|
representatives vote 2021-05-25#5
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2021-10-22 13:57:54
|
Title
Bills — Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021, Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2021; Second Reading- Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021, Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2021 - Second Reading - Keep wording unchanged
Description
<p class="speaker">Garth Hamilton</p><p>These bills are about maintaining the high quality of higher education that Australia is renowned for, while ensuring the sustainability of the sector now and into the future. At present the TEQSA's cost-recovery levels are quite low, at around 15 per cent of total costs. The taxpayer currently bears the burden of funding the vast majority of the regulatory activities. Moving towards an industry funded model is not without precedence. In the financial services sector businesses pay a levy to fund their independent watchdog and the same applies in a number of other industries with a great deal of success. In every case having this independent oversight ensures the quality of services being provided and gives assurance to those using those services that they are getting exactly what they pay for. My comments come from my time running research within a CRC. What was very important to us was to make sure that we were getting the high quality of research from these educational institutions that we were asking for. It's something that Australia has a very good standing in for it higher education facility. This is an important step towards making sure that we maintain these high standards.</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2021-05-25.110.15) to keep the usual second reading motion unchanged. The usual second reading motion is "*that the bill be [read a second time](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/)*," which is parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill. Sydney MP [Tanya Plibersek](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/sydney/tanya_plibersek) (Labor) proposed to change it with the amendment below.
- ### Amendment text
- > *That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:*
- >
- > *"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that the bill places a further impost on universities as they continue to face an unprecedented crisis as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, during which the Government has failed Australian university students and staff by:*
- >
- > *(1) excluding universities from COVID support; and*
- >
- > *(2) making it more expensive for thousands of Australian students to get a university education".*
<p>The increased cost recovery for the TEQSA will involve increasing the application base fees to recover the true costs of these activities. The increase to application base fees will be enabled by a new fees determination to be issued by the TEQSA and introducing a new annual charge on higher education providers to recover the costs of the risk monitoring and regulatory oversight activities, and the new annual charge is the subject of these bills.</p><p>These activities are crucial to protect students from unscrupulous providers and to protect the reputation of our higher education sector, allowing targeted and timely responses to issues such as academic integrity, admission standards and information, student safety, fraud and corruption. At a time when many people are looking to upskill and retrain, taking advantage of the flexibility of online education, it's even more vital that this agency exists. It ensures that students can feel secure, knowing that their qualifications will be accredited and recognised.</p><p>TEQSA registration means that, from anywhere in Australia, students can sign up to online courses at the University of Southern Queensland, based in my electorate of Groom, and receive a world-class education with full confidence. In fact, we saw many people do this and benefit from USQ's implementation of discounted short courses during the peak of the pandemic. Backed by this government's COVID-19 relief package, community members were able to enrol in 20 undergraduate and graduate certificate programs across priority areas such as health, IT, engineering, education and agriculture—a very big one for our region. The university saw a remarkable uptake, and this government is providing and extra $26.1 million in the budget to fund an extra 5,000 short course places, further proof that there is strong demand for high-quality education delivered by Australian universities. I would add that a learning from USQ's good performance is its minimal reliance on international students to fund its operation. This was a point raised by the vice-chancellor, Geraldine Mackenzie, in a meeting with Minister Tudge recently. I know the government agrees with me that this foresight has positioned USQ very well to handle the challenges faced during the pandemic.</p><p>I also want to assure the House that this cost-recovery strategy isn't being implemented blindly. TEQSA will seek stakeholder feedback on a draft cost recovery implementation statement, consistent with the Australian government's cost recovery guidelines. The clear intention is for the government to work with the higher education sector to create a sustainable model. We know that such cooperation will be have the best possible outcomes. We look forward to working with the sector and receiving feedback. This is a clear example of the government working with industry to create a plan that will bring in meaningful change with the least possible disruption. Our economy is reopening. This is the government doing everything it can to ensure that this continues to happen, through planned and coordinated efforts with industry.</p><p>While higher education providers might have some criticism of the charges the government is listing, they will be phased in over three years to moderate the immediate financial impact. It will commence on 1 January 2022, and 20 per cent of the costs will be recovered in 2022, 50 per cent in 2023 and 100 per cent in 2024.</p><p>In summary, these bills are essential to sustaining this independent service and protecting the integrity of Australia's higher education sector, which I hope will encourage more students to feel confident in taking advantage of the myriad courses available to them, and being part of the next phase of Australia's recovery from COVID-19,</p> <p class="speaker">Julian Hill</p><p>I'll say at the outset that I don't support this bill, Labor doesn't support this bill and this House should not support this bill. It doesn't matter how much fancy language the government dresses it up with, it's a bill that will whack higher education providers with new charges at the very worst possible time. There is no detail in the legislation about how much people are going to pay. There's no transparency or scrutiny. We heard from the previous speakers: 'Trust us; we're the government. We'll go and consult. We'll do a bit of stakeholder feedback.' Well, Labor has heard from stakeholders. The universities say that now is the worst time, and the independent higher education providers also say that now is the worst time, to whack the sector with higher fees and charges.