committed to the Australian Labor Party. Whenever there was work to be done, Margaret was there. Year after year, state, federal or local, she rolled up her sleeves and did her part for the cause she believed in. She understood that Labor was a movement of people that cared about each other, and Margaret was an extraordinary example of the values. Whether it was just being at a polling station on election day or running a campaign, Margaret was an integral part of our local Labor movement, as was her family, with her husband, Phil, having served two terms as Labor Deputy Lord Mayor of Parramatta City Council. This was a household that gave for the local Labor Party.
Margaret was a much loved person. She was very welcoming. No-one who ever came in contact with Margaret ever had a bad word to say about her. She was an absolute delight to know and we will all miss her. She is survived by her husband, Phil, her children Stephen, Janine, Louise, Matthew, their partners and her nine grandchildren. I know she will be sorely missed by all who knew her.
Roy Worrall, like Margaret, was also a dedicated party member and will be missed. He was born on 7 July 1931 in Portsmouth, England. Roy passed his secondary school exams, but he was unable to attend secondary school because of the outbreak of war and left school at the age of 14. He had been a naval cadet for two years at 11 and 12 years of age and had lost the sight of his left eye at the age of 11 when he was hit in the eye with a stone.
Roy had a variety of interesting careers, perhaps reflecting the interesting man himself. First he was an oiler and greaser of axle boxes on the Southern Railway, and in this role he earned less than he did when at school doing a paper run and odd jobs, perhaps igniting his passion for the Labor movement. He went on to become a builder's labourer, then a dogman, a crane driver, a pre-cast concrete erector and steel erector, a rigging supervisor, a first aid person and a security guard. Although often away from home for stretches at a time throughout his career, Roy always took pride in the fact that he sent more money home to his wife, Kit, than the man who lived next door. Roy was a character.
Roy married the love of his life, Kit, in 1952 at the age of 21. They went on together to have four children: Roy, Shirley, David and Jackie. They all migrated to Australia for a new future in 1965. Trying a variety of places for their new life, they lived at Dulwich Hill, Bondi, Paddington and Marrickville, only to finally find home in Granville where they lived for the next 40 years. During this time he went on to become president of the retired Miscellaneous Workers Union of New South Wales and was granted life membership. He has been a proud union member all his life. He was also a president of the Granville Branch of the ALP and an active member.
Roy was a very funny man. He once wrote a quite interesting story of his life, saying: 'I was born at an early age and would have been born in a hospital, but it was a home birth as I wanted to be near my mother.' He will be missed. I understand that his dad jokes—which I did not hear personally—were on the slightly difficult side, but, dad jokes and all, Roy will be absolutely missed. They both will be missed. Vale Margaret Russo and Roy Worrall.
I rise to speak today on an issue which is important, certainly locally to Calare but I believe nationally. It is enormous and it sets a great example of what Australian trade and business can do. It also links in with our trade support loans.
Buslines Group is one of Australia's largest bus operating companies, with 300 buses operating in regional New South Wales and certainly in my area of Calare. They recently reaffirmed their commitment to Australian made by once again ordering Australian built Bustech bodies for 2014. Some six or eight weeks ago, I visited the Bustech manufacturing plant on the Gold Coast and met with director, Joe Calabro, who is delighted, quite obviously, with the outcome.
Locally, Buslines runs about 300 school buses in regional New South Wales, including in Lithgow, Orange, Molong and Bathurst, providing an extremely valuable, important and safe service. For the past 15 years, Buslines had purchased Bustech Australian made bus bodies, but were considering opportunities to purchase bodies produced in Malaysia and China. Like every business today, they had to look at their costs and their options. The overseas produced bodies were many thousands of dollars cheaper due to the difference in materials used and the labour costs.
Particularly, Buslines cited to me superior quality as the major factor in their decision, but also the high level of support offered by Bustech in warranty and maintenance of the bodies over the life of the vehicles. Yes, lower maintenance costs were a big factor, but also a longer operating time frame made it a very good business decision for them to do what they did. If they bought from Bustech, they bought a very superior bus body that they knew would be safer, would last longer and they would get a much better long-term return. I commend Buslines for putting their money where their mouth is and banking on Australian made, because this decision will have far wider implications for the economy and for jobs. Not only will our local children be travelling on safer buses to school every day but also Australian workers will be kept in employment and our skill base will not only be maintained but enhanced.
This goes hand in hand with our policy of encouraging young people to take up a trade, whether it be in building, construction, boilermaking or even fabrication engineering. These young people will be supported financially through our Trade Support Loans so that they can go on and complete their training, ensuring that we have the skilled workers to compete internationally. I believe it was a groundbreaking decision to allow apprentices to take advantage of the HECS scheme and to get loans up to $20,000 over two or three years.
Peter Ferris, the CEO of the Buslines Group, said they currently have around $50 million in capital invested in their fleet of school and route buses operating in regional and rural New South Wales. He said that to ensure that buslines were making the best business decision when purchasing bodies, he recently travelled to Malaysia to look at the three alternative bus body manufacturing plants. Although these products were good quality and considerably cheaper—and I mean many thousands of dollars cheaper than the Australian-built Bustech bodies that they had been buying—when they considered the whole-of-life costs of the bodies they were convinced that staying with Bustech was the best decision for their passengers and the best decision for their company. An important consideration for Buslines was the ongoing support that Bustech offered in keeping manufacturing jobs and training in Australia. The group employs 16 apprentices in regional New South Wales, so they know the importance of having the best workers.
I think we must continue to train and support apprentices. We can never build cheaper than some other countries but we can and we do build better. Let us look to the future, let us look to something that lasts longer and, like Buslines and Bustech, let's do the right thing by Australia.
Australian mammal fauna is the most distinctive in the world, and 86 per cent of our land mammal species are found nowhere else. The most comprehensive assessment of the conservation status of Australian mammals is the Action plan for Australian mammals 2012, and it makes for some very troubling. This landmark CSIRO-published study found that mammal extinctions were 40 per cent higher than previously thought. Twenty-nine Australian land mammals have become extinct. Nearly 10 per cent of our original terrestrial mammal fauna and 63 species are threatened and require urgent conservation action. This is 30 per cent of our surviving terrestrial mammals. These losses and potential losses represent over a third of the 315 species present at the time of European settlement.
Since the 1840s we have lost mammals at the rate of one species per decade. On current trends, there will be many more extinctions of Australian mammals in the next one or two generations. The decline in our mammal fauna over the last 10 to 15 years has been severe. The Australian Wildlife Conservancy, known as AWC, pointed out in their winter 2014 edition of Wildlife Matters that the bilby and numbat have declined, with the numbat population now less than 1,000 mature adults. The brush-tailed bettong has suffered a catastrophic decline from over 200,000 animals to an estimated population of around 10,000 animals. The plight of the golden-backed tree rat highlights the severe declines in Northern Australia. On mainland Australia it has disappeared from the Northern Territory, including Kakadu National Park, and survives only in a thin strip along the Kimberley coast.
Lesser known species such as the fawn antechinus are also in steep decline, while other species are so rarely detected that they could disappear without us knowing. Even iconic species are disappearing The koala and the Tasmanian devil are nationally threatened, and the once-common platypus is classed as near-threatened. Most Australians know of and regret the extinction of the Tasmanian tiger, or thylacine, but also important are the other 28 mammal species now extinct. These species played important and irreplaceable roles in our country's ecology. These species were part of the fabric of this country.
Australia has the worst rate of mammal extinction in the world, and the situation is not improving, thanks to feral predators such as cats. Feral cats have been identified as the major cause of population decline. Federal and state governments are spending more than $1 billion per annum on biodiversity conservation but the return on this investment would make a corporate boardroom shake its head. Only four of the 63 threatened mammal species have materially improved their conservation standing during the last 10 to 15 years, while the other 59 species have declined or, at best, maintained their precarious position over the same period.
What is needed is a new model in conjunction with research into a safe and targeted form of biological control to address the issue of feral cat control. It truly is a frightening statistic that 75 million native animals are killed by feral cats each night. This includes not only mammals but also birds and reptiles as well. The CSIRO estimates there are 15 million feral cats in Australia, with each killing an average five animals a night. The AWC is conducting the largest feral cat research program in Australian history in an attempt to unlock the secrets to effective cat control. It manages 23 sanctuaries covering over 3 million hectares, which facilitates effective conservation of Australian animal species and the habitats in which they live. A centrepiece of their model in southern and Central Australia is the establishment of large feral-free areas, or mainland islands—a model they are looking to extend to Northern Australia. Thirty-two nationally threatened mammals, including bats, are found in their sanctuaries.
The work of the AWC represents a new model for conservation. As Atticus Fleming, Chief Executive of AWC, said:
We have delivered significant increases in our populations of Greater Bilbies, Numbats, Woylies, Bridled Nailtail Wallabies and more.
Why are our results generally bucking the trend of the last decade? In most cases, it is because we have invested wisely in the establishment of large fox and cat-free areas. The Mammal Action Plan highlights the importance of additional mainland (fenced) islands until an effective landscape-scale control for feral cats is developed. AWC is leading the way on both strategies.
I commend to the House the work of Australian Wildlife Conservancy in protecting our rare and precious Australian animals.
Sunday marks 12 months since the last federal election. As a new member of this great place and as someone who does not come from a political background, it has been an interesting 12 months. Tonight I would like to make some random observations on a few topics on a variety of fronts.
I come from a background that is a little different. I am a proud third-generation Western Sydney publican. I come from a family business background. One of the frustrations for me pre-politics was the quality of debate we have in this place and the lack of diversity of backgrounds of the people who partake in the debate. I thought that tonight I would take the opportunity to throw some random thoughts out there.
The Leader of the Opposition, in his MPI today, spoke about superannuation. He said no-one on this side understood what it meant, how it worked, and that we did not know what manual labour was about. I took great offence at that. I have employed thousands and thousands of people in my time—as did my father and grandfather. I would hate to think how many millions of dollars I have paid in superannuation. I have stood at the front door of a hotel at all times of the day and night. We in small family business land know what manual labour is. There is 55 per cent of the country employed in the SME space. We get it. We understand what super is. We invest in it every day.
I want to talk a little about the mining tax. Before I got here, the concept of a super-profit tax always did my mind in. If it is set at 30 per cent company tax and you have top-up Division 7A tax, whatever you have after it a percentage tax scale is a super-profit tax. The more you make, the more you pay. With regard to the argument that we should tax mining—and now the Greens are turning to banks—the financial reality is that the companies will just pass that on to shareholders. That is the reality. And guess what, when you look at the share registries of some of the biggest companies in this country, they are full of superannuants. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy that we are asking them to pay twice.
Why don't you abolish corporate tax altogether!
Member for Gorton, I wouldn't mind—and pay it at the personal tax rate. Pay 47 cents in the dollar rather than 30. These are discussions we need to have over time. These are sensible discussions. Right now, company tax is a flow-through mechanism. These are some of the serious discussions that I am sure we will take on over time, with a tax review due.
The last thing I want to talk about is going to university versus getting a trade. Tonight in this place we have been speaking on a bill to do with university education. I come from a part of Sydney that right now, and you have read it in the papers in the last month, is enduring a drastic shortage of trade labour—brickies, plumbers, gyprockers and sparkies. Coming from Western Sydney, one of the best things that I have seen that has not has been spoken about tonight is the expansion of the HELP scheme into trades in the first 12 months. It needs to happen. We need a structure. I am the first generation of my family to go to university. There is an ideal that your children should to go to university. But there should be no stigma attached to getting a trade. It should be supported. Look at the history of trades in this country.
In my electorate of Reid we took massive amounts of post-World War II Greek and Italian immigrants. They were the brickies and gyprockers, the backbone on which my local communities of Five Dock, Concord and all these different places were built. My father was desperate for me to go to university. He had a son in year 10, with two years of school to go and no idea what he wanted to do—in fact, truth be told, he wanted to be an actor! He wanted me to have any opportunity that I wanted. It is not 'force it down your throat, go to uni or do nothing at all. And if you do not go to uni, you are not in some way bettering or maximising your potential.'
After 12 months in the job, I am proud to be part of a government that inherited a mess. Yes, we have structural budget problems. Yes, we need to have sensible and serious debate in this country. Yes, we need to listen to a vast array of people from a variety of backgrounds. But we must always do one thing—aim our policies and government at making this country a better place for our children because, in the short time we are here, we are just looking after it for them.
Last week in parliament I was delighted to meet the 12-year-old Claire Falls. Claire is a passionate young soccer player from the ACT. Claire is also vision impaired. She has a condition called strabismus, which affects her depth perception and three-dimensional vision. But what makes Claire stand out is that she is a remarkable activist for inclusive soccer. She is somebody who cares about her fellow players and understands that participating in sport is a really important thing to do. Claire's passion has already led to the creation of an annual one-day tournament called FEVER, football for everyone. FEVER is a tournament that has a basic rule. If anyone on the pitch needs the rules modified to suit their special needs, then the rules are changed. That is a great thing. That is about inclusion.
Each team in the FEVER tournament is required to play one game of blind soccer as so that they can understand what it is like for other people who may be vision impaired. Blind soccer uses a modified pitch, blindfolds and an audible ball. The idea of including a game of blind football during the FEVER tournament is to give everybody an understanding of the struggle that blind players go through to play the game that they love.
It is amazing that, at the age of just 12 years, Claire was able to establish a football tournament. Having met her, I can say that I am more than delighted. I was astounded by her maturity, her ability, her passion for what she does and her capability. She has taken on quite a few tasks asides from just playing football. She was also able to lobby successfully to allow an audible ball to be used in her club games so that she was not forced to give up playing after her diagnosis.
Claire is a champion already; there is no question of that. But now Claire has a new campaign. The Pararoos are Australia's Paralympic football team. They are currently ranked 10th in the world. By any standard, if you were to take football in this country and say that we were ranked 10th in the world, I think there would be a lot of people that would be pretty excited. To have our Pararoos, our Paralympic football team, ranked at that level is remarkable. Until recently, they received federal funding of $175,000. In anyone's terms, from a government perspective $175,000 is a minuscule amount of money. But we would all agree that it is an awful lot of money to the Pararoos. Unfortunately, and sadly, the Australian Sports Commission has decided to stop this funding.
There are many people who do not agree with that decision. Claire is one of them and there are many others. Claire has decided, though, not to sit back and allow this to just happen. She wants to takes action and she has done that. Claire decided to write to the Prime Minister and to the Minister for Sport. Unfortunately, despite a very well-written letter—and I can assure you it is well beyond the years, and she did write it—she received a reply from the Prime Minister which, it has to be said, was a little dismissive and perhaps a tad patronising. The Prime Minister's response to Claire did not mention the Pararoos or funding but it did thank her for taking an interest in our system of government.
As the Prime Minister found out when Claire took his reply to the media, Claire is precisely the wrong 12-year-old to dismiss out of hand. It must be said that the Minister for Sport did send her a proper response which treated her and the funding issue with some dignity and respect. I too wrote to the minister about the Pararoos' funding and have just this week received an almost identical response. I thank the minister for that because I know he did read my letter. Despite the minister's words, it is clear that no decision to restore funding of the Pararoos has been taken.
Claire will not be put off by this set back and has launched an online campaign. The petition has already gathered more than 82,000 pledges of support and signatures with a simple challenge of government: if she can get 175,000 people to pledge one dollar each, will the government match it? There is no doubt she is well on the way to achieving her goal of 175,000, be it through sponsors, pledges and support. I hope that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Sport will rise to meet the challenge.
The petition is online. I encourage all members of parliament and members of the community to have a look at this wonderful petition, this campaign absolutely being driven by this most wonderful, delightful young girl who is 12 years old. She is mature beyond her years and has the capacity to meet and talk with shadow ministers and with former ministers, to put her case succinctly and clearly, and, dare I say, much better than many a lobbyist or industry specialist I have met in this place in the past. I pay credit to her for her efforts. (Time expired)
The people of Banks elected me because they wanted to see change in the way the government is run. Coming up to one-year anniversary of the very important change I thought it would be useful to reflect on the important changes we have seen. The people in Banks wanted to see the carbon tax go, they wanted us to get the borders under control, they wanted us to address the extraordinary legacy of debt and deficit and economic mismanagement of the previous government and they also wanted us to build the roads that we so desperately need, like WestConnex in my electorate.
We are delivering on all of those commitments. The carbon tax is gone, of course. There has been only one unauthorised boat arrival in the nation this year—leading to important humanitarian and economic benefits. The budget mess is being addressed. It is a big job but we have started that task. And the roads are being delivered. WestConnex in my electorate will save more than 20 minutes for the average person driving to work in peak hour and that is a very big deal.
We have also signed free trade agreements with Japan and Korea and we are working on a very big one with China under the experienced stewardship of the minister for trade. We have also declared war on bureaucratic paralysis. We have made some tough calls. We have finally said, 'Let's build Western Sydney an airport which it so desperately needs.' We have said that companies should be financed through profits not through taxpayer subsidies. We have approved environmental projects worth literally hundreds of billions of dollars, with tens of thousands of jobs. It is a very impressive record of delivering on commitments.
The contrast we see on the other side is really quite striking because over there we see mediocrity in thought and in deed. The opposition is reactive, shallow and increasingly irrelevant, mired in negativity and unable to rise above the discredited thinking of the 1970s. The opposition cannot get behind the reform legacy of their own governments in the 1980s and 1990s through the Hawke and Keating years, or even the ideas of their more thoughtful members like the well-known intellectual and pamphleteer the member for Fraser. Their solution to every single problem can be summarised in three words—'spend more money'. That is a very simple solution but it is manifestly a failure.
They point to OECD debt levels like they are a good thing, as if we want to join the moribund economies, many of which are in the OECD and are so burdened by huge debt levels and massive unemployment. They purport to care about debt and deficit but there is a big logical problem with that—they have not delivered a surplus budget since 1989, which is a very long time ago.
They cling to that GFC like some sort of economic life raft to explain away all problems. The GFC does not make up for the economic vandalism of the NBN or for sending cheques to dead people. I have noticed they are increasingly speaking to themselves, trying to outdo one another with stinging social media critiques of government policy. You see them at question time with heads down and thumbs flying, tweeting to the converted.
We deliver government with a purpose; they delivered government by press release. We deliver outcomes; they delivered more announcements than the births, deaths and marriages page. We care about small business; they care about small unions. We are focused on the long-term future of the nation, like all good governments should; they are focused on this afternoon's edition of PM agenda. With infrastructure, we care about the practical projects, things like building WestConnex in Banks; they are focused on confused rationalisations for failed infrastructure policies.
The government is an enormous organisation. Its revenue is 13 times that of Telstra, to put it into perspective. We have immense responsibilities. It is a serious business and this government is delivering serious outcomes.
Debate interrupted.
House adjourned at 20:00
Mr Pyne to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Act 2012, and for related purposes. (Fair Entitlements Guarantee Amendment Bill 2014)
Mr Truss to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008, and for related purposes. (Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Cost Benefit Analysis and Other Measures) Bill 2014)
Mr Morrison to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Customs Act 1901, and for related purposes. (Customs Amendment (Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014)
Mr McCormack to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Development and construction of housing for Defence at RAAF Base Darwin, Northern Territory.
Mr McCormack to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Fit-out of new leased premises for the Department of Social Services, Australian Capital Territory.
Mr Ferguson to move:
That this House notes that:
(1) October has been designated Shoctober by the Cardiac Arrest Survival Foundation;
(2) Australian estimates of those dying from sudden cardiac arrest range from 23,000 to 33,000;
(3) prompt defibrillation increases the probability of survival from cardiac arrest;
(4) delayed use of defibrillators increases the probability that the victim will die;
(5) defibrillator deployment guidelines have been developed by the Automated External Defibrillator Deployment Registry after significant consultation;
(6) the commendable staff training and defibrillator placement by Sydney Trains;
(7) wider availability of defibrillators is desirable; and
(8) there have been calls that all Commonwealth funded constructions valued over $3 million should have defibrillators and conform to the new Defibrillation Guidelines 1410 (v 1.3).
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) took the chair at 09:30
Last weekend I faced one of those awkward no-win political conundrums that those of us in this place are sometimes forced to confront. For the first time in living memory, two VFL teams within my own electorate, the Footscray Bulldogs, newly returned to the VFL this year, and the Williamstown Seagulls, playing in their first year as a stand-alone club in the VFL since 2001, battled it out at the VU Whitten Oval in the VFL qualifying final. 2014 has been a great year for both clubs, with Footscray and Williamstown finishing second and third on the VFL ladder, respectively, and Williamstown taking out the Foxtel Cup League Championship earlier in the year. So anticipation for this game in Melbourne's west was high.
Unsurprisingly, the community turned out in force, with over 7,000 spectators attending on the day, including a number of proud local Labor MPs. On a very blustery day and with the wind at their backs, the Seagulls at one stage were up by 20 points, but the Dogs managed to turn the tide and won at the end of the day by 95 to 75. As a result, I understand that the state election campaign for the member for Williamstown, Wade Noonan, has taken a blow this week as he will be forced to wear a Dogs scarf in the Victorian parliament as a result of a lost bet with the member for Footscray, Marsha Thomson. As for me, while I confess that as a Footscray resident I was wearing a Dogs scarf on the day, I did have a Willy scarf in my back pocket, and the Seagulls will have my full support when they fight to keep their premiership hopes alive in their second-chance final against Werribee at North Port Oval on Sunday.
On a personal note, it has been fantastic to see footy back at Whitten Oval, which is just down the road from my new electorate office on Geelong Road. It has been great to see the match-day vibe in Footscray as people walk up to the ground. It has been special for me to be able to give my young daughter her first taste of live footy, sitting on the hill at a true suburban footy match. It has been particularly pleasing to see a big family presence at all the games at VU Whitten Oval this year. It has been a great advertisement for the young men and women from all over Melbourne's west to join their local footy clubs.
It is important to understand that in Melbourne's west footy clubs are more than just sporting organisations; they are community institutions. Footy is the great leveller in our community. It does not matter whether you are from the wealthiest suburb in the west or you are someone that is doing it tough, whether your great-great-grandfather was born here or you just migrated to Australia last week: when you are out on the footy field you are the equal of everyone else out there with you. This inherent egalitarianism is expressed through the major role that our footy clubs play in the broader community. I have already spoken about the important Sons of the West Men's Health Program that has been undertaken in my electorate this year by the Western Bulldogs. But footy clubs across the west also routinely engage in voluntary school clinics, leadership workshops and guest coaching for smaller clubs.
Our footy clubs help us to feel like we are part of something bigger. They remind us that we are not just individuals but part of a community with shared values and aspirations, a community that comes together to celebrate, to commiserate and to make the area that we live in that little bit better for us all. So I say to everyone in Melbourne's west: 'Do not be shy—get down to your local footy club and be a part of it.' And, at the end of the day, 'Carn the Scrays!'
I rise this morning to again talk about the Centenary of Anzac. Each of us in our electorates has commenced commemorating not just the great national event but also the local events, the local history and the happenings of a hundred years ago. I particularly wanted to mention this morning the interest and the involvement of young Australians in our community, which we are all seeing on so many levels.
The Casey Anzac Centenary Community Committee, which I formed last year to assess and recommend local grants, comprises a number of outstanding citizens. One in particular is 21-year-old Blake Hadlow, a student from Mount Evelyn, who has a deep interest in the history of the Anzacs. He is the grandson of the late Harry Smith of Montrose, who served Australia with distinction in Korea and then afterwards as a prominent member of the RSL. Blake showed a very strong interest and continues to, which is a great asset to us in the Casey community.
Earlier this year I had the opportunity to meet another young Casey resident with a deep interest in the history of Anzac, and that is Otis Heffernan-Wooden from Lilydale High School. He was one of 12 recipients of the Victorian Premier's Spirit of Anzac Prize for a short essay. I have read his essay. It is an outstanding piece of work, very accurately researched and incredibly well written. As one of the winners, he had the privilege of travelling earlier this year to Gallipoli, the Western Front and Lemnos in Greece, which of course was the place where the Anzacs assembled before going to Gallipoli.
I want to pay tribute to Otis for his interest, not just at the time of writing the essay, but for his enduring interest in the Centenary of Anzac in the Casey electorate. I think all of us would agree that the interest and the involvement of young Australians in our community is something we can all be very proud of and know that in the future they will carry the story forward.
Just in the spirit of the football contribution of the member for Gellibrand, can I add for this weekend's fixture on Sunday: go the Richmond Tigers.
As our nation embarks on commemorative events to mark the centenary of our brave Anzacs, I reflect upon those whose contributions, to this day, continue to stand as a beacon to all. One such individual in my own community was Mr Les Kennedy OAM. Les sadly passed away on 7 July aged 89. Having lived a full life and achieving more than many would in two lifetimes, Les is remembered as a man whose dedication extended well beyond expectation.
Born in Ararat in 1925, Les joined the Royal Australian Navy in October 1942 as a 17-year-old. While Les himself was spared captivity in the prisoner of war camps, he did serve on the HMAS Manoora. At the end of World War II the HMAS Manoora and her crew were sent to Japan and to Singapore to bring home our broken boys. As a young man, Les saw the horrors of war etched on the faces of many.
Discharged before his 21st birthday in 1946, he returned home, like so many, forever a changed man. Les returned to the district, married his beautiful wife Flora and then settled to raise their daughter Josephine. Always community minded, Les set about making a difference in the Ballarat community, firstly by running for local council and becoming mayor in 1966.
After seven years as a councillor Les moved on to other pursuits but his brothers in arms were never far from his thoughts. As a result, Les took up the mantle and worked tirelessly towards the establishment of a unique monument—a monument which stands today as a testament to the steadfast determination in ensuring not one single prisoner of war was ever forgotten.
In 2004, the dream finally became a reality with the unveiling of the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat's Botanical Gardens. This impressive memorial hosts more than 35,000 Australian ex-service men and women's names who had been prisoners of war in conflicts dating back as far as the Boer War. Under Les's stewardship, the Ballarat memorial committee tirelessly campaigned for the development of this memorial. It has been a very important part of the POW story.
The list of memberships and achievements attributed to Les is a long one. As a tireless advocate for our veterans, he also achieved so much. In 2005, Les was awarded the Order of Australia Medal for his services to the Ballarat community.
The ultimate passage of legislation in 2008 recognising the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial in Ballarat as a national memorial was news Les Kennedy and the veteran community had long waited to hear. It is now recognised as the first national memorial outside of Canberra. It is a fitting tribute to our military heroes.
I very much want to say vale to you Les Kennedy. You will long be remembered in our community and beyond as a loving family man, a community leader and a driving force behind the Australian Ex-Prisoners of War Memorial. Lest we forget.
On 22 May 2014 the independent statutory authority responsible for regulating agricultural pesticides and chemicals, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, the APVMA, announced the cancellation of all horticultural uses for the chemical fenthion. The ongoing review process undertaken by the APVMA and its subsequent decision to cancel the use of fenthion was in turn the subject of a review by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, which handed down its recommendations on 31 July 2014.
For the stonefruit and grape growers in my electorate of Pearce, the APVMA's decision has been another major setback in their ongoing struggle with an issue that has the potential to present as a significant impediment to their industry—an industry that, within my electorate alone, produces more than $40 million a year worth of stonefruit, apples and pears. In broader terms, in the 2012-13 financial year, Australia's fruit and vegetable exports accounted for $640 million. It was estimated that over 75 per cent of these exports were potentially susceptible to fruit fly. The Senate committee heard evidence that, nationally, the problem of fruit fly cost more than an estimated $150 million per year in eradication procedures, in destroyed fruit, in field control and in quarantine treatments so as to access interstate and overseas markets.
Growers have relied upon fenthion since the 1960s as protection from the effects of the fruit fly. In my electorate, it is the Mediterranean fruit fly which presents a particular problem. Without adequate treatment mechanisms, medfly causes extreme and extensive damage to crops. However, due to the decision of the APVMA, the use of fenthion will soon be prohibited, leaving growers without comparable or effective treatment mechanisms.
Whilst it is accepted that the APVMA is an independent statutory authority, that does not mean the authority is immune from error. The potential prohibition of fenthion, on the current data and evidence available, is questionable. For nearly 60 years fenthion has been used to treat stonefruit and grapes without a single reported health issue being recorded. The committee noted that the only human-derived source of evidence supporting the APVMA's conclusion that fenthion may have the potential to cause adverse health effects was a 35-year-old unpublished paper which concluded that there were few, if any, verifiable effects attributable to the chemical that were evident. If this is the science relied upon, it suggests the potential danger presented by fenthion is not immediate.
Critically, the immediate removal of fenthion will potentially force producers in the direction of using even more toxic products. Some of these chemicals have been linked to neurotoxic effects and others have been banned in the European Union due to their unacceptably high risk upon the environment. Whilst it is clear that alternatives to fenthion must be identified and developed, this will of course take time. Assistance is required not just from peak industry bodies but from all levels of government. The growers in my electorate are willing to work with authorities to develop alternative treatment programs, but they require time.
The Senate committee recommended at paragraph 4.94 that the maximum 12-month transition period be allowed under the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994. The view of growers in my electorate, which I firmly share, is that that is significantly insufficient and that a longer period of transition is required—perhaps as high as three years.
Yesterday I had the privilege of attending here in Parliament House a gathering of some of this country's leading scientists and researchers. The budget cuts to parliamentary screening procedures must have kicked in, because I am sure there is no way the Abbott government would have let so many qualified scientists and researchers into the building knowingly. They were here to launch this very important book Science Matters: How we will address the challenges of Australia's future.
The leading scientists and researchers of our country made very clear and compelling case that it is central to Australia's future economic prosperity that we continue to invest in science and research. That is something that I, as the member for Melbourne and the Greens spokesperson on science and research, am acutely aware of. Since 2009 Australia makes more every year from exporting health and medical related products than we do from exporting cars, but you would not know it. Every time the car industry gets in trouble it is front-page news, yet successive governments think nothing of taking the axe to the health and medical research budget every time they want to balance the books. But it is more than about simply economic benefits to the country.
We cannot only fund the research that seems to be economically applied; we need to defend what one scientist yesterday called curiosity-driven research. Unless we back things that, on the face of it, may seem to have no application or no direct economic benefit we will not get those kinds of breakthroughs that have led to technology and science that we now apply in everyday life. So we need a plan in this country to do what President Obama has done and say, 'We are going to spend three per cent of our GDP on science, research and development.' Other countries, including our trading partners, are already exceeding that, yet here in Australia we are at 2.2 per cent. Thanks to this government, we are going backwards.
The last government, as I said, threatened $300 million in cuts to the National Health and Medical Research Council budget. Researchers and scientists, in their lab coats, took to the streets around the country in their thousands and defeated those cuts. Here, this government has got rid of the science minister, and we are now one of only two or three countries in the OECD without a science and research plan. It is for that reason that I have been proud, this year, to launch the Respect Research campaign. As a country, we need to make a clear decision that we will back research and science so that this country has an industry when the rest of the world tells us to stop digging and so that all those people who are engaged in curiosity-driven research and all those people who are working out the next cure for cancer know that they have certainty beyond the vicissitudes of the three-year political cycle and that they will not be subject to the budget axe every time government needs to try and balance the books. I urge people to get involved with respectresearch.com.au.
I stood in this chamber a couple of months ago and said I would update the House on a plan to improve the Barton Highway in my electorate. I can report that we are making significant progress towards a staged duplication plan. To those who have questioned the need for another plan, I will clarify: there has never been a plan. There was a corridor identified for future duplication of the highway; there was no detailed plan to make it happen. That is why we have seen a series of bandaids applied to the road, with large sums of money being spent but with limited progress toward duplication.
I came into office last September and discovered, to my dismay, that we had to start from scratch. I secured from the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments a funding commitment of $300,000 and a steering committee of government and council delegates overseeing the plan. A consultancy firm has now been appointed to update that plan, to complete it. Our goal as a community is to develop a fully costed, detailed and staged duplication plan for the highway. When I say 'staged', this is not going to happen overnight and it is not going to happen all at once; it will be in bite-sized chunks. That is how we will achieve duplication of the highway.
Commuters along the Barton will know that upgrade works have recently finished on the southern edge of Murrumbateman and that work on the McIntosh Circuit upgrade near Murrumbateman is just beginning. These are part of the staged works that will improve the safety of the highway. The community that drives regularly along the Barton, whether it be for work or because they live locally, wants to see improvements that are getting us to our ultimate goal. When I prioritised this as one of the most significant issues in my electorate, I did so knowing the importance of working closely with key stakeholders and with the broader community and knowing the high community expectations.
A full-scale public consultation is underway for the next month, until 26 September. I am strongly encouraging my constituents to contribute. An online survey has already received a significant number of submissions. It invites people to nominate their greatest areas of concern about the highway. Community drop-in sessions will be held at the Murrumbateman Farmers Market and Murrumbateman hall on Saturday week, 13 September. A community information night will be held on 15 October at Murrumbateman Country Inn. The public is being openly encouraged to share their ideas, express their concerns and play a part in the framing of the improvement strategy. With the community's support and involvement, I am determined to continue shaping this process so that we have a plan that will progressively address our concerns.
The early years are the most important in a child's development. That is why in 2008 Labor worked with states and territories around Australia to ensure that all Australian children had 15 hours a week of kinder in the year before they started primary school. This program is now under threat. The 15- hours program has been incredibly successful, with 56 per cent of Australian children now receiving 15 hours of preschool education compared to just 12 per cent in 2006.
Research shows that children who attend 15 hours of preschool have higher scores in grade 3 NAPLAN tests and in grade 4 maths, science and languages. The effects of high-quality preschool education are long-lasting. We know that whatever we spend in high-quality preschool education we make back in higher year 12 graduation rates, lower rates of welfare dependency and higher taxes. Despite this compelling research, the Abbott government is threatening to cut 15 hours of kinder next year, plunging local communities into uncertainty.
The decision is appalling public policy. Right around the world governments are making once-in-a-generation investments in early childhood while this government takes an austerity approach to helping four-year-old Australians get the best start in life. And don't forget this is combined with a billion dollars in cuts to child care. What is just as bad as the decision itself is the uncertainty in which it has placed kinders around the country. Kinders in my electorate and around Victoria embrace the 15-hour reform. They have put on new staff. Some of them even built new rooms. They changed their timetables. Now kinder committees want to advertise for 2015 and fill their spots but they do not know how many places they can offer. They do not even know how many staff they will need next year. It is no way to run a program.
I recently consulted with kinders in my electorate about what the cut would mean for them and the feedback was very alarming. One kindergarten in my electorate told me it would need to reduce hours and potentially cut four staff if the Abbott government proceeded with the cut. This kindy has built additional rooms. It has employed additional staff to accommodate 15 hours per week. It services one of the most diverse and low income parts of my electorate. At least half of the students arrive at that kindergarten as three or four-year-olds without speaking any English. Two-thirds of its students have a healthcare card.
Kindy committees and teachers have explained to me the very important role they play not just in educating the students but in helping the families that become part of their communities to be the strongest parents that they can be. The work that they do is important and it is incredibly meaningful. That is why I call on the Abbott government to end this uncertainty and commit to 15 hours of kinder each week for our four-year-olds. It is not good enough for the minister to blame the so-called budget emergency when at the very same time $50,000 is being given to women around the country who are having a baby. I will continue to fight for 15 hours of kinder not just for children and families but for our nation as a whole. (Time expired)
I rise to speak in support of the Australian dairy industry, particularly in the context of two critical initiatives which will develop jobs and stimulate economic growth in Gippsland. The ongoing negotiations for a free trade agreement with China and the proposed upgrade of the Macalister irrigation district are important opportunities for the federal government to deliver benefits for dairy farmers in Gippsland. By way of context, the dairy industry is a major contributor to the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of Gippsland. It is an enormous contributor to the wealth of our nation, with an estimated 23 per cent of Australia's dairy economic activity coming from the Gippsland region.
At its heart in Gippsland is the Macalister irrigation district, which I have spoken about many times in the past. The MID is the largest irrigation area in southern Victoria, which produces about $500 million of economic value to the Gippsland region. The modernisation of the Macalister irrigation district is a critical infrastructure issue for the future prosperity of Gippsland but also for the dairy industry more broadly throughout Australia. For those members who are not familiar with the MID, it is one of the most productive agricultural areas in the nation, but the irrigation system itself is antiquated and in urgent need of an upgrade.
I am pleased to say that the first stage of that work had been undertaken by Southern Rural Water, by the irrigators, in partnership with the Victorian state government. In the order of $32 million will be spent up until 2016. The future phases of the modernisation program have not been funded yet and I think they are perfectly suited to a joint government initiative between the state and federal government and also local irrigators again. I am very pleased that the Minister for Agriculture, Barnaby Joyce, has visited the region and consulted with my local dairy farmers in relation to this issue and I am keen to see that consultation continue into the future.