</p><p>I'm not in principle opposed, I must say, to the idea of moving sectors, over time, to cost recovery—but not now. University budgets are being smashed. We've heard a lot from the government speakers throughout the debate about their job-ready graduates program—a three-word slogan. Well, this job-ready graduates program will see real funding for higher education fall by 10 per cent over the next three years. That's what Senate estimates was told. That's what the budget papers show. Under the government's program for universities, real funding will fall by 10 per cent over the next three years.</p><p>Student debts are rising. We've got tens of thousands of Australian students now facing fee hikes. Again, the answers they finally gave to the last round of Senate estimates admitted the truth. What they'd said when they introduced the bill was, 'Oh well, fees might rise for students by seven per cent over three years.' The truth is that on the government's own figures fees for university students will rise by 16 per cent over three years under their so-called reform program.</p><p>Now is the very worst time to be whacking universities with higher fees. They've already faced losses of $3 billion just in the last period because of international students and the borders being closed. The economy has lost $9 billion from international education already, with more to come. But the government is not helping universities; they have implemented this real cut to their funding and more charges. It is like the minister over there is a little bit jealous of member for Hume: 'the member for Hume has got a big stick. I will get out my slightly smaller stick and whack the sector'. We have seen from the government that 17,000 jobs have been lost already and they are just the jobs that show up in organisation charts that you can put a position next to; it is not the other thousands and thousands of casuals, sessional teachers, casual researchers and other support staff. There have been 17,000 jobs lost because the government refused to extend JobKeeper. In fact, they changed the rules three times to make sure that public universities in this country were one of the few sectors not eligible for JobKeeper—teachers, researchers, cleaners, support staff, administration staff, people with families, just like all other Australians except they happen to work for a public university, and the government was out to get universities.</p><p>The most immediate impact of the international student loss of revenue has been on research. We've had a weird funding model for too long in this country, where universities make a profit off teaching students to fund research. The government, I think, three years ago cut $2.2 billion, another little sneaky cut, in the mid-year financial update—another $2.2 billion the Prime Minister hacked out of universities. At that time, he and the Treasurer said, 'Don't whinge. Go and recruit more international students.' Well, they did that and now the government is saying, 'Well, you're a bit dependent on international students, aren't you?' The practical impact of this is that our research budgets across the nation have been slashed. We hear the government say, 'We gave them a billion dollars.' We didn't actually give them a billion dollars. What the government did was bring forward money that they were going to give them in later years and now its cutting that money. So at the very worst time, we've got the government cutting university funding, effectively cutting research funding, because they've already brought it forward in a national emergency when we need research to commit to the economic recovery, seeing international education fall over—our fourth-biggest export sector—and they are thinking: 'Here is another good idea; we could whack them with fees and charges.' You could wait a couple of years if you want to move to cost recovery, until the cash flows for the universities have recovered.</p><p>There is a lot of focus in this debate on universities and very little or none on independent higher education providers. It is no exaggeration to say many independent higher education providers are facing oblivion. They are looking a fiscal cliff in six or 12 months as the student pipeline dries up. If anyone understands the nature of these businesses and this sector, they go on a pipeline. As current students leave, there are no students coming to replace them. It is a myth that gets perpetuated and rolled out—sometimes from people on my side, sometimes from the government—that all higher education providers and non-university providers are somehow dodgy. They're not. Many of them are good reputable businesses giving quality courses often in niche markets or skills.</p> <p class="speaker">Honourable Member</p><p>An honourable member interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Garth Hamilton</p><p>I mean it; I'm puncturing the stereotype. Well, if the minister actually cared about them, he wouldn't be whacking them with higher charges at this time. Their international student numbers have plummeted. They are not all dodgy. The government did little to nothing to help them. We have already seen many of them go out of business. Many of them were not actually eligible for JobKeeper because they weren't going to suffer the cash flow hit in the short-term; they were facing a fiscal cliff now. Many of these businesses have been around for decades. At the very time when they are fighting for their survival, the government comes along and goes, 'Here is a good idea; we'll whack them with higher fees and charges and push them off the cliff.' If you go and talk to these businesses, that's what they say. They already have many legitimate criticisms of TEQSA's performance and behaviour as a regulator and about the one-size-fits-all approach that regulates all the animals in the sector as if they were an elephant. Well, the universities are the elephants in the sector and there are a lot of other types of providers—small, medium and large ones—but they get university-level regulation basically foisted on them. There is a sector bias within TEQSA, which is a different conversation. If you listen to previous speakers and listen to the government's rhetoric, it is 'We are on about lower taxes, lower charges, less burden on business.' It is peak irony. I mean, if it wasn't actually serious, you could say that this was just trolling the sector. At the very time higher education providers—universities and private ones—need more support from the government, at the very time that their cash flows are being hit, the government comes along and proposes with this bill to whack them with more fees and charges. We heard a government speaker say, 'Well, currently they only pay 15 per cent of the cost-recovery for the regulator, so we're going to jack that up to 100 per cent,' at the very worst time.</p><p>The final thing I'll say, just on the international education sector, which TEQSA has a huge role in regulating, is that it's more than just dollars. Students are human. They're usually young people. There have often been huge sacrifices from them and their families to come and study in our country in some of their formative years. We should welcome that. We should show care and consideration for these young people who have chosen to spend this time in our country—in our cities, towns and regions. Instead, we had the Prime Minister showing an appalling lack of empathy, getting up last year and saying, 'If you don't like it, go home.' That ricocheted through the sector.</p><p class="italic">Mr Tudge interjecting—</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
-
|