In a similar vein, I am keen to support the dairy industry in its bid for a better deal under the proposed China free trade agreement. I am very proud to support the industry in its most recent social media campaign which, I note for the benefit of Hansard, is hard to explain. It is hashtagged 'FTA4dairy'. The Australian dairy industry currently trades at a competitive disadvantage with the New Zealand dairy giant Fonterra, when it comes to the Chinese market, and we need to do everything we can to help level the playing field in the future.
I have had the opportunity to meet with dairy industry leaders and I support the Australian Dairy Farmers President, Noel Campbell, who recently told the Weekly Times in Victoria that a China-Australia free trade agreement has the opportunity to place Australian dairy on a level footing with New Zealand's industry and will provide benefits for 'everyone'. I quote from Noel:
A positive China FTA will help to bolster economic growth, provide jobs, encourage industry investment, and provide Chinese consumers with the clean, green and fresh dairy produce they deserve.
This is a great opportunity for the Australian dairy industry. It is a great opportunity for the federal government to deliver for our rural and regional constituents. I am encouraged by the comments from the trade minister, Andrew Robb, who said earlier this year that he is after a 'New Zealand plus' deal when it comes to the dairy sector. I look forward to a positive outcome from the negotiations with China.
A group of 24 workers from a local building and construction company called Ausreo, in Wetherill Park, have finally settled an industrial dispute with their management following 10 weeks of being locked out from their place of work. These workers were locked out by their company following the breakdown of negotiations surrounding a new industrial agreement. I made a point of visiting these workers on a number of occasions during the lockout. Most of them are low-paid workers who have been with the company for a substantial amount of time. All these workers wanted was a fair go, improved long service leave and greater job security. Importantly, they wanted pay that was commensurate with their Victorian colleagues working at the same company and doing the same work. These workers at Wetherill Park are being paid just above the award for making concrete reinforcement products in a highly profitable industry. Instead of addressing the workers concerns at the very first instance, I understand the company refused to engage in any serious or meaningful negotiations and effectively forced these workers into a lockout.
Most of these workers are Vietnamese. Many are actual refugees and live in my community. Whilst there are always two sides to the employment relationship, it is not exactly a level playing field. It is not a matter of both sides having the same bargaining strength when negotiating. A lockout of low-paid, predominantly ethnic based workers seems so un-Australian. It almost seems that the tactic is to starve workers into submission. This is definitely not professional and certainly not dignifying. Many of the Ausreo employees have advised me that they had to contact their banks to extend their mortgage repayments and others had to cancel their childcare arrangements. This local dispute highlights the need to lift the level of training for front-line management in resolving, rather than escalating, workplace conflict.
Fortunately, an agreement was eventually reached on the 22nd of last month, which will hopefully see improvements in these workers' wages and conditions. I congratulate Dennis Ngo and his colleagues—the 24 workers that I mentioned—for their perseverance and determination in taking a stand for what they believe and in earning the respect of the community.
I would also like to take the opportunity to thank a long-term friend of mine, Jan Primrose from the AMWU, who did much to support these workers during the course of this dispute. I also acknowledge Ms Bich Thuy Pham and members of Asian Women at Work, who did a lot to support these workers by providing lunches and breakfast. On behalf of a grateful community, I thank all those involved in resolving this dispute.
This year we celebrate the 100th anniversary of Red Cross serving our Australian community. The Red Cross have earned an impeccable reputation in carrying out humanitarian work in times of conflict and disaster and for their world-leading blood donor service. Just as important is their everyday work in communities helping the most vulnerable people who are experiencing personal family crises. After Cyclone Yasi, the Cairns branch of the Red Cross assisted with disaster recovery leadership, supporting local state governments and NGOs in delivering community services.
In 2014, Red Cross Cairns marked its own milestone, celebrating 100 years since its establishment. Although it closed temporarily after the Second World War, it reopened in 1954 and the first group of volunteers were instrumental in getting the blood donor service established in Cairns. It has been operating continuously since then and in February I attended the opening of the Cairns Health and Wellness Stay Centre, the Pat Gosper Place. This new building, constructed with some financial assistance from the Commonwealth, is on the same site that the Red Cross has provided medical accommodation for more than 50 years. The new four-storey centre is not just a bed for the night, however. It is a place to find calm, comfort and recovery for body and spirit. Pat Gosper, after whom the centre is named, was an active Red Cross worker in Far North Queensland for almost 70 years. Pat was instrumental in facilitating the fundraising and purchase of the original block of land and the neighbouring building and is described as a force to be reckoned with. I certainly would not argue with that description! I also recognise Win Murray, who has recently turned 90; she too has dedicated decades to the Red Cross in Cairns. Both women have been awarded medals of the Order of Australia for their contributions. Speaking to the president of the Cairns branch, Pam Clayton, I was pleased to learn that the organisation certainly is not resting on its laurels. In recognition of the centenary, they have started an international humanitarian law interest group which meets to discuss topical issues in international humanitarian law, and to promote awareness of the work undertaken in this field. Initiatives like this not only acknowledge the past but also recognise contemporary needs, and will contribute to the ongoing regeneration of the Red Cross. I would like to congratulate Red Cross Cairns members and volunteers in my electorate of Leichhardt, whose everyday work makes such a positive, lasting difference to the lives of very vulnerable people in our community. Those members and volunteers also provide a fabulous service and a home away from home for people that are forced to remove themselves from many of the remote communities in Cape York and the Torres Strait in order to seek medical help in our city. (Time expired)
In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
When Australians hear their government talk of involvement in Iraq again, they have good reason to be cautious. The disaster of the 2003 invasion colours every debate—and we should never forget its lessons. As I said back in 2003, in a letter presented to the then US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, the Bush administration, the Blair administration, and our own Howard government rushed in to Iraq. They went in on the basis of false claims about weapons of mass destruction, and before weapons inspectors had been given time to do their work. They went in without international support, and without the support of the majority of the Iraqi population or of neighbouring countries. Australia went in despite hundreds of thousands of Australians marching against that involvement—and the result? Nearly a decade of conflict, hundreds of thousands of deaths, and significant instability in the region. In the context of that history, it is right that people are cautious now.
While history should inform our actions, it should not cloud a sober assessment of the facts of the current situation. Islamic State is an abhorrent, brutal force. It is an organisation that will kill anyone who opposes it. There are confirmed instances of IS engaging in widespread ethnic and religious cleansing, targeted killings, forced conversions, abductions, trafficking, slavery, sexual abuse, destruction of places of religious and cultural significance, and the besieging of entire communities. There are reports of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths, and thousands injured. These reports are so serious that on Monday the United Nations Human Rights Council authorised an investigation into mass atrocity crimes in Iraq. And journalists like Steven Sotloff and James Foley have been brutally killed for propaganda purposes. The UN refugee agency says around 1.2 million Iraqis have been forced to flee their homes. A humanitarian disaster already exists in Iraq.
The scale of the crisis has led to calls for the international community to assist. The United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, has said:
The international community must ensure solidarity. Not a single country or organisation can handle this international terrorism. This has global concerns, so I appreciate some countries who have been showing very decisive and determined actions without addressing this issue through certain means, including some military and counter terrorist actions, we will just end up allowing these terrorist activities to continue.
That is from the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The Iraqi government has asked for help in pushing back IS, and Iraqi communities here in Australia have called for support too, including Kurds, Yazidis, Christians, and other minorities. Labor MPs have met with some of these groups, as I myself have done, and understand their fears for families and communities left behind in Iraq.
I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has ruled out sending Australian combat troops to Iraq. That, indeed, would be a very serious step. Labor have said clearly that we do not want Australia's regular forces on the ground in Iraq, but Labor have clearly backed Australia's involvement in the current humanitarian mission. Australia should act because, as a decent international citizen, we respect the doctrine of responsibility to protect. Responsibility to protect is engaged when national authorities are unwilling or unable to protect their citizens from genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity.
Former Labor Foreign Minister Gareth Evans championed the idea of the responsibility to protect. Gareth is the driver of the adoption of responsibility to protect by the United Nations and is the leading international authority on it. He uses a set of criteria to judge when responsibility to protect should be engaged. On the current question of Iraq, these principles have provided Labor with a very useful framework to help guide our decision making around supporting Australian involvement both now and in the future.
Some of the criteria that Gareth has set out include, firstly, just cause—is the threat serious and is irreparable harm occurring to human beings? News reports and briefings provided to the opposition by Australian security agencies make clear that communities in northern Iraq face very serious threats from IS and that thousands have already been killed. Representatives of Kurdish, Assyrian Christian and other communities in Australia have argued strongly that their communities in Iraq face genocide from Islamic State, which is highly intolerant of people and communities who do not subscribe to their own extreme version of Sunni Islam or, indeed, of Sunnis who oppose their violent jihad.
Secondly, we ask: is there the right intention? Is the main intention of the military action to prevent human suffering, or are there other motives? Unlike in 2003, there is no intention for regime change of the government of Iraq by the US, Australia or other countries. Nor is there any attempt by countries to gain access to Iraq's natural resources.
Thirdly, we ask: is this the final resort? Has every other measure besides military intervention been taken into account? This does not mean that every other measure has to have been applied and failed. It means that there must be reasonable grounds to believe that only military action will work in this situation. The Iraqi security forces have proven incapable of protecting the communities in northern Iraq. Islamic State has shown it will not negotiate or follow the rules of war. The advice of security agencies is that the Peshmerga, the armed forces of the Kurdistan regional government in the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region of Iraq, are the major effective armed force currently in the northern region capable of resisting Islamic State. They are effective and they are bearing the brunt of the fighting. Because the fighting is worst in the north, that is where our help should primarily be directed.
Fourthly, we ask: is there legitimate authority? The Abbott government has advised the opposition that current proposed actions have been authorised by the government of Iraq. That was confirmed yesterday by the Iraqi Ambassador to Australia. The support of the United Nations Secretary-General is also very significant. We see that countries such as Canada, which did not participate in the invasion in 2003, have agreed to be part of this humanitarian mission.
Fifthly, we ask: are the means proportional? Are the minimum necessary means applied to secure human protection? This criterion is readily met for humanitarian air drops that include food, water and medicine. I congratulate our Air Force and other personnel who have already completed these vital missions, saving thousands of lives on Mount Sinjar.
As for re-arming the Peshmerga, the alternative is to watch IS, using sophisticated weapons it has captured in its forward march, outgun the only effective force protecting civilians in the north. We are supporting Iraqis to defend themselves against a merciless enemy. The Peshmerga have for many years provided the Kurdish region of Iraq with a degree of security much better than in other parts of Iraq.
Sixthly, we ask: is there a reasonable prospect? Is it likely that action will protect human life, and are the consequences of this action sure not to be worse than the consequences of no action at all?
This is perhaps the most difficult question, because the history of Western influence in the Middle East is so fraught with complexity. It is hard to point to too many examples in which intervention has left a country clearly better off, and unfortunately there are too many instances where the opposite could be said. We are rightly cautious, especially after Australia's previous involvement in Iraq, which saw our brave service men and women sent to fight in the wrong place for the wrong reasons. But I believe the humanitarian missions we are currently involved in do meet this criteria. Allowing IS to slaughter whole communities cannot be allowed, so we must respond to the Iraqi call for assistance.
Of course, responsibility to protect really seeks to answer one question: that is, in the face of mass atrocity crimes—genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity—at what point can the international community no longer stand by and do nothing? It is Labor's belief, based on the assessments of the facts that I have just provided, that Australia and the world have a responsibility to protect, and thus an obligation to act. To borrow a phrase made famous by our Chief of Army: 'The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.' Australia could no longer walk past. We had to do something in response to such unspeakable horror. (Extension of time granted)
But just as important as our own action is making sure that Iraq's neighbours do something in response, too. That means that countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar and others should be encouraged to stand up and say very clearly: 'The actions of IS are beyond the pale, and we will join international efforts to defeat them.'
The conflict in Syria has been an important factor underpinning the rise of IS. The spread of IS from Iraq to Syria and then back again, returning much stronger and more brutal, underscores how critical it is for nations in the region to acknowledge this problem is bigger than any one of them. More than 191,000 Syrians have already lost their lives. The scale of the humanitarian disaster in Syria has seen impacts spill all over the region. More than nine million displaced Syrians have to go somewhere, and that has seen both Lebanon and Jordan take millions of refugees. The legal authority does not currently exist for similar support to Syria, but we should be doing a great deal more to support Syria in any case. The UN has called for a $6½ billion aid fund for the Syrian crisis. It is the largest-ever appeal for funds, and it reflects the scale of the humanitarian disaster in Syria. In Australia under the coalition government, we have pledged just $30 million or so, a very sad response to an enormous humanitarian need. And we have agreed to take just 2,200 refugees from Syria and 2,200 from Iraq as part of our regular intake, when millions are displaced and at risk.
As the opposition leader said earlier in the week, every action of IS is a betrayal of millions of good people of good conscience who follow Islam. Islamic State does not represent the Islamic faith. This cannot be repeated often enough. Likewise, action taken against IS is not action against Islam, and we must not allow any misrepresentation that this is the case. By working with the international community, including countries with large Islamic populations like Indonesia and Malaysia, we can mobilise the power of mainstream Islam against minority extremism. In fact, I note a group of British imams and scholars recently issued a fatwa condemning Islamic State as a: 'tyrannical, extremist, heretical organisation committing abhorrent massacres and persecution.' The fatwa calls on Muslims to oppose IS and follow the law of their homeland—in this case, Britain. Our own security chief, David Irvine, has stressed again and again that Australian Muslims are ASIO's best partners against violent extremists, and I acknowledge the hard work and personal cost that many Australians have borne in order to speak out against extremism.
I conclude with this: what I have laid out today is Labor's assessment of the situation in Iraq at this point in time. I have explained why we have offered the government our support for Australia's humanitarian involvement thus far. I have outlined the principles that will guide how Labor responds to any proposed further involvement by Australia. Labor believes that there are circumstances where Australia has a responsibility to protect, but as an opposition we also have a responsibility to question and to carefully scrutinise the approach put forward by the government.
Labor will work constructively with the government, but we are no rubber stamp. We will look at the facts, and we will make sensible judgements. National security is above politics, but such important decisions are never beyond question, interrogation or criticism.
The decision to send Australian men and women into harm's way should never be taken lightly, and we will never take that decision lightly. Our responsibility to the people of Iraq is to ensure any action Australia is involved in leaves the place better, not worse. President Obama's careful, considered response to this matter shows that maybe the international community has learnt some very hard lessons from the disastrous 2003 invasion of Iraq.
It is with profound sadness and concern for the terrorised men, women and children in Iraq and Syria that all of us rise to speak about the developing situations in the region. In supporting the Prime Minister's statement to the parliament on Monday, I want to reiterate that everybody in the Australian government is steadfast in our support for decency and our solidarity with the Iraqis and Syrians suffering at the hands of ISIL.
The brutality of the hate-fuelled terrorist movement which, as the Prime Minister said on Monday, offensively calls itself the Islamic State knows no bounds. Each and every day media reports come out of the region describing mass executions, beheadings, crucifixions and other torturous acts carried out by this death cult. Even worse, is the gruesome footage that ISIL distributes on the internet to revel in their killing of innocent people—people who have done nothing except fail to conform to their medieval, narrow view of the world.
Just this morning, we received reports of ISIL posting footage of the purported beheading of a second American journalist, Steven Sotloff, and exulting in this cruellest form of barbarism. My heart goes out to his family and to the thousands of families in Iraq and Syria, whose names we do not know, but who also mourn their loved ones following the mass killings meted out by ISIL.
As Australians, we cannot stand by and watch such suffering. We cannot hear reports of a potential genocide developing and turn away. It is simply not in our nature. Our history has shown time and again that as a country we will not let pure evil reign unchecked nor fail to come to the aid of vulnerable people. We do not seek out conflict, but we do play our part in resolving it and in assisting people in need. The current situation in Iraq is no different. As the Prime Minister said in his statement to the parliament on Monday, we cannot in good conscience let the Iraqi people face this horror alone, or ask others to do in the name of human decency what we will not do ourselves. So, as a government and with the valued support of the Australian people, we are doing what is decent and right and providing military and humanitarian assistance to besieged people in the region.
I wish to acknowledge the leadership of our Prime Minister, whose compelling statement to the House reinforced the pressing need for our action, and also the foreign minister, who has been a vocal advocate on the international stage for strong condemnation of ISIL and for humanitarian support. At the request of the United States, and as part of a multinational effort, we have successfully transported stores of military equipment, including arms and munitions. Australian aircraft have also assisted in successful airdrops of food, water and hygiene supplies to people trapped on Mount Sinjar and in the town of Amerli.
We have done this with the support of the Iraqi government, and we stand ready to provide further assistance as required. We will do all that we reasonably can to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people and to put a halt to ISIL's barbarism. We will also be relentless in our pursuit of the terrorists who have betrayed this country and lost their right to call themselves Australians by joining the ISIL forces. At least 60 Australian citizens are thought to be fighting with ISIL, some of them boasting on social media of their hideous, inhumane acts, with about another 100 or so providing support. These people must know this: if they return to this country they will be caught and punished with the full force of the law.
In conclusion, I want to commend the Prime Minister and the foreign minister for their moral courage in the face of pure evil. I also want to commend the Australian people who have provided us with the support to be able to undertake these actions on their behalf. I also want to reiterate my support for further humanitarian actions in Iraq and Syria, if necessary.
There is no doubt that the situation in Iraq is dire. To quote Amnesty International:
The Islamic State is carrying out despicable crimes and has transformed rural areas of Sinjar into blood-soaked killing fields in its brutal campaign to obliterate all traces of non-Arabs and non-Sunni Muslims.
I agree that the international community must act and must act quickly. Indeed, I am open-minded about what shape that action should take, even though many people would be aware of my strident opposition to the war more broadly, and in particular opposition to Australia's decision to join in the invasion in 2003 which started this war.
My concern today is twofold. Firstly, how did Australia help to create this mess that we are now forced to deal with? How did we get ourselves into this mess? My second concern is how do we properly go about dealing with it. What are the proper processes for government and the parliament to make the decisions—the best decisions—to now come up with the best solutions?
Regarding how we got into this mess, let us not forget that Australia helped to start this war 11½ years ago when we joined in the invasion of Iraq. We removed Saddam Hussein, we dismantled their administration and we disbanded the Iraqi military. In fact, what we did—starting 11½ years ago—was help create the vacuum which was subsequently filled by terrible violence, the vacuum that very much is being filled today in parts of Iraq by the Islamic State.
Today's tragedy is all the more tragic because it did not need to be this way. There were other ways to deal with the odious Saddam Hussein 11½ years ago—for example, giving the weapons inspectors the extra time that they were asking for to search for these weapons of mass destruction. But instead, what did the Australian government do and, in particular, the then Prime Minister, John Howard, supported by the then foreign minister, Alexander Downer? They built a framework of lies to justify us joining in the start of this 11½-year war. People would well remember the nonsense about Iraq having a massive arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, that it was cooperating actively with Osama bin Laden and it was only a matter of time before those deadly weapons would be passed to the terrorists and used against us. Remember all the talk that Iraq could launch missiles at the United Kingdom within 40 minutes. All of these stories were subsequently debunked and found to be false.
More recently, we have made more mistakes. Australia, of course, has been diplomatically, at least, a very strong supporter of the anti-Assad rebels in Syria. Part of those rebels was, and is, the Islamic State. For quite a long period of time now, the Gillard government, then the brief Rudd government and now the Abbott government, have been giving succour to the very people who are now causing the problems in Iraq.
No wonder then, given history of this, that many people are questioning and are restless about what we are doing—and, in fact, about whether we are doing the right thing. That helps to explain the position of many people, which I hope to represent faithfully. The position of many people is that decisions like this really need to be decisions for the parliament. There is, I suggest, no more serious decision for a country than to go to war. And we are in a war now. In fact, some of the dishonesty is already emerging in recent days, talking about, 'We are involved in more humanitarian missions in Iraq.' The military would say that flying munitions and weapons around a battlefield is combat support. It is a key part of war fighting. So I reject the notion that what we are now doing is humanitarian. We are providing combat support operations for the Kurds, and it needs to be seen as that. That may well be with the approval of the vast majority of the parliament, perhaps including myself, if it were to be put to a vote. But let us be honest with the Australian people about what we are now involved in.
Hence I make the point—and I have been saying this consistently for some time now—that the decision to go to war and the decision to commit troops or military forces to a war zone, to put them in harm's way, really should be taken out of the hands of the Prime Minister. It really should be a decision for the parliament. When I have said this publicly in previous days, the Prime Minister has described my suggestion as a novel idea. I reject that criticism—or at least observation—by the Prime Minister. It is not novel to have the parliament directly involved in decisions about war and peace and sending troops or military forces to war. In fact, it is already the law of the land in countries as diverse as Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and even the United States. It is their law that the congress be involved in making decisions about sending troops into a conflict, and certainly declaring war. Yes, in the United States, sometimes presidents ignore that requirement, but it is their law. So if it is good enough for these countries that we hold in high regard, why do we in Australia still have this historical oddity, I suppose you could call it, where the Prime Minister can act virtually unilaterally and take us to war—as was the case in 2003 when John Howard, virtually unilaterally, took us to war in Iraq?
Even in the UK, it has become the convention that the House of Commons will be involved in decisions about becoming involved in a conflict. It is very telling that, last year, British Prime Minister David Cameron took to the House of Commons whether or not Britain should provide material support to the rebels in Syria. And the House of Commons, in what was a stunning defeat for the British Prime Minister, voted that down. It might have been a stunning defeat for the British Prime Minister, but I think it was a triumph for democracy in the United Kingdom. It is something we should seek to emulate, because the House of Commons decided that it would be a bad idea to provide support to the Syrian rebels, part of which is the Islamic State, which we are now battling in Iraq.
I make the point again that the situation is dire. We need to do something, and I am open minded about what we do. But is it not a crying shame that we helped to create this mess in the first place? Is it not a crying shame that we live in an otherwise wonderful country, but we still allow our Prime Minister to make decisions as weighty as this?
In closing, I think this issue highlights that the government is not as strong on national security as it would like us to believe. The fact is that it is not allowing a proper parliamentary debate on this matter; instead, it has shunted it up here to the Federation Chamber, where it will end with a whimper and there will not be a vote in the main chamber. I think the government is letting us down on national security by handling it this way—just as I think, more broadly, the government is letting us down in some other areas on national security.
The government is, understandably, wanting to progress some reforms to our security legislation, many of which are very good reforms. But when those suggestions came to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and the committee reported last year, the committee in fact recommended that any reforms be prepared in detail, be put into an exposure draft, be put out for public comment and stakeholder consultation and be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny. And that is not going to happen.
Another misstep: despite all the talk about home-grown terrorism and the fact that terrorists look for soft targets—we know that—the government is withdrawing the federal police from my own home state of Tasmania, including Hobart airport. That is another misstep by the government. But I hope that by highlighting these things publicly I can encourage the government to look to rectify them.
In closing, all I can say is that we can but hope that things turn around quickly for the better for the Iraqi people. A decade of UN sanctions followed by 11½ years of war, continuing violently to this day, have cost the lives of millions of Iraqis, and every one of those casualties is a human being with families and friends, and every one of those deaths is a tragedy. It brings me to tears that it did not have to be this way. But I genuinely hope that whatever the international community decides to do can at least bring some peace to some part of their country. And I say to the Iraqi people, as I have said to them before: please forgive us for what we have done to increase your suffering over the past 11½ years.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Prime Minister's motion on Iraq. And I say right at the outset that we talk often about how this is not a political matter or a partisan matter, but there has been no end to partisan commentary to date. So, I would like to go back and talk a little bit about how this is considerably more complex than what the member for Sydney or the member for Denison have suggested. The situation in Iraq and Syria is no doubt dire, and I agree with many who have said that the Islamic State needs to be defeated. But it also needs to be defeated philosophically—defeated through a war of weapons, a war of ideas, a war of principles and therefore a war of courage and resilience. As a consequence, I cannot see this ending any time soon; it is going to go on for a long while.
But when we look back—and a lot of people are just glossing over what Iraq was like before the previous war—everything that Saddam Hussein did and the doubt about where the weapons of mass destruction were, what the capabilities were, his cover-ups and his resistance to full access to weapons inspectors are forgotten with the passage of time. I would suggest that particularly in Iraq and also to a degree in Syria there have been two problems. Firstly, there was a lack of control over the new government in Iraq. There was a lack of supervision, an interest to get out of Iraq as quickly as possible without providing the proper guidance for the Shiah-led government of Prime Minister Maliki to create a system, a government, that had true balance and representation between the Sunni and the Shiah people, whether in the military or within government. I think there was this haste to get out, as public concern about the conflict in Iraq was one of the big issues.
But, above all, the biggest issue—and this is where we need to understand what the Islamic State is about and that this is not some new development—is that to fully understand IS we must first understand the original Wahhabism of Sunni Islam and how it changed early in the last century, because prior to the 1920s Wahhabism was a violent and hate-filled revolution. It was designed to purge Islam of what were deemed heresies and idolatries and, in effect, to bring all of Islam under one voice and their so-called pure Sunni teachings.
It was around the 1920s that the Saudi king changed Wahhabism to become a cultural revolution rather than a violent revolution. That was done in order to court the British and the Americans for their help in developing the fairly recently discovered oil riches of that country. Until that time, Wahhabists believed in the excommunication of Shiites and in fact anyone who did not subscribe to their form of Sunni Islam. Wahhabism also enshrined the Saudi king as the Sunni leader of the world; and, since that change, the cultural revolution has been advanced by spending billions of dollars of Saudi money to promote Wahhabist doctrine all around the world. The money is spent on mosques, imams, general promotion of the Sunni teachings and somewhat softer diplomacy, public relations. I say again that this cultural revolution, this PR campaign, was a big departure from the violent course of Wahhabism that existed before the 1920s.
Of course, not everyone agreed with this departure from violence. Before this change in the 1920s, the Ikhwan were at the forefront of the violent Wahhabist period, using murder, brutality, rape and fear as part of the traditionalist Wahhabist doctrine. It all sounds rather familiar. That had been going on for hundreds of years. The Ikhwan were a fighting, militant and puritanical moralistic movement that always believed in the right to kill, violate and take anything from heretics or non-purist Sunnis and of course nonbelievers. They strongly disagreed with the cultural revolution or, as some may say, the evolution of Wahhabism by the Saudi king. The Saudi king, however, defeated the Ikhwan at that time and killed many. Sadly, many escaped.
The Ikhwan movement or philosophy was never destroyed and its successor is the Islamic State. But, instead of the Wahhabist belief in the Saudi king as the head of Sunni Islam, IS believe in following a single Muslim leader, the caliph—in fact, their caliph now. Those Muslims who disagree are heretics and all others are nonbelievers, to be dealt with in the same violent way. Their strategy is to create fear and seek the subservience of all, and they do so by killing the men, raping the wives and daughters of those who do not follow them and then taking all of their property. We see this being played out right now.
IS finds sympathy with some in Saudi Arabia and across Sunni Islam—sympathy from those who still believe that violence to purge all who oppose the single voice of Sunni Islam is the right path. IS has essentially returned to the violent and brutal Ikhwan movement, the vanguard of the original Wahhabism, with the same brutality and fear tactics that see the same fate for other sects of Islam and nonbelievers. They will not stop at borders, and the establishment of the IS or the caliphate is only the first step towards domination of the entire world.
I believe that the appeal that IS has for young Sunni Muslims here in Australia and elsewhere in the West is that they see it as something of an exciting cause where they feel powerful. Sadly, that power is the power over life and death, the power to sexually abuse women and children, while at the same time being told they are doing God's work. I say that what they are is a group of people who have failed to take the legitimate advantages, the very real opportunities, that this and other countries have provided to them; they are all about excuses for that failure. There is no persecution of them in Australia or elsewhere in the West, only a lack of effort by them. The Islamic State gives them a false and warped philosophy, telling them that they can look down on others, including women and those of other religions. Where the risk is compounded is that those who take up this cause will undoubtedly follow the doctrine where murder, rape and stealing are seen as a religious duty. Let us not beat around the bush: regardless of other interpretations of Islam, these things are being done right now in the name of Islam. 'IS' does stand for Islamic State.
I am nevertheless encouraged by the actions of the Perth Iraqi community in opposing the Islamic State and radicalism. We should also remember that planned acts of terrorism in Australia have been thwarted with the assistance and information provided by moderate Muslims within the community, and I encourage them to continue to do so. The truth remains that we do have traitors in this country. They are Australians who believe in IS and violent Wahhabism. These people, and their supporters, must be stopped and prosecuted before they leave Australia or provide support. Dual citizens must have their citizenship revoked. Terrorists are traitors to this nation, they are a threat to this nation and they must be dealt with very firmly in order to protect this nation from terrorism.
I am grateful to have the opportunity to make a statement on this incredibly important issue today. I would like to begin by acknowledging the bipartisan approach that our leaders from both the government and the opposition have taken on this issue, and I commend them for that. As the Leader of the Opposition said, national security is and always will be above politics. I also commend the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for their informed and measured statements on this issue.
I am proud that Australia is able to play a role in the global response to the humanitarian crisis in Iraq to prevent genocide and to relieve suffering. Labor unreservedly condemns the evil of IS and the genocide it is inflicting on minorities in Iraq. We also seek to do all we can to support the new Iraqi government, which will be formed on or around 10 September.
The events that have unfolded in Iraq have horrified Australians. They have horrified the world. There have been acts of inhumanity on an unimaginable scale, including beheadings and other killings, forced conversions, slavery and sexual abuse. The United Nations has reported that:
Children have been present at the executions, which take the form of beheading or shooting in the head at close range.
Bodies are placed on public display, often on crucifixes, for up to three days, serving as a warning to local residents.
Women have been sold into marriage. The British based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said it had confirmed that at least 27 Yazidi women had been kidnapped by IS in Iraq, taken to Syria, forced to convert and sold into marriage for around $1,000 each to other IS fighters. The group said it was aware that some 300 Yazidi women had been kidnapped and transported to Syria but had so far documented the sale into marriage of 27.
There has been persecution of Christians, Yazidis, Shiah, Turkmens and other ethnic groups. As the UN Deputy High Commissioner for human rights said, these are communities that have lived side by side on the same soil for centuries and, in some cases, for millennia. Amnesty International has said that IS has launched a systematic campaign of ethnic cleansing, carrying out war crimes, including mass summary killings and abductions, against ethnic and religious minorities. According to the UN, more than 1.6 million people have been displaced this year by violence in Iraq and at least 1,420 were killed in Iraq in August alone. The evidence is overwhelming, and we must respond.
Naturally, over the past weeks and months, many have drawn comparisons with the 2003 war in Iraq. Naturally, there have been concerns that we may repeat the mistakes of 2003 and the war that followed. I do believe that the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a mistake. I opposed it then and I stand by that view now. But I want to make it very clear that the situation in Iraq today is entirely different to the situation in 2003.
In the late 1990s I worked on the Iraq desk in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, so I was across what had come out of the UNSCOM mission in Iraq. The United Nations Special Commission, or UNSCOM, was an inspection regime created in 1991 to oversee Iraqi compliance with the destruction of chemical, biological and missile weapons facilities and also to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency's efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons facilities in the aftermath of the Gulf War. UNSCOM conducted this mission from 1991 to 1999, including for the last two years under the direction of Australian Richard Butler. UNSCOM uncovered significant undeclared proscribed weapons programs, destroyed elements of these programs, including equipment, facilities and materials, and mapped out and verified the full extent of these programs in the face of Iraq's serious efforts to deceive and conceal. Even to a mid-ranking DFAT employee like me, it seemed obvious that the continued existence of comprehensive WMD programs in 2003 was unlikely. So I supported Labor's position in 2003 to oppose the war and I believe this position has indeed been vindicated.
In 2003, we went to Iraq without the approval of the UN Security Council, without the approval of the Iraqi government, without an effective plan to win peace, without clear objectives and without widespread international support. Today the situation is entirely different. As the leader of the opposition spelt out, we have three clear objectives: one, responding effectively to the humanitarian crisis in Iraq to prevent genocide and to relieve suffering; two, promoting a unity government in Iraq that is inclusive and can achieve national cohesion—a government that would reject sectarianism and the alienation of minorities, enabling effective security and control of Iraqi territory, and we must not act in a way that would leave Iraq in a worse position; and, three, denying motivation and opportunity for Australian foreign fighters.
The UN Secretary-General has called for the international community to take very decisive and determined actions to prevent atrocities in Iraq. He said that the crisis in Iraq was very worrisome, and that the activities by Islamic State are totally unacceptable. He says:
The international community must ensure solidarity.
Not a single country or organisation can handle this international terrorism. This has global concerns, so I appreciate some key countries who have been showing very decisive and determined actions. But all these actions should be supported by all the international community.
… … …
… without addressing this issue through certain means, including some military and counter-terrorist actions, we will just end up allowing these terrorist activities to continue.
Iraq's ambassador to Australia has also confirmed yesterday and again this morning on local ABC radio, that the Iraqi government supports Australia's involvement in this mission; that Iraq 'had been consulted via all of the right channels between the two sides,' to quote him.
The desire to compare this situation to 2003 is understandable, but the comparison is misguided. The situations are entirely different. That said, we must also use the lessons learned from 2003 to proceed with caution but we must not use them to hold us back.
I want to take this opportunity to offer my unreserved support for the dedicated and professional men and women of our Australian Defence Force who will be involved in this mission. Members might have seen the piece Out of darkness comes a shining mission, by Brendan Nicholson, in today's Australian. I would like to quote from this excellent piece:
For RAAF pilot Liesl Franklin, parachuting relief supplies to 17,000 trapped, hungry and terrified Iraqi civilians was one of the most rewarding experiences of her life.
Flight Lieutenant Franklin, 28, was one of two pilots aboard the C-130 Hercules transport aircraft that delivered tonnes of supplies to the town of Amerli, which was surrounded by Islamic State terrorists.
Flight Lieutenant Franklin said:
You can get wrapped up in the details of the mission, but at the end of the day you’re there trying to help these people who have been in the most unfortunate situation.'
She goes on to say:
It’s devastating and it’s great to be part of the organisation that’s helping them. If it means they can survive another day, then we’ve done our job. They have a considerable battle ahead.
I commend Flight Lieutenant Franklin and her colleagues, and assure them that they have the full support of the Australian Labor Party. This is a decision that is not taken lightly—the decision to send Australian men and women into harm's way is never taken lightly. There are risks in acting, of course, but I believe the risks in ignoring the situation and taking no action are far, far greater.
As the 18th century English politician, Edmund Burke, once quoted:
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
What is happening in Iraq at the moment is evil without doubt. I go back to my 18 years service as a police officer with Victoria where I attended a number of homicides and very violent crimes—armed robberies, serious assaults with weapons—and I can say I never attended an incident where someone had been beheaded or had their body parts cut off. What we are seeing in Iraq and Syria is simply barbaric.
We have all read and witnessed on TV what extremists in the Islamic State terrorist organisation—I call them terrorists as that is what they are—are doing to our fellow human beings in Syria and Iraq. It is truly disturbing. News of public executions and beheadings of innocent people is now etched in many people's minds. I feel so awfully sorry for the family members of those who have been executed. In many cases, they have been forced to watch these atrocities take place. Horrors such as Australian citizens, including children—sadly, in most cases encouraged by male parents—gleefully holding severed heads are a stark reminder that Australia is not insulated from what is happening on the other side of the world.
Thousands of women have been forced into sexual slavery. More than a million Iraqis have been driven from their homes. At least 60 Australians are fighting with terrorist groups such as the Islamic State across Iraq and Syria, and they are supported by over 100 more. Many of these Australian terrorists will try to return to Australia and they will, undoubtedly, be comfortable with the killing of human beings—after all, that is why they went there in the first place. This must and will be addressed by terrorism legislation soon to enter the House.
I am extremely pleased that this parliament is showing bipartisan support to protect innocent people at risk of being exterminated by the Islamic State terrorists in northern Iraq. In their statements to the House, both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition used the word 'genocide' in relation to persecuted minority groups of Iraq. Genocide is a very strong word, but in this case I agree with their sentiment. There is no other word to describe the barbaric actions of these Islamic State terrorists.
I read yesterday that former Australian Labor foreign minister Gareth Evans said:
US President Barack Obama deserves unconditional support for his decision to use military force to protect the persecuted Yezidi minority from threatened genocide by marauding Islamic State (IS) militants in northern Iraq. The United States’ action is completely consistent with the principles of the international responsibility to protect (R2P) people at risk of mass-atrocity crimes, which was embraced unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly in 2005.
I add that overnight the United Nations came out in support of the current action being taken which is also supported by the Iraqi government. Gareth Evans further states:
The US motive in mobilizing air power to protect them is unquestionably humanitarian … many thousands of men, women, and children who have sought refuge in … northern Iraq … face death not only from starvation and exposure, but also from genocidal slaughter by the rapidly advancing IS forces …
To date Australia, in conjunction with American, British and French aircraft, has participated in humanitarian airdrops to people trapped in northern Iraq. Shortly, at the request of the Obama administration and with the support of the Iraqi government, Australian, American, British, French, Canadian and Italian aircraft will airlift supplies, including military equipment, to the Kurdish regional government in Erbil in northern Iraq. We must support these people because they cannot defend themselves from what is happening over there without help.
Australia has met all the requests for humanitarian relief and logistical support. This is the right thing for us to do as a country. I again congratulate the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop, who is doing a fantastic job.
The current military action that Australia is involved with in Iraq is nothing like the war in 2003. Australia is there alongside our partners to protect fellow human beings who are being subject to the most hideous and despicable onslaught by barbaric Islamic State terrorists.
Australians are a good people. Australia is a lucky country. We should not sit on our hands while this type of evil against humanity takes place anywhere in the world. I congratulate the Prime Minister on his leadership role and also thank the Leader of the Opposition for his own unequivocal support.
By way of background, I served with the Victoria Police counter-terrorism unit. I am still concerned about a number of our Commonwealth counter-terrorism laws. I have raised this directly with the Prime Minister and also with the Attorney-General. I am still greatly concerned about preventive detention laws. I know, for example, that Victoria Police will not use those laws. There is an argument that, because the laws have never been used, they are good laws. On the other hand, I know as a police officer that those laws are very impractical to use. I cannot understand why you would have a person in custody who is suspected of or involved in an imminent terrorist attack yet you cannot ask them one question. They have to be released. And then you can arrest them under part 1C of the Crimes Act once there is sufficient evidence that they are a suspect. Victorian Police, for example, will then revert back to their state law of 'reasonable time'. What greatly concerns me is that if there is an incident occurring in multiple states—Victoria and New South Wales, for example—one state might use Commonwealth investigation or interview powers while the other uses the state law of 'reasonable time'. The other law that concerns me is mandatory reporting. Again, Victoria requires the reporting of the theft or loss of only one substance, ammonium nitrate fertilizer, which has always been the IRA's weapon of choice. But there are a number of other high consequence dangerous goods that need to be added. I have again highlighted this to the Prime Minister and to the Attorney-General.
The other great concern I have is that police do not have immediate access to information about who is buying explosives or high consequence dangerous goods such as ammonium nitrate fertilizer. People might have a licence, but if a police officer involved in a counter-terrorism investigation checks the person, they would not know whether that person is buying explosives or is undertaking training to be a pilot. As we saw with September 11, we need to make sure that the police members who are investigating terrorism in our country have every tool at hand to make sure they can prevent a terrorist attack. This was a matter I raised in my maiden speech back in 2004 and it still greatly concerns me today. We were able to push it through a bipartisan report in the parliament; and I thank in particular the member for Werriwa, who strongly supported this. I will be pushing this again because we need to give our investigators everything they might possibly need to identify any person or associate who may be involved in terrorist activities.
In closing, my thoughts and prayers are with all the family members of those in Iraq and Syria who have seen the most despicable acts of cruelty inflicted upon their fellow men. We need to stop this. We need to take action. I congratulate both sides of parliament.
This generation of Australians has benefited in a way that previous generations have not in being able to see the world. We have been able to travel a lot more, we have been able to immerse ourselves in the way others live and we have seen the world brought closer together through the benefits of modern communication. I think it is safe to say that, more often than not, when Australians return home from overseas the first thing they think of when they see Australian shores from the comfort of an airplane seat is: 'How good is it to be home!' One of our first thoughts is to think about how great Australia is—and, as much as we have enjoyed our time abroad, we also respect the fact that we are coming back to a country that has been so good to us. In acknowledging that, in the context of the incredible events that have occurred beyond our shores, it is important to recognise that, as much as we are grateful for what this country gives us, we cannot be complacent. This is not a gift that fell into our laps by virtue of luck and good fortune. We all have a responsibility to maintain it, not just for ourselves but for the people that follow us. The peace and stability of this country is very much dependent on our own actions.
It is also right that Australians do not enjoy this stability and peace and then feel that they have no responsibility when others are themselves unable to take advantage of this. By that I mean that, when we see suffering beyond our shores, when something is not right, when the scales of justice and fairness are tipped the wrong way, we as a nation must be prepared to stand up and say that we will act as a nation, with others, to ensure that people are not placed in harm's way. Certainly we abhor unnecessary violence and have been rightly sickened by the scenes that have emerged out of northern Iraq and Syria. We have said that this is simply unacceptable in any day and age and for any people. What we have seen has been horrific. The actions of Islamic State are to be condemned in the strongest possible terms. We cannot sit back and let these actions—the barbarism, the inflicting of genocide—continue without response. Ultimately, this is about imposing tyranny, pure and simple.
Within northern Iraq we are seeing a group of people abusing religion in their effort to impose tyranny—blackening the name of religion and faith to impose their view. Basically, they would have a system of governing that would exclude everyone, other than those who have access to a gun or some of the horrific other things we have seen inflicted on others.
Nations like ours, built on our values of inclusion, of acceptance and, fundamentally, of democracy—the greatest of the Western democratic traditions are within our nation—cannot abide what we are seeing, and nor should we. Those extremists, when they look to us and see the coexistence that has been achieved within a nation like Australia—and in most Western democracies—cannot stand what they are seeing. They do not want to see coexistence. They want to be able to continue to find enemies that they can persecute. They do not want to be able to see the success that we have been able to achieve in our nation, where regardless of your faith and background you can participate in the democratic channels of this nation, and not only have a say but build something better.
Our vision of coexistence is in contest with a horrific vision. We cannot simply sit and believe that by ignoring what is going on it will go away. Hence we have seen the actions of a number of nations. We have seen the leadership that has been demonstrated by the Prime Minister and the Australian government, in tandem with other nations, particularly the US, that have been horrified at what has happened, and we have said that we will not allow this to continue.
As I said, we cannot be complacent. We wish for peace and prosperity and stability for ourselves, as much as we wish it for others. That is why the humanitarian effort that has been undertaken, as I described it the other day, has been timely. We could not sit on our hands and see what is occurring be inflicted on others. We cannot let continue the horrific loss of life, the abuse of people's human rights, the mistreatment of women the things that we have seen on social media—the strength of our unity in this has been critical.
As a nation we have put aside politics. Regardless of our views of the world, we have worked as one, not only to speak up on this but to act. In relation to the humanitarian effort that has been undertaken and the type of work that has been done so far that has been critical. The call for help by the Iraqi government has also been critical. They need help; we can provide it. We must do it and we have.
We have also, it is important to say, watched in horror what has happened in Syria. The inability of the international community to deal comprehensively with the genocide that has occurred within those borders has caused a lot of people concern.
Certainly I would make the point—and this is not something I have come up with; others have observed it as well—that these theatres of conflict are being used actively as recruitment platforms by extremists who have sought to distort what is happening there to bring people within their fold to then swell their ranks of extremism and perpetuate it elsewhere. We cannot allow that to occur. As much as we are acting on Iraq, I think it is also important that we as an international community recognise that the deterioration of the situation in Syria cannot continue and that we have to be able to find a way for peace there.
As much as I have reflected in my initial comments in the chamber on what has happened beyond our borders, it is also important to reflect on what is happening within our borders. When the Director-General of ASIO, David Irvine, speaks, I think it is important that we listen. The Director-General is right: there is an issue here. There are people who are being seduced by extremism, who are being radicalised and being tempted to go and act on this extremism elsewhere. And there is a rightful concern that once they have undertaken horrific acts beyond our borders, what happens on their return? Again, we need to act as one.
I am heartened by the words of both the Prime Minister and the opposition leader that what we are fighting here is extremism. We are not fighting faith; we are fighting extremism. And while we may have differences of opinion on approach—on how we do it—I certainly say, from this vantage point of having the honour of representing people in this parliament, that this is not the path to travel down. Extremism is not going to provide the solution or the answers or help anyone. Extremism is more a recipe for further violence and will split people further apart at a time when we need to bring people together. The worst thing you can do is force people into corners where they refuse to engage, refuse to act and refuse to build on that spirit of coexistence I reflected on earlier in my remarks. So, we do need to act.
Again, we might have differences of opinion on how things are done, but, regardless of your politics, if the Prime Minister of this country asks to sit down to sort out these problems that confront the community, then I urge people to sit down and to talk and to respect the fact that the office of Prime Minister has reached out and is seeking a way to bring people together, to fight something that is a common threat to us all: extremism. So, I certainly hope, modestly, that people will take onboard these words and be able to accept that invitation to work together for the common good of this nation.
I seek leave to continue these comments.
Leave granted.
Thank you. We cannot have a situation in which we have continued division in some communities that believe faith is being singled out in trying to deal with the threat of extremism. This is simply not the case. People of goodwill and from all different backgrounds want to work to deal with this issue, and we do need to deal with it. The front page of the Australian detailed a very moving story, I thought, of a father who felt shamed by the actions of his son who was taking up an extremist path and going to do terrible things in Syria. This father is a person who found, as most migrants do, what Australia has provided for them—opportunity and an ability to look at your children with pride and say, 'You're going to have a better life than I had, and you're going to have a better life than we would have had if I had stayed home.' As I often say, migrants and the children of migrants feel an enormous debt of gratitude to this nation—that we have been given an opportunity, not just in a material sense, but to not live with the fear of persecution, to not live with the fear of conflict, to not live with the fear that we cannot be the best we can be because we are not extended the types of privileges that are granted by a democratic nation like this.
If we accept that there is a debt of gratitude that must be repaid in this nation then we cannot sit back and think that it is someone else's job to fulfil that debt. We all have a part to play. So beyond urging people not to take up the path of extremism, let us also identify that extremism and deal with it. We should not just wait for the government to hand out money to deal with this, as much as I welcome the commitment that has been made by the Prime Minister on this front. Money will not solve this problem. What is in our hearts and minds will—to be able to recognise that, even though we have these disputes across the table here, I would never want to see anything happen to anyone across that side of the table as a result of violence, as much as you would not want it on this side. We can be joined in this national endeavour to build a stronger country by weeding out this extremism, dealing with it head-on and ensuring that we can continue to repay that debt of gratitude in the way that we all seek and that we think is the right thing to do for this country.
Can I at the outset acknowledge the eloquent words of the member for Chifley on this subject and also the speaker before him, the member for La Trobe, who has a lot of experience from the law enforcement perspective. I join my colleagues from both sides of the chamber in speaking on this statement by the Prime Minister. We are united in the statement by the Prime Minister and by the Leader of the Opposition. As we speak today, we awoke to more awful news on our television screens. Our hearts go out to the family concerned for the trauma that they are suffering, which is just unspeakable.
As the member for Chifley indicated, we need many things. If I could surmise: we need clarity of purpose, we need determination, but we also need unity of purpose. As we speak on this motion, we of course all support the considered action that is being taken. We need to make sure that our agencies are the best resourced that they can be. As the member for Chifley said, when ASIO speaks we should listen. Whilst it is a natural inclination to shy away from things far away—that is a natural human emotion—it is not one that we can ignore. As the member for Chifley indicated, it is far away and it is close to home; that is the great difficulty. As the Prime Minister outlined in his remarks yesterday and as all of us in this place know all too well, there are some 60 Australians currently fighting abroad—extremists, terrorists, doing the most unspeakable things. As experts in the field have indicated—something that is quite obvious—once radicalised, those people, if they return to Australia, will not return to any state of civility that they lived in a long time ago.
A colleague in the other place, Senator David Fawcett, wrote an opinion piece in the Adelaide Advertiser earlier in the week. He again pointed out that the preventative action our law enforcement agencies had been able to take had been very successful. Little did the 92,000 fans attending the 2005 AFL Grand Final know that a major terrorist attack had been averted. He wrote about this in great detail—about how it was now public knowledge that a planned terrorist attack on the MCG was averted. And I am quoting him now:
Central to this and achieving successful convictions was the targeted retention of metadata over 16 months by the Victorian Police, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) and the Australian Federal Police (AFP)—
as part of a joint operation. A similar case arose in the member for Chifley's home state at the Holsworthy army base. As the member for Chifley said, 'When the head of ASIO speaks, we should listen.'
I acknowledge this is very different for Australians. We are commemorating the Centenary of Anzac, and we think, don't we—because we have grown up this way—of wars with defined starts and finishes, between nations and governments? This is not like that. It has been going a long time. Most people would think of the start as September 11, although in reality it began before then. And it will go for a long time yet, I suspect, as the experts have said, for many decades. So, in many parliaments time, those who follow us will be grappling with these issues in some form or another. That is difficult for the public because in some ways there is no end in sight. That is very difficult.
In wars that have defined boundaries and defined nations in them, the sacrifices have greater clarity. As the Prime Minister has, rightly, outlined, we need the best resources we can have. Those security agencies need the best tools they can have. They are two vital ingredients among many. There is an old saying that bears repeating, and that is: 'Freedom isn't free'. So on the metadata issue: that is nothing like the sacrifices of freedoms and civil liberties in World War I or World War II, but it is something we need to bear in mind in terms of the challenge we face.
Let me just finish by reaffirming something that the member for Chifley said, and the Prime Minister said it yesterday:
The threat is extremism—not any particular community. The target is terrorism—not religion.
All Australians can be united on that front against the very, very small minority who are participating in this unimaginable horror. But as we have all said, the approach that is being taken is not only the right one, it is the responsible one.
I remember calling my wife in the middle of the night on September 11 and waking her and saying—I will never forget the words—'The world has gone mad.' Of course, that was as I watched the horrific footage of a jet ploughing into the Twin Towers. The world really had gone mad. It was impossible for me to be able to grasp the enormity of what I was seeing, and the reality of what I was seeing. I know that there were millions of people around the world feeling that way. But from that moment forward, terrorism—extreme Islam—in that form, has in fact impacted the freedoms of every person in the western world.
In this parliament in the last week we have been talking about extra hundreds of millions of dollars. How many trillions of dollars have been spent around the world? How many laws have been passed that have been argued about because they have infringed and impinged upon people's freedoms, freedoms that we just took for granted? It is because of a small minority of people, who have taken a religious fervour to a degree that is insane, that has required this to happen.
So when people say that this is a conflict on the other side of the world, it impacts us today. It impacted us yesterday and it will impact us tomorrow. It impacts us financially. What good could we be doing in health, in education and in infrastructure in this country—and in Britain, and in New Zealand, and in Canada, and in America and so many other places—if we were not having to spend so much money protecting what we should not need to protect, in the way that we are, and they are our freedoms. Our freedoms are what make us great. It is our democracy that sets us apart. It is those things combined that says, 'These and these are our values. And the people that we are are a result of those values, that democracy and those freedoms.'
I agree, and I support, the thrust of what both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday. However, the Prime Minister said, 'There is no likelihood, and there is no consideration, for ground troops by either America or Australia.' I would say today, in the cold light of the facts that are before us, nothing can be off the table. When we remove options from the table, we embolden our enemies. And as hard as that is to say—and I am not a warmonger, far from it—I am saying that we need to keep every element open to us, so that we can destroy and eliminate this threat to our way of life, to our democracies and to our freedoms.
Let us go from here to home. We talk about young men and some young women going to these foreign lands to be radicalised. But as one man wrote to me yesterday, he said, 'Surely they have already been radicalised, otherwise they would not be heading to the airport.' And, Sir, you are right. They have been. But how much more radicalisation goes on? How much more extremism, once they leave and they band with these people, when they are trained to kill, to kill without mercy, to kill without consideration, to kill without any sort of compunction or thought is beyond most people's rational thought? But that is what they are. They are equipped, they are trained and they are indoctrinated to a point beyond most of our life's experience, thank God. So, in destroying the places in which they receive that training, where they receive that indoctrination, where they receive that hatred for everything that is true and what we believe in in democracy and freedom, must be the highest priority of the world.
Today we stand in this parliament feeling deeply about what we are saying. However, when this moment passes, when this immediate threat is extinguished, it will not be extinguished. Let me recant, when the flame is dampened, but not extinguished, that flame will burn brightly again. And when it does, it will attract other young men and women around the world who will seek to do harm in their communities and in other places. It must be stopped.
So, I say to the world, that the UN today is calling for the world, as one, to act. We have Islamic nations, some who have appalling records themselves but see what is happening here as such an extreme that they too must act. But what happens after that moment passes? What happened after the moment passed on September 11?
We go back into our shells, we try and protect ourselves the best that we can, but we do not reach out to try and extinguish the flame. The world must act as one today, tomorrow and for however long it takes to extinguish the flame of hatred that seeks to destroy our way of life.
These are long-term commitments. They are expensive commitments. But reflect on the fact that we have already had things as dear to Australians as a grand final at the MCG potentially becoming a bloodbath—and only the extreme success of our law enforcement and our intelligence agencies have prevented that. At what cost does this come? The cost of doing nothing or doing too little will mean that we will, in the end, be responsible for some of the atrocities that I do not believe may occur, but will occur. They have in the past and they will again, unless we take complete control of the situation.
I will say a few words about our Islamic community here. I know they wish to be part of the solution, but they have not covered themselves in glory with the way in which they have attended to these issues in the last week or two. You may not be the leader of an Islamic community, but if you are a person of Islamic faith you have the same power as I do, and any other Australian does, to write letters to the press or get onto talkback radio and voice in unequivocal terms your total disdain for what is happening in the name of the religion you hold true. Anyone has the right to try and persuade another in this country to their way of belief, and long may it be so. But that is where it starts and that is where it ends. Australia looks to the Islamic community here—not only its elected leaders and its officials, but also its general public, those who do not have a position of authority other than that they are empowered by having the power of democracy and freedom of speech to exercise it and condemn these actions. Let us all walk as one, not as Australians of Islamic faith and those of non-Islamic faith. Let us all walk as one; let us speak as one; let us condemn it for what it is and let us identify as best we can those who would seek to go overseas and come back to cause pain. It is within our power to do so.
We have to be vigilant. We have to want to do it. And if we do, both in our own country—as individuals, as communities and as governments—and as an international community of both sovereign nations and united nations, then we can actually make a difference here. The battle will be long. The battle will have setbacks. But what we are playing for is something that has developed over hundreds of years, and that is the freedom of speech, the freedom of belonging and the freedom of religion.
Above all else in this country, the rule of law is one law for all, and I will advocate that for as long as there is breath in my body. I say to all leaders as they contemplate these issues: do not just focus on the immediate. The humanitarian needs are great; deal with them. But containment will not meet the needs of a world that faces a devastation and a hatred like we have never seen before. We act now, we act decisively and we act as one. If we do not, it will be us and our democracy that pays the penalty in the years to come, and no-one will thank us for our inaction.
Firstly, I acknowledge the contributions of all those who have participated in this discussion so far and those who will follow. I want to make the point at the outset that, clearly, the circumstances of our actions in Iraq today are very different from those of 2003. Indeed, it could be argued—I think cogently—that we are where we are now because of the legacy and folly of the misadventure of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. As an active participant in the debate at the time I recall when, on Tuesday 18 March 2003, the then Leader of the Opposition, Simon Crean, said:
The Prime Minister today, in a reckless and unnecessary act, has committed Australia to war.
I remember the arguments we had about whether or not there were links between Iraq and the events of September 11. It would appear there were no links. There were no links between Iraq and the Bali bombings, no evidence that Iraq was a real and present threat to our security and no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. There was no international support and no support from the Iraqi government. Yet we, in an act of historical folly, committed ourselves to war and the rest, as they say, sadly, is history, with Iraq now tortured by the sectarianism and now the barbarism of ISIS.
Today, we do have a legitimate reason to be involved: to intervene in a humanitarian crisis where tens of thousands of lives are at risk. We know that among those perpetrating these massive unseemly murderous barbaric assaults on human decency are indeed some Australian citizens. We are now in the position, at the request of the United States through President Obama and with the support of the Iraqi government, to be committing ourselves as the Prime Minister has done to further actions in Iraq. We do so in the full knowledge, unlike in 2003, that the world community believes that we should be taking action. Just as it was agreed that we should have taken action, and did, in the first Gulf War. The UN Secretary-General has called for the world community to take decisive action and pointed out clearly that international terrorism has global concerns, and that we need a unified international approach to the defeating of terrorism.
I was attracted recently by an article written by Gareth Evans in The Australian on Tuesday in which, in referring to whether or not our actions in the decisions that have been made were legitimate or not, he made these observations:
These generally accepted criteria of legitimacy are that the atrocities occurring or feared are sufficiently serious to justify, prima facie, a military response; that the response has a primarily humanitarian motive; that no lesser response is likely to be effective in halting or averting the harm; that the proposed response is proportional to the threat; and that the intervention will actually be effective, doing more good than harm.
Later in the same article, he said:
So as things now stand, the only justification—moral, political or military—for renewed external military intervention in Iraq is to meet the international responsibility to protect victims, or potential victims, of mass atrocity.
I believe that these are troubling times and we know they are troubling times. We are concerned and we should be concerned about events in the Middle East and particularly with what the ISI has been doing. I believe that it is appropriate that we are involved in the manner in which the Prime Minister has determined. I think it is important that we accept the right of the Prime Minister and the executive of government to make this determination and that it should not be a determination which is made through the parliament. I do believe that parliament should have the right, and has the responsibility, to debate the issues but that it is inappropriate, and I think it belies our own history, for us to be put in a position where the security of this nation could be threatened by a folly inside this parliament. I will not go into explaining what that means. I am sure all of us know what I am referring to given the structure of our parliament today.
I have said it before: I opposed and voted against the resolution by Prime Minister Howard to commit Australians to Iraq in 2003. That was a wrong decision; it was a bad decision. It was a decision that undermined our national interests. Nevertheless, it was taken and we now wear the folly of that decision. But at the same time, we need to recognise and acknowledge that when those fighting men and women of the Australian Defence Force go into action, in this case in a limited way through the use of air assets, they are doing so on our behalf. They are doing so to protect our national interests and are doing so at the direction of the Australian government. We owe them our 100 per cent support. I know that members of this parliament will give them that support.
We need, I think, to acknowledge that we have a role in this place. Our role in this place is to make sure that the government is held accountable, but also to make sure that decisions which are necessarily taken because of our national security interests are allowed to be taken in an appropriate way. I note that in this particular case the Prime Minister, through his officers, has been consulting with the Leader of the Opposition. I think that is as it should be.
But I also believe that we in this country have a responsibility to understand what is happening here at home; to be more involved in understanding what leads people to take the silly decision—the disastrous decision; the murderous decision—to go across and participate in this atrocious genocide in Iraq. We need, as others have said, to target those terrorists. We should not be targeting religions; we need to understand the importance of acceptance of our diversity, to understand the importance of maintaining that diversity and not allowing ourselves to be cowed by the actions of ruthless and murderous thugs. It seems to me that we in this place have a primary responsibility to show strong leadership in this regard.
I am very pleased with the very positive role which is being played by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for foreign affairs in supporting the decisions taken by the government. I do not think, by the way, that we add anything to the discussion by the foreign minister attacking members of this parliament for having a different view from her on whether or not the parliament should be allowed to debate the issues around this matter. I do not believe that is appropriate and I do not believe it helps. I think what we should be doing is talking about our responsibilities in this parliament to support our people on the ground, to understand our national interests and to make sure that we provide appropriate support where it is required.
As I said earlier, I do believe that we do have a responsibility in this place to debate these issues. I think it is important that the government introduce a motion at some point. It would be a wise thing to do, to test the mood of the parliament—certainly the House of Representatives—and I encourage them to do so. It will not lose anything. We are committed to supporting the government. I know that members of the opposition will take that responsibility very seriously. But a debate does not hurt. I would encourage people to participate in this discussion as a way of testing the water and, indeed, showing their support for the decisions which have been taken by the government and supporting our troops as they embark on very dangerous and potentially tragic missions in the Middle East.
It is good to be speaking on this issue today. It is a very important issue before the parliament, as the previous speaker said.
Obviously, our thoughts go out to those RAAF personnel and other ADF personnel, who are involved in the mission in Iraq at this time. We think of them and we think of their families, as we do think of all those people who are caught up in what is a very serious set of events in Iraq.
Labor's approach to this issue is framed by three things. First of all, it is framed by a conscious attempt to fulfil a humanitarian goal in protecting innocent people—refugees and others—who are fleeing violence and murder and people who would do them harm. We have a responsibility to protect those people; the world has a responsibility to protect those people. Secondly, we want to encourage the Iraqi government to reach out to all those disaffected communities in Iraq and come to some sensible set of governance arrangements which will see Iraq become peaceful and stable. That is critical. Thirdly, we want to remove the motivations for people, whether through malice or an intent to murder or through folly, to go and fight in this part of the world for ISIS.
Of course, the history of Iraq hangs heavily over this debate—not just the events of 2003, but events before that. Iraq obviously had a history of colonialism. It is quite an interesting history, if you read something about it, and that should not be lost in the debate. It does hang over the events there. Similarly, we are reminded of what James A. Baker warned George Bush Sr of after Gulf War I—that if there was foreign intervention in Iraq, the sectarian and tribal tensions would be potentially released and create the very situation that we see today.
Sadly, that very sensible advice to George Bush Sr was ignored in 2003. I think the great issue there was not that there was just not enough debate about whether to go to war but there was no debate about what would happen after the war, and particularly not enough attention was taken to how that community, which was wracked by dictatorship and wracked by war—would respond to the situation post-war. That was a very fatal flaw in the planning—both military and civilian—post-Gulf War II.
We now find Iraq dealing with vicious sectarianism, with the aftermath of dictatorship and war. As I said before, governance is a very serious issue in resolving those tensions. I think the Kurds, who are obviously now the beneficiaries of Australian military and civilian aid, may well be a model for governance and federalism. The dispersal of power to regions may also be a model that Iraq and its governance may wish to strongly consider when they come to resolving some of the issues around the conflicts in that country.
I think that the centralisation of power in Iraq, the idea that various communities—religious, tribal and otherwise—can be forced to share in a very strong central government is a notion that perhaps is flawed and it should be given some consideration by Iraqis themselves. Obviously it is up to them how they govern themselves, but it would seem to me that there are some drivers within these conflicts that are based around that.
Of course, it goes without saying that Islamic State or ISIL—however they want a frame themselves—is a murderous and tyrannical organisation which prays on the people of Iraq and prays on people, whatever their religion, whatever their tribe and whatever their sect. If you oppose them they will deal with you in the most murderous and intolerant fashion.
And so, when we come to analyse the responsibilities we have and the responsibilities the world has, of course, the principles of the 'responsibility to protect' doctrine—that of having a just cause; having correct intentions; taking action as the final resort; seeking legitimate authority, in this case from the Iraqi government; having a proportional response; and having a reasonable prospect of success at protecting life and protecting those under threat—are all important principles which we would apply. The previous speaker talked about Gareth Evans, a former foreign minister of this country, whose very good article in TheAustralian yesterday has been a guide to how we should judge these actions and of course, we do take those principles very, very seriously. The 'responsibility to protect' doctrine makes this a fundamentally different situation to that which occurred in 2003 and the aftermath.
We also need greater regional engagement, and we should be aware that there are some nine million refugees as a result of the conflict in Syria and they are pouring into places like Lebanon and Jordan. There is a very serious situation there and we should give very serious consideration to how we deal with that. We know that these mass movements of refugees caused a huge problem for Afghanistan and Pakistan post the Soviet invasion and were the cause of some instability in that region a generation on. We need to give consideration to how we assist those people and how they are dealt with in terms of the peace and stability of the region.
As I said before, ISIL are criminals and heretics. They are not freedom fighters. They are not representatives of the Sunni tribes. They are heretics. They are not representative of an Islamic state or of Islam itself. British imams and scholars issued a fatwa condemning them as tyrannical and extremist, but most importantly as a heresy to Islam.
An honourable member: And Indonesia.
And Indonesia too. And this is not the first time that this has been done. In 2005, the King of Jordan, King Abdullah, got the biggest gathering of Islamic scholars together to issue similar fatwas against extremism. We should acknowledge that fact because it helps to isolate this particular group as a bunch of criminals and heretics, rather than the way they wish to present themselves in social media and other propaganda.
We want to take away, as I said before, the motivation for foreign fighters. Obviously, there are people there who are bent on murder and malice; but I can imagine that there are an awful lot of people who think they are going there for that and end up in very dangerous situations themselves, as part of the folly of youth. Of course, people can get enthusiastic and get caught up in situations, perhaps intentionally in the beginning, but we need to be cognisant of the nature of propaganda, that people can get swept up in it and that that can be harmful to themselves and others.
We need to have measured conduct in this area, but we support the government's actions in this regard. There is, I think, a unanimity in this parliament and I want to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for their support. And I think the Prime Minister deserves credit for his actions in this area, and the foreign minister as well. It is sensible for Australia to be unified in its actions; to unify our own community and to engage in the world in a productive way, in a way that is responsible and in a way that, most of all, protects the slaughter of innocents.
It is ironic that today I rise to talk about and endorse the words of the Prime Minister when today is National Flag Day. A day when we celebrate our national flag. If you think about what is on our flag, it is some of the values that we hold dear. Sometimes we just look at it and see a bit of red in the corner and a lot of blue in the Southern Cross, but there is actually the flag of Saint George, the flag of Saint Andrew and the flag of Saint Patrick. And in that Union Jack that forms part of our flag is the story of 400 years of evolving around the value of democracy, evolving around the value of human rights, a law that allows the individual to be confronted before the executive, laws that look after ensuring that there is freedom to vote, freedom to express. We have that in our flag, and sometimes we take it for granted.
It is ironic as we compare their journey with the ISIS flag—a flag that has really come to represent terrorism and what I think is misguided aggression and hate. It is very important that we understand that it took us as a country—and we were the recipients of this, because of our British heritage—a 400-year journey to understand and value democracy. What we see in the Middle East is some people who choose to exploit a vacuum where terror is allowed to take place. Australia's role in this is very good. That is, we are essentially supporting the Western world to say that we will not stand by and allow genocide to happen. We will not stand by and watch the murder of potentially millions of people. We will not stand by and have thousands of women being forced into sex slavery. We will not stand by and watch beheadings, crucifixions and mass executions. It is appropriate that countries who have the means and have the sense of right and wrong defend those who, because of a vacuum, cannot defend themselves.
I want to associate myself with the words of the Prime Minister when he said that Australia is:
… not inclined to stand by in the face of preventable genocide either.
Australia is not a country that goes looking for trouble, but we have always been prepared to do what we can to help in the wider world.
The people in my electorate are very fair-minded, peace-loving Australians, but they believe that it is important that we have a well-funded defence system, and they believe that it is important that we have a very good executive to make decisions when decisions have to be made. I think it is right that it is the executive's role to decide on matters such as this. I think it is right not only for the timeliness of response but also for the strategic importance and protection of our troops, who have to be the sharp end of delivering what comes from the discussions that start in this House. And I think it is right that we do the best we can to stand up for justice and to stamp out evil.
It is very easy to hypothecate in hindsight about wisdom, to say that we should have done things differently in the first Gulf War and the second Gulf War and with the removal of Saddam Hussein. I think it shows a level of arrogance amongst people who did not have the facts at their fingertips at the time to say, 'If I was there I would have done this' or 'If I was there I would have done that'. Ultimately, decisions that involve conflict and that involve many different countries are fluid. We cannot, in all best judgement, necessarily guarantee an outcome. And what we have at the moment is a vacuum. We thought Iraq was moving towards peace, but we are seeing that people with extreme views are seeking to capitalise on that vacuum, and capitalising on that vacuum is the very worst outcome for the people of Iraq.
I will conclude with some fairly short comments. The Australian government must stand up for what is right. The Australian government must stand with the rest of the world to stomp out extremism. We do not believe that this is about one religion. We believe that this is built on extreme views that even Muslim countries around the world are now making it very clear that they will not tolerate. When I was in Indonesia two weeks ago it was quite pleasing to hear the executive of the Indonesian government come out and say, 'We do not support ISIS or their aims.' I hope they are successful. Our prayers and thoughts are with the Australians who have to go out and deliver good aid, deliver assistance to those at this time. Our prayers and thoughts are with the executive of our government, for wisdom as they consider these tough decisions. I commend the Prime Minister for the role he has been taking and wish the executive well for wise decision making over the coming months and weeks.
The cartoon figure Mr Magoo was a retiree who managed to get himself in absurd situations because of his nearsightedness, which was compounded by his stubborn refusal to admit the problem. I am reminded of that character's punchline: 'Magoo, you have done it again!' when reading the analysis of foreign correspondent Paul McGeough. Mr McGeough is of course the biographer of Hamas boss Khalid Mishal and one of the few people in the world who regards him as a moderate. His so-called authoritative analysis—not! as young people put it these days—was his scoop that the then Iraqi leader Iyad Allawi personally shot prisoners in a Baghdad jail.
The thing that ties those comments together with his analysis of what is happening—it is very similar to the Greens' analysis of the situation in Iraq—is anti-Americanism. You cannot judge international events simply through an ideological framework without looking at them afresh, as the Leader of the Opposition has, as the member for Wakefield has and as other members of the opposition have in supporting the government. We do not do that simply because we want to parrot the government. We do it from an ethical point of view, as the member for Wakefield has explained.
We have seen Mr McGeough and the Greens push the near-sighted argument that Australia should not be involved in Iraq, because Iraq 'is more dangerous than ever'. In an article for Fairfax on Friday, Mr McGeough described every possible danger that the Australian military will face in Iraq. However, he failed to balance his analysis with the threat that a permanent terrorist state in northern Iraq and Syria would pose not just to Iraqi minorities but to countries around the world, including Australia. It is very regrettable to see our country ranked in the Economist magazine as the country with the fourth-highest number of people, proportionally, in ISIS—we are punching above our weight in a category we would not like to be in. We have to admit that there is a problem. That is the first part to a correct analysis of this situation.
Labor, along with the Australian government and a growing list of countries around the world, do not share the Greens Magoo-like blindness. As the opposition leader explained on Monday, Labor believes that the terrorist state that has been proclaimed in Iraq represents a threat to Australian national security unlike one we have ever faced. Of course, the situation does not demand that Australia would send any infantry formations as we did in the Iraq war. No-one is talking about boots on the ground. We are talking about humanitarian assistance to besieged minorities. We are perhaps talking about some kind of air assistance to prevent ISIS fanatics besieging other minorities and to give some assistance to Iraqi or Peshmerga Kurdish ground forces. This has not been asked for by the Iraqi government, but when a new Iraqi government is properly formed and does make a request for this it is something Australia could perhaps consider.
Developments in Syria and Iraq are something I have spoken about many times. The issue of Australians going to join terrorist groups in the Middle East is one I have taken up since the second half of last year. In my view, the Attorney-General has focused on this too late. For the information of the Greens political party, the scores of Australians fighting in Iraq and Syria pose a threat to us because they might return home radicalised, with skills that would enable them to be involved in a mass casualty attack in Australia. That these returned fighters are capable of such actions has already been demonstrated. In May this year, Mehdi Nemmouche, a French citizen who is known to have fought with ISIS and who travelled through this part of the world before he returned to Belgium, murdered four people in the Jewish museum in Brussels. A battle hardened veteran of ISIS, he coldly took out a Kalashnikov and shot each of them in the head. More recently, Australia and the wider world were horrified to see the video of a British terrorist brutally murder American journalist James Foley, and the proud tweet by an Australian, Khaled Sharrouf, of a hideous photo of him and his son holding up severed heads.
The doyen of Australian political commentators, Paul Kelly, argued that that photo of the Australian boy being ripped from the suburbs of Australia by his jihadist father into the horrors of Syria and Iraq was an iconic moment in Australian political perceptions of this issue. Khaled himself has tweeted:
… if I wanted to attack yous I could have so easily. …I love to slaughter [Australians] … Allah loves it when u dogs r slaughtered.
Even the self-proclaimed leader of this group, the self-styled caliph, Baghdadi, despite the insouciance of Senator Milne, said in Iraq in 2006 when released from custody by the United States authorities:
… we will meet again in New York.
If Senator Milne does not understand what that means, I will translate it for her. These people want to bring their views, their activities, their terrorism, to Australia, to Europe, to the United States. Australian members of ISIS will go to any lengths to commit murder. In July an Australian ISIS member, known as Abu Bakr al Australi, blew himself up outside a Shia mosque killing five people and injuring 40. There was another poor, 19-year-old, deranged young fellow from Brunswick in Melbourne who was the second suicide bomber of ISIS. These things affect us, Senator Milne and Senator Rhiannon. Preventing young Australians being involved in this certainly should form part of our motivation in seeing that ISIS is not successful. Al Australi's act is one example of the countless massacres, rapes and other acts of savagery that ISIS have affected on minorities in Iraq and Syria.
In an emergency debate on Monday, the UN Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, Flavia Pansieri, said that her reports:
… reveal acts of inhumanity on an unimaginable scale.
The UN report was based on 480 interviews and documentary evidence. It said:
Children have been present at the executions, which take the form of beheading or shooting in the head at close range. … Bodies are placed on public display, often on crucifixes, for up to three days, serving as a warning to local residents.
Various sources indicate that thousands of defenceless Yazidis, Christians, Kurds and Shia civilians have been massacred by ISIS in the last few months. All of us speak on this in the parliament. I am sure even the Greens were shocked to see on YouTube, just recently, 250 near naked Syrian soldiers marched off to be machine gunned by these brutes. Earlier we saw the same thing happening to 1,500 members of the Iraqi Army. Again, it was broadcast on YouTube. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, in recent weeks, ISIS has sold 300 Yazidi girls and women into sexual slavery after they were captured by its fighters in Syria.
The Egyptian religious authority, Dar al-Ifta, has recently called for ISIS to be referred to as al-Qaeda Separatists in Iraq and Syria. The Dar al-Ifta hopes to help demonstrate to non-Muslims that this group's extremist ideology and depravity do not represent Islam. Dar al-Ifta's intervention is one of the many examples of moderate and, frankly, not so moderate, Islamic groups condemning ISIS's behaviour. For example, Indonesia's Ulema Council has issued a fatwa against QSIS. Even Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti, Sheik Abdulaziz Al al-Sheik, has described QSIS as 'enemy number one of Islam'. As well, the member for Wakefield pointed out that prominent British imams have issued a fatwa against them. I agree that we should not be honouring these murderers and rapists with their illustrious name of choice. So, from now on, I am going to refer to them as al-Qaeda Separatists in Iraq and Syria.
The Leader of the Opposition stated on Monday, that QSIS:
… is an enemy of humanity engaged in crimes against humanity.
He said further that QSIS's:
… enemy is the very existence of peace; it is the presence of justice; it is freedom of worship, freedom of association, freedom of speech and freedom itself.
Iraq and Syria are far away, but we must not be nearsighted. Australians, like other people around the world of good will, may well see violence brought home to them. Only the blind would refuse to admit that these people, the QSIS, are a problem for the whole world. Mr McGeogh and the Greens may be happy to remain nearsighted and cite only the problems and be in denial, as is his namesake, Mr Magoo, but QSIS is anything but a joke. Faced with evil it is impossible to relativise ISIS. We must act. I commend both the government and the opposition for identifying this as a separate and new problem and for acting in a measured and balanced way without going to the extent that we did in the previous war in Iraq.
It is a privilege to rise on this important statement by the Prime Minister in relation to the unfolding events in Iraq. I congratulate the Prime Minister for his strong leadership on the international stage and on behalf of all Australians in what is perhaps one of the most disturbing international crises of recent times given the unfolding humanitarian disaster that we are witnessing in Iraq. I also thank and compliment the Foreign Minister for her enormously important work internationally in advocating for all decent and reasonable states to get involved in this unfolding humanitarian disaster. I thank the opposition—in particular, the member for Melbourne Ports, who has a strong voice in relation to these matters—who have responsibility supported the Australian government in the completely bipartisan matter of providing aid, rescuing people and saving human life.
I also thank profoundly the Royal Australian Air Force and the crews that are risking their lives in delivering aid. As we have seen recently in newspaper reports, they are delivering aid to save people from absolute calamity. Those crews are serving our nation in a way which, we should all acknowledge, is the ultimate in human bravery and they are delivering for us in very dangerous and complex circumstances. It really is impressive to see the machinery of government in Australia swing so well and so quickly behind what is going on in the world—our Defence Force, our security services and all of those agencies that have the capacity to respond so quickly and effectively to unfolding crises.
We stand in very good stead internationally as a small nation that constantly achieves well above our population size, our economy size and our Defence Force size and is always contributing to the needs of humanity. I think most Australians acknowledge that this is a great role for Australia to fill on the world stage, particularly at a time when we hold a vital UN Security Council seat. We are behaving very responsibly, but not just when we hold that seat. I think Australia always seeks to lead the way in supporting and helping human beings.
We have heard so much about the serious nature of what the ISIL movement represents. I acknowledge in this place that it is genocide—the deliberate and forced execution of minority groups. Predominantly we are speaking about Christian groups—and I have seen so many of them in the suburbs of greater Sydney. Assyrian Christians, Chaldeans, Yazidis, Mandaeans and other religious and racial groups in Iraq are the subject of ongoing violence, intimidation, harassment and discrimination on purely religious and ethnic grounds. This is violence of the most abhorrent and serious nature—profound genocide which has exercised the world's attention.
I thank the Americans and President Obama for their intervention on behalf of those people. In particular, the missile strikes have been critical in turning the tide on the ISIL movement's reach. Of course, the vexed issue of arming different groups and minorities is once again with us.
What the Prime Minister said is true—Australians are understandably apprehensive at the risk of being involved in another conflict. He made that point to take account of all of the concerns that people have about drawing our nation into other people's conflicts and concerns. However, the Prime Minister made the very compelling case that, if we do nothing, we will leave millions of people exposed to death, starvation, forced conversion and ethnic cleansing. I think that most Australians, when presented with this case, would accept that, with the capacity to do such good and ensure that millions of people will not die or be forced to convert or be ethnically cleansed, we should act.
Hence we are joining with the United States to deal with the immediate humanitarian relief and logistical support requests—and I also acknowledge the British, French, Canadian and Italian aircraft involved in the humanitarian aid drops. The Prime Minister has indicated that, like the Americans, we will not be committing to combat troops on the ground. I, like the member for Melbourne Ports, say to the minority parties in the Australian parliament—the Greens and others—that this is not the time for a debate. We are having a discussion here today to acknowledge the support of the Australian government, but international events that move at the pace that they do require the executive to have the authority of the Australian people and the parliament to act first and consider later. It is entirely appropriate that the government has taken decisions to enable the RAAF to provide humanitarian aid. Indeed, as the member for Melbourne Ports eloquently put it, you would have thought that the Greens would have welcomed that Australia was intervening in a way to prevent such profound human rights abuses, such as genocide and ethnic cleansing. It is a welcome thing indeed for most Australians.
An honourable member: Mass rapes.
And mass rapes—all of the things we have heard about from so many members. Indeed, I do think that it is not the time to be having a domestic dispute about the nature of our debating here in the parliament when you are required as a government to use your executive authority to enable the support mechanisms, the supply mechanisms—all of the things that can require early action to ensure that you have the capacity to intervene. That early action is absolutely vital.
Once again I would like to thank, in particular, the opposition for joining with the government in such a strong way to ensure we have a united front as a country to the world. I know that many of the minority communities in Australia are so grateful to this parliament for what we are doing. We have, of course, many requests before us. I want to also thank the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection for announcing that, under the special humanitarian visa program, 4,400 places will be made available, with the capacity and potential, hopefully, for more at some point in the future.
Given the nature of the crisis, it is not the case that Australia can solve this individually. This will require United Nations action. I want to acknowledge the requests from many of these minority groups, particularly in Sydney, for the concept of a UN safe haven: a place where particularly the Christian minorities and the Syrians, who have been removed completely from the Nineveh Plains and their homes, can exist in peaceful safety, considering that there is really—even the Americans confessed—at this stage no early strategic goal that we have in mind in relation to the future of Iraq, other than saving lives, protecting people, stopping mass genocide and interdicting these people of great evil.
The next step, in my view, and in the view of many of these minorities, should be the United Nations working to provide a safe haven for the many hundreds of thousands of refugees that there will now be from the Nineveh Plains in northern Iraq. If it cannot be the defeat of ISIL, it will have to be the protection of civilians, and that will need a particular area and region. The world will not have the capacity to protect large regions of any country in particular. So it is a reasonable request. I know that the foreign minister is in negotiation with all of her counterparts in the world at the moment about how to best address the upcoming crisis—when winter hits, all of these civilians are out of their homes and displaced—and how to deal with the unfolding humanitarian crisis affecting so many hundreds of thousands of civilians.
It is a privilege today to speak to the Prime Minister's statement. I thank the Prime Minister and the foreign minister for their strong leadership and all members of this House who have supported what I think is a great role for this country to play on the international stage. Of course, Australia remains committed to protecting civilians' lives and the human rights of individuals anywhere in the world where we see these mass abuses of human rights in civilian populations.
This morning the world learned that a second American journalist had been murdered in the civil war in Iraq. It was met with international outrage. It is understandable that citizens of other countries attend their view to an atrocity when it touches one of their own, but this does not overshadow the more than 5,000 Iraqis who have been slaughtered or the 12,000 who have been wounded, enslaved, abused and otherwise had their lives cut short at the hands of the murderous criminals who are masquerading as a cause. The United Nations has reported ISIS and its allies have committed 'systematic and egregious violations' against civilians, including mass killings, sexual violence, kidnapping, destruction of property and attacks on places of religious worship and of great historical importance. These must be resisted.
To deploy Australian forces to another country—to engage in operations in a theatre of war—is probably one of the gravest decisions any country can make. I believe it is proper that these decisions are made by governments, who necessarily have more information and intelligence at their fingertips, and are ultimately responsible for the consequences of their decisions. That does not mean that parliament does not have a role. It is equally proper that the Australian people are engaged in this debate and, through their representatives in parliament, can express their views.
Accordingly, in his address to parliament this week, our leader, Bill Shorten, committed Labor's support to the government, based on the following three principles. First, responding effectively to the humanitarian crisis in Iraq to prevent genocide and relieve suffering. Second, promoting a unity government in Iraq that is inclusive and can achieve national cohesion—a government that would reject sectarianism and the alienation of minorities—enabling effective security and control of Iraqi territory. He said that we must not act in a way that would leave Iraq in a worse position. Third, denying motivation and opportunity for Australian fighters to join with the ISIS forces in Iraq. This statement enjoys my full support and the full support of every Labor member.
This morning it was reported that the foreign minister said that this support is in the face of 'gritted teeth' from Labor's Left. I do not know if these comments are true, but if they are accurately reported, they are both unfortunate and ill-informed. It may suit the political objectives of one side of politics or another to pick a fight on the issue, but it is not in the long-term interest of an informed debate and it is certainly not in the public interest.
I have never felt more strongly about the importance of the need to confront the barbarity of ISIS and for Australia to play its part in that. This is not an issue of Right versus Left. This is an issue of right versus wrong. To those who may question why the Left of Australian politics should support this proposition I simply say this: it is consistent with our values and our history. On the Left, we believe in the fundamental equality of all humankind, in the dignity of humanity, and in solidarity with those who face imminent persecution. These beliefs must dictate our action. We cannot stand idly by. How can we call for a regional solution to the flow of refugees within our region and at the same time shrink from an in-country solution to the persecution that drives refugees into camps and into the boats that meet our shores. It simply does not make sense. It is also consistent with our long and proud history of being on the right side of these matters.
It was John Curtin who famously turned to the United States and, in fighting the Pacific war in our nation's darkest hour, forged an alliance that has continued over 60 years and stands us in good stead today. It was the actions of a Labor government that gave birth to that alliance. It is also important that we contemplate the circumstances of John Curtin himself. He did not enter the national political fray as the member for Fremantle or as Australia's greatest wartime Prime Minister. He actually entered national politics 25 years earlier as an anti-war and anti-conscription activist. He was an absolutely fervent critic of the European slaughter, but he was also fervently opposed to the conscription policy of the early decades of our nation's federation. He was actually jailed for his anti-war and anti-conscription beliefs. But 25 years later he put the interests of the nation first in ensuring that we were well prepared to meet the onslaught of the Japanese Imperial Army. It is the legacy of John Curtin which informs the actions of Australian Labor and should inform the position of the Left of Australian politics when you contemplate the challenge that is before us today.
Some say that we should not go down this direction, that there must be an alternative. Some have argued that we should look to the alternatives, and that is indeed right. It is the right question to ask but it is hard to fathom how the alternatives will halt the slaughter. If I honestly thought that a boycott, a protest, a sanction or a prayer group was going to stop the mass genocide and slaughter of minorities in northern Iraq and throughout the Middle East that is going on today, then I would agree, let us use the alternatives. But I do not think anybody who stands in this parliament today can honestly suggest that those actions are going to be sufficient.
Many have pointed to the disastrous 2003 war in Iraq as a dangerous precedent that we need not follow. I agree with them. I actually opposed both of the Iraq wars. I am now willing to stand here today and say that I was wrong about the first, but I was absolutely right about the second. But this is not a repeat of 2003 when a pre-emptive strike was being led against a sovereign leader in a country, albeit an enemy. This is a situation where the sovereign government of a country is calling on the nations in the rest of the world for their support and assistance, and Australia as an international citizen must answer that call.
It also answers the call of the United Nations Secretary-General Mr Ban Ki-moon, because many have said that we should take this to the United Nations first. I welcome the statements of the Secretary-General Mr Ban Ki-moon, who has called on the international community to engage. He has pointed out that there are over 1.2 million displaced persons in the region. He has pointed out all of the atrocities that are going on and he is calling on the international community to stand to, and indeed we should.
It is right for people in this place to be concerned about the possibility of mission creep. I share their concerns. But can I say as a representative of my electorate and as a member of this parliament, we must be very mindful of our obligations to the international community and to our own community. In a world where you can jump on a plane in Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide and many other places around the country and be in a theatre of war within 30 hours of departing our shores, then the opposite is also the case. We do not have the luxury of saying that this is somebody else's problem happening somewhere else and we need not be involved. It is not good enough for us in the wealthy countries of the world to say that we give speeches and money while the poor people give their lives and give blood. We are better than that as a parliament. We are better than that as a people. I wholeheartedly support the actions of the government and the Leader of the Opposition and I associate myself with the comments of the shadow foreign affairs spokesman earlier in this place today. We cannot stand idly by.
It is a privilege to rise today to speak on matters unfolding in Iraq following the recent statement by the Prime Minister. I would like to congratulate the Prime Minister and our foreign minister Julie Bishop on the leadership shown following the unfortunate international events of late.
Sadly, Iraq is once again the subject of international condemnation for the way in which its citizens have been brutalised and terrorised by Islamic militants. To say that it has had a chequered past is of course an understatement: chemical attacks on the Kurds, its invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the attempted assassination of George Bush in 1993, the eventual toppling of Saddam Hussein's government by the US in March 2003 followed by years of violent conflict with different groups competing for power—and the list goes on. More recently, with the fall of Saddam Hussein, the world has held its breath to see whether Iraq citizens could get on with their lives without fear of violence or ultimately death. But, sadly, this was not to be. Violence soon escalated and it would appear victims were not discriminated against. We have seen numerous heart-rending examples of this. Back in 2010 we saw 52 Christians killed by militants and Shia Muslims have been targeted on numerous occasions in waves of attacks, killing scores of people. Fast forward to 2013 and the UN estimated the death toll of civilians at 7,157—a dramatic increase and more than double the previous year's figure of 3,238. Now in 2014 we have witnessed Sunni rebels, led by ISIS, carry out unimaginable atrocities against citizens of Iraq. Thousands of people have fled their homes to Mount Sinjar to escape the militants.
The Australian government's concern is to protect innocent Iraqi men, women and children who, like us Australians, simply want to live a life without fear and look after their families. To quote our Prime Minister, what Iraq is currently facing is a humanitarian catastrophe. Australia has now joined with international partners to help the anti-ISIL forces in Iraq. Our priority is to provide humanitarian aid. We have recently undertaken a successful international humanitarian relief effort airdropping supplies to the thousands of people stranded on Mount Sinjar in northern Iraq. I am deeply proud that the RAAF will conduct further humanitarian missions. It is quite unimaginable how terrified those Iraqi families—those mothers, fathers and children—must have felt when they were corralled onto Mount Sinjar like animals, like a herd of sheep, not knowing whether they would be safe or whether they would see the sun come up again. It is such an unthinkable abuse of human rights.
What else is Australia doing? At the request of the US government, we will help transport stores of military equipment, including arms and munitions, to arm the Kurdish fighters as part of a multinational effort—which includes Canada, Italy, France, the United Kingdom and the United States—to undertake this important task. There are risks associated with these activities. However, Australia cannot stand by and do nothing when we learn about mass killings, beheadings and women being forced into sexual slavery. These are acts of genocide.
What is important to note is that Australia's contribution will be coordinated with the government of Iraq and regional countries. At this stage there has been no formal request for Australia to contribute on-the-ground combat forces and there has been no decision taken to become further involved in the conflict. We all hope and pray that it does not come to that.
What we must bear in mind is that, if this militant behaviour can happen abroad, it can happen at home here on the shores of Australia. We have seen many examples of this more recently. That is why this government has announced an increase in funding to bolster the safety of our borders. The number of Australians with international terrorist experience, from all accounts, has increased, so the challenge is just so much greater. Our government is providing an additional $630 million over the next four years to further resource agencies to bolster the counter-terrorism capacity of the Australian Federal Police, ASIO, ASIS, Customs and Border Protection and others. I am very proud that this is new funding. The increased threat of terrorism means increased resources are required. I do not think there is any argument over that. We are also looking at national security laws and our ability to monitor, investigate, arrest and prosecute foreign fighters returning to our shores.
We hope and pray that this unthinkable situation is contained as a matter of urgency. We all know we live in dangerous and unpredictable times and the world is getting smaller by the minute. A modern government must be flexible and able to move swiftly in order to make decisions in the best interests of our country and also as a good citizen of the world. Decisions to become involved in another country's conflict, no matter how abhorrent, are never easy. We know from history that such deliberations and decisions are scrutinised very closely, which makes them that much harder to make, as they should be. We all know that hindsight is a wonderful thing and rarely do historians give a glowing view of countries getting involved in another's dispute, but we have no choice and we may have to participate further.
I therefore commend our government for the assistance it is giving to the Iraqi government. As the threat of terrorism becomes amplified and, as we regrettably learn of more Australians leaving our fair shores to join such militant groups, then, sadly, Australia does not seem to be so far away from Iraq and Syria.
I too rise to speak on the humanitarian crisis occurring in Iraq and respond to the Prime Minister and opposition leader's statement in the main chamber.
I will begin by acknowledging the sacrifices, in particular, of the journalists who have gone there to provide information to the world, yet have lost their lives in this horrible conflict—Steven Sotloff, James Foley and Bassam Raies and many others, I am sure, who could be named.
Obviously, as politicians, we work in words and beliefs but we tend to come home okay. When journalists go off to provide information to the world, they put themselves in harm's way. I acknowledge their particular sacrifice and offer my condolences to their families.
I have been contacted by many people about the unfolding situation in the Middle East. I have a significant Muslim population in my electorate, and many of them have raised concerns about the process. The other day a rally was held in Brisbane by the Kurdish community seeking further support, and they provided me with a petition. I am going to read from a few of the people who wrote to me direct from my electorate—there were many other people from outside my electorate, obviously. They said:
I urge the Australian Government to send further humanitarian aids and military assistance to Kurdistan.
I also ask the Australian Government to recognise the ISIS barbarism on the people of Kurdistan including the Yezidi, Christian and Shabak religious minorities as acts of war, crime and genocide.
I appreciate your efforts and assistance in advance.
The group also wrote to the Prime Minister, the foreign minister and Tania Plibersek, who is the shadow spokesperson in this area. I personally delivered that correspondence to the foreign minister's office. I know that she has been working hard to make sure that the concerns of the Kurdish community and other minorities that have been targeted are being listened to.
To Jwan from Sunnybank Hills, Karen from Yeronga, Mehdi from Yeronga, Shadia from Acacia Ridge, Kardo from Acacia Ridge, Sabir from Acacia Ridge, Sekala from Runcorn, Zana from Runcorn and Mohammad from Sunnybank Hills—to name a few of the people who have written to me—I have passed on your concerns.
Our newspapers and televisions screens have been filled too often with the atrocities that are taking place in Iraq—and, obviously, also in Syria, a country that surely, in terms of taking and accepting refugees, is doing more than almost any other nation at the moment in accommodating displaced people. Maybe Lebanon next door might be doing it tough as well.
This extremist armed group is committing mass atrocities against ethnic minorities in northern Iraq. We understand that and, sadly, we know that because they are adept at placing information about this on social media. As the Iraqi security forces and the Kurdish Peshmerga fighters confront these terrorists, civilians remain at risk of further mass atrocities and crimes.
The security situation in Iraq has dramatically deteriorated, particularly in the Nineveh province and the Kurdish semi-autonomous regions—an area that used to embrace people who were different and not necessarily Kurds. Even though the Kurds have hundreds and hundreds of years of history of being discriminated against, they have been an incredibly generous people. And certainly in my community, they have always been very engaged and supportive.
As a result of these ongoing attacks by the terrorists, these barbaric terrorists, who operate on both sides of the Iraq-Syria border, declared a caliphate spanning both countries—something that cannot be allowed to continue, because of the terror that is being reaped on civilians. They, and several associated armed groups, have engaged in widespread fighting with the Iraqi security forces, and they are causing civilian casualties and widespread civilian displacement.
The United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq reported that more than 1,000 civilians were killed during July alone, excluding deaths in Anbar province, and that over 5,000 civilians were killed in the first six months of this year.
Labor's support for the government on the situation in Iraq is underpinned by three key principles. One, we need to respond effectively to the humanitarian crisis in Iraq to prevent genocide and to relieve suffering. Two, we need to promote a unity government in Iraq, which hopefully is only days away—a government that is inclusive and can achieve national cohesion, and something that did not flow from the disastrous war from over a decade ago. We need a government that will reject sectarianism and the alienation of minorities, enabling effective security, peace, harmony, and control over Iraqi territory. The world community must not act in a way that would leave Iraq in a worse position and in a situation where things could deteriorate. The third key principle is that we must deny the motivation and opportunity for any Australians to go and join these foreign fighters.
As the opposition leader Shorten said early in the week:
… every action is a betrayal of millions of good people of conscience who follow that faith.
That is why I am not going to use the term that is regularly used to describe these terrorists, because I do not think that those are words that should be put together. That would be betraying the tenets of their religion, because of the horrific crimes that they are committing at the moment against people. I think from my dealings, and my readings, it would be much more accurate to say that these terrorists do not represent the Islamic faith in any way. I cannot stress that enough.
As a member of the international community, Australia strives to uphold the notion of the Responsibility to Protect. I think the member for Sydney has detailed this in some speeches, and I think Gareth Evans also wrote about it recently in The Australian. The handling of this responsibility is not an easy task. We have to look at our own geography first, obviously—that is what good community members do—but, there comes a time, as we have shown over the last 100 years, when we do step up in Australia. If social media had been as prevalent back in the nineties when atrocities happened in Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda and Kosovo, maybe we would have been even quicker to go and do our bit in terms of making sure we protected as many people as possible, when people were being attacked for their religion, culture, faith or ethnicity.
Disagreement continues today about the right level of intervention. I think we can learn from the mistakes made in this parliament in the first Iraqi war, but we need to be very careful, obviously, and make sure that we have everybody on side. If people are going to talk about 'Team Australia', they need to be clear that they are including all Australians, that we are not just being a country that answers solely to whatever the United States says. Australia was pivotal in creating the United Nations, and I think we should always take our lead from the United Nations, not from a two or three member-state initiative. We should always work with the United Nations—that is when we can do the most good for the greatest number of people.
I am glad that we are able to stand up and express our views in this democratic chamber about whether we should go and how we should go. I am particularly proud of the dedicated and professional men and women of our Australian Defence Force. I will mention the Royal Australian Air Force, because they will be doing most of the heavy lifting, both metaphorically and literally, and I know that there will be challenges for those service personnel and their families. A cousin of mine came back recently from the Middle East Area of Operations, the MEAO, and it can be challenging. I know that in the next few weeks it will be particularly so. It saddens me to say that sometimes it is necessary for the international community to take such strong steps, but aid will not do it when people are going to ignore the rules of war and international humanitarian law and execute people, both prisoners and civilians. We need to do more. We need to take stronger steps. I am very confident of the skill and bravery of our Australian defence personnel and I support their efforts in Iraq in assisting the international humanitarian effort to prevent genocide against these beleaguered minorities in northern Iraq.
The tragic events in the United States of 9-11 showed us that we live in a global village, that no-one is an island. Australia's loss of lives in the Bali bombings demonstrated that we are not immune from the world's new kind of war. No longer do the brave men and women of our defence forces go away to distant countries, as their predecessors once did, to fight a war in a fixed location to prevent it spreading, maybe even spreading to Australia. Instead, the new international war, the war against terrorism, can be fought in any country and can strike at any time, even here in Australia.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott was right to offer Australia's support and help to the United States in Iraq when requested to do so. The Prime Minister told the House this week that Australia would help transport arms and military equipment to Kurdish Peshmerga fighters in an attempt to counter the advance of ISIL in Iraq. We have already seen that the US air strikes on the ISIL advance did relieve the siege at Mount Sinjar. They have been effective in relieving the siege at Amerli. They have broken the ISIL advance in the Kurdish areas. Australia was involved in humanitarian airdrops to both these locations and will continue separate humanitarian airdrops to provide food and water supplies to people isolated by the militants in Iraq.
Australia has not been asked yet to commit troops on the ground, but we as a nation are not inclined to stand by in the face of preventable genocide. Some Australians are apprehensive about the risk of becoming involved in another conflict in the Middle East as we provide our support to the US in its endeavours to relieve the situation. So far this year more than one million Iraqis have been driven from their homes. Indeed, as the Prime Minister said, we have watched in horror the beheadings, crucifixions and mass executions, and thousands of women have been forced into sexual slavery. It is simply unacceptable on any level. Australia, like other countries, cannot leave the Iraqi people to face this evil alone. It is the right thing to do to help to stop the suffering if we can and to deal with its perpetrators to prevent it spreading.
The Iraqi ambassador to Australia has made it clear that Australia and the US are working with the full cooperation of the Iraqi government. Our embassy in Baghdad is in direct contact with the Iraqi government to secure the necessary approvals to get humanitarian consignments to Erbil, in the Kurdish region of Iraq. Australia is doing what it can to help with the request from the US Obama administration, with the support of the Iraqi government.
We have been told that about 60 Australians are believed to be fighting with terrorist groups across Iraq and Syria. Many of these fighters will seek to return to Australia at some time having become, as the Prime Minister said, accustomed to killing. It is unacceptable. Our government sees them as a serious and growing threat to Australia's security. We cannot expect that they will be law-abiding citizens if and when they return.
The modern war is a global war. It can strike at any time in any country. It is indeed a war on extremism. We must do what we can to prevent it spreading and we have a responsibility as a civilized country to help those already terrorised by this new war. Australia is showing real leadership. Australians indeed are angry and overwhelmingly support the Prime Minister's actions that reflect this anger within the community. Now is not the time to be debating, grandstanding and publicity seeking; now is the time for action. I truly condemn the member for Denison and the Greens for the way they have behaved in this situation. It is not the view of reasonable people in Australia. It is unacceptable, it is publicity seeking and it is grandstanding.
The Prime Minister, with the support of the opposition, is acting decisively and acting in accordance with the Constitution and defence legislation. Just as importantly, the government is doing what is right to keep our nation safe, and this is a fundamental responsibility of government. A humanitarian catastrophe is unfolding and we as a nation simply cannot sit by and watch. I thank the Prime Minister and the foreign minister for their leadership, and the opposition for their support. I also wish to thank those military personnel serving—not by choice—on these missions. No doubt these are dangerous circumstances. Our thoughts and prayers are with those people serving with our military forces overseas and their families.
As the member for Lyons, as a representative of the people of Lyons, and from my own personal position, I must make my position quite clear about this. As most reasonable Australians do, I support wholeheartedly the efforts of the government to stamp out what can only be described as extremism. That is the enemy here; radicalised extremists that would do us harm. As a government, our fundamental responsibility is to keep the people of Australia safe and indeed that is what we are doing.
I rise to make a few brief comments in response to the Prime Minister's statement on Iraq. In 2003 I opposed intervention in Iraq and Australia's involvement in the conflict. I did not believe Australia's involvement to be justified at that time, either morally or legally. I was not in this place then. I voiced my position, as many thousands of Australians did, by taking to the streets. I stand by that position. I think history has vindicated it and there are echoes obviously of 2003 in the tragedy of the circumstances we are debating today.
In the present circumstances, my view is different to that which I took in 2003. The moral case to act today is viscerally compelling. The horrors that have been brought home to us through social media, and indeed the mainstream media, demonstrate the scale of this humanitarian catastrophe, as I think the member for Lyons referred to it. But I am concerned about questions of legality. These are not small questions when we go to issues of military force. They raise some profound issues for all of us in this place. Obviously, when I think about my opposition to the 2003 conflict in Iraq, I also think about conflicts where Western democracies failed to act or failed to act as they ought to have done—I think of Kosovo; I think of Rwanda—and I do note that it is clear that there are grave consequences that can attach to failing to act as well as from interventions.
Further to that, in accepting the grave consequences that may flow from inaction, we cannot divorce the implications of our actions from their consequences and in Iraq, in the Middle East more generally, history does not offer us much encouragement. Of course, the use of military force, recourse to military force, can never be a step lightly taken.
It is of concern to me that this action is not presently the subject of a United Nations Security Council resolution. I would prefer it was so. But this is not a barrier to the action Australia has taken and, in the circumstances, it cannot be one. I am comforted by the words of the United Nations Secretary-General, Mr Ban Ki-moon. I am also comforted and, indeed, encouraged by the words of former Foreign Minister Gareth Evans as set out in The Australianyesterday, going to the responsibility-to-protect doctrine:
… no question arises of any breach of international law even in the absence of express UN Security Council authorisation.
He said of the intervention:
Its objective is explicitly humanitarian, to protect civilian populations immediately at risk of genocide or other mass atrocity crimes from the marauding Islamic State militant forces, who in their march across Iraq have already perpetrated atrocities unrivalled in their savagery. And—
importantly, I think, he says:
there is a reasonable prospect that it will be successful in meeting at least this immediate aim.
This immediate aim is a vital aim, and our response, I believe, is proportionate and appropriate. The shadow minister for foreign affairs, Tanya Plibersek, set out the principles that Labor will have regard to in this matter far more eloquently and far more effectively than I can, and I associate myself with all of her remarks, particularly those that touched on the broader regional dynamics and the tragedies that also exist in Syria which create some ongoing problems in terms of both our capacity for humanitarian relief and our present limited capacity for further protective action.
Apart from associating myself with Deputy Leader of the Opposition's remarks, there are four other matters I wish to briefly touch on—firstly, the importance of being able to debate this issue. This is a profound responsibility for all of us as legislators, and I am not convinced, as many in this place are, that it is clearly always the case that the executive government's prerogative should not be the subject of full parliamentary debate. Now is not the time, I believe, to have that debate; but it should not be, in my view, taken as read that we cannot engage in these fundamental questions about Australia's moral responsibilities as an international citizen when it comes to the ultimate exercise of military power.
Secondly, I am thinking, as I am sure all of us are, of the service men and women we are asking to undertake this important and dangerous work in our name and in the name of humanity. My thoughts, like those of all of us, are with those brave men and women.
Thirdly, I represent a community which contains a large number of people of Iraqi origin. I was deeply affected when a delegation came to see me the week before last to talk about their concerns—concerns for their former homeland but also concerns relating to the community here and the prospect of radicalisation. That was a meeting that will stay with me a long time. I will do all I can to stand up for those decent people in that community and to allow them to feel confidence in the democratic institutions of Australian society as well as our concern for their homeland.
Fourthly, more generally, I am concerned about how we speak to and with the Islamic communities across Australia, including the ones in my electorate beyond the Iraqis. It was my very great privilege to be in the chamber to hear the defence of multiculturalism in Australia offered by my friend the member for Chifley, and I associate myself also with his remarks. But I think there is a broader challenge for all of us to stand up for the true principles of Islam, a wonderful and peaceful religion, and not allow there to be any confusion between that faith and the atrocities we are seeing in Syria and Iraq at the moment.
The doctrine of the responsibility to protect puts me in a position where I am comfortable with the actions undertaken by the Australian government and supported by Labor in opposition. At the moment, it is a responsibility to protect. I hope that, should Australia's actions change, there will be an opportunity for all of us as parliamentarians to debate that responsibly, reasonably and in the interests of the international community, particularly those affected by such horrific circumstances.
I rise to join my parliamentary colleagues in supporting this motion concerning the recent extremely disturbing developments in Iraq. Just this morning we awoke to more devastating news. ISIL fanatics have reportedly murdered American journalist Steven Sotloff in the most brutal and horrific manner. His murder is a shocking and barbaric act. This is obviously heartbreaking news for Mr Sotloff's family and friends. This is heartbreaking for the United States and for all nations who join together to condemn these most despicable acts of inhumanity.
Mr Sotloff's murder comes just weeks after the murder of another American journalist, James Foley, also at the hands of ISIL. As a former television reporter, this really hits home. These men were doing their job and nothing more. It is only through the courage of journalists like Steven Sotloff and James Foley that we can begin to comprehend the vile events that are unfolding as ISIL's march of hatred continues in Iraq and Syria.
ISIL is reprehensively using violence to intimidate journalists. The Committee to Protect Journalists reports that at least 70 journalists have been killed covering the conflict in Syria and Iraq. The CPJ estimates that approximately 20 journalists are currently still missing in Syria. Many of those missing journalists are believed to be held captive by ISIL. Of course, it is not just journalists who are being murdered by ISIL fighters.
The Prime Minister has dubbed, and rightly so, ISIL a 'death cult' for very good reason. Its reign of terror and hatred has seen thousands of innocent people indiscriminately murdered simply because they do not subscribe to the same beliefs.
In June alone we understand 1,922 people were killed in Iraq and a further 2600 or so people were wounded. Amnesty International has warned of ethnic cleansing on an historic scale. What is at risk in northern Iraq is potential genocide. We have seen beheadings, crucifixions, mass executions and kidnappings. Children and women have been abducted and reportedly raped and killed. Hundreds of women have been kidnapped and forced into sexual slavery and subjected to the most horrific degradation. Iraqi Human Rights Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani says people have been buried alive. The situation can only be described as a nightmare and the threat is not only to people living in the Middle East.
People from countries like Australia are travelling to the Middle East to take part in this violence. As our government understands, about 60 Australians are on the ground fighting in Syria and Iraq, and about 100 more are providing funding or facilitation. The murderer of James Foley, and also Steven Sotloff, is reportedly a British man. The reality is that the rise of ISIL presents a real threat of terrorist attacks here in Australia. There is a concern that Australians fighting with ISIL will become further radicalised and learn the terrorist trade. If these people come back to Australia it poses a serious threat to national security.
I welcome moves by our government to keep Australia even safer and more secure. The government is investing $630 million to counter violent extremism and radicalisation. This includes $24 million to the Australian Crime Commission to support its efforts against terrorism. New counter-terrorism units are being established at all our international airports, and an additional 80 Border Force officers are being recruited.
I also welcome the humanitarian mission to transport aid and military equipment as part of a multinational effort aimed at helping those at risk from ISIL forces to protect themselves.
I also welcome news that Australia will accept a formal invitation to become an enhanced partner with NATO, reflecting our shared goals in working towards a peaceful international order. I particularly commend the way in which the Prime Minister Tony Abbott and the Minister for Foreign Affairs Julie Bishop have handled the situation to date as well as the government's moves to keep people safe abroad and at home.
The situation in the Middle East is indeed a highly dangerous one. Doing anything involves serious risks and weighty consequences. But doing nothing involves risks and consequences too. The Chief of the Defence Force has confirmed this morning that an Australian aircraft has joined an airlift of supplies including military equipment to the Kurdish regional government in Erbil. American, British, French, Canadian and Italian aircraft are also involved. Australia is doing what we can to help. Our involvement has been at the request of the Obama administration and with the support of the Iraqi government. Australia remains in close contact with United States and other international partners and we will continue to work to alleviate the humanitarian situation in Iraq and address the security threat posed by ISIL. There has been no formal request for combat forces and no decision taken to get further involved in the conflict. There will be no combat troops on the ground. What is happening currently is a humanitarian intervention with of course the full support of the Iraqi government.
We welcome the comments by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that without addressing this issue we will just end up allowing these terrorist activities to continue. Australia cannot and will not leave the Iraqi people to face alone the evil unleashed by ISIL. It is right that we do everything we prudently can to prevent its spread. It is right that we do everything to protect the innocent men, women and children of Iraq and Syria in the name of freedom and democracy and justice and humanity.
Debate adjourned.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 13:02