Cuts to universities

Thank you very much for coming out this morning. I just wanted to say a few words about higher education. We see from reporting over the weekend and today that the Government is piling on the pressure when it comes to the crossbench, demanding that they pass $3.8 billion worth of cuts to our universities this week. Well it's completely unreasonable to expect the crossbench to agree to these massive cuts that will of course have a big impact on student learning. These cuts mean a poorer quality education, debts repaid sooner for poorer quality education, and higher fees. So higher fees, paid back sooner, for a worse education. We know also that regional universities will be particularly badly affected by these cuts. Regional universities are big employers in many of our regional towns, and they offer an opportunity of a university education to young people who would otherwise perhaps not move away from home to pursue higher education.

There's one especially nasty cut in this set of proposals, which is for the first time charging fees for university enabling courses. These are pathways into university for students who've previously struggled with their studies. It just makes absolutely no sense to start charging fees for university pathway courses that don't even give the student a qualification at the end, they simply open the door to university. And to charge up to $3 200 for these courses is completely unreasonable and completely unacceptable. Given that the Government can find $65 billion to give big business a tax cut, given that the Government can find money to give people on above $180 000 a tax cut, it is inconceivable that the Government can't find the money to properly fund our universities - that they continue to demand that the crossbench support billions of dollars of cuts - cuts to the quality of education, higher fees, to be repaid sooner.

Any questions?

 JOURNALIST: Is there any part whatsoever of the Government's package that you see any merit in? I'm thinking of perhaps the lowering of the HECS repayment threshold if it wasn't accompanied by higher course fees?

 PLIBERSEK: Look there are absolutely elements of this package that we are strongly supportive of, and if the Government was prepared to split those elements Labor would support them. We support higher government contribution for veterinary and dentistry courses, they are expensive to teach. We certainly support the protection of the higher education participation and pathways program. The HEPP program is a Labor initiative and we believe it has made a big difference to the number of students enrolled at university. So, if this Government was prepared to separate out the support for the HEPP program we would be very prepared to support that. There are other elements that we are open to supporting, certainly the uncapping of sub-bachelor courses is something that we would like to support, and we don't want to support that at the expense of TAFE and we are very worried about the cuts to TAFE funding which mean that the expansion of sub-bachelor places at university might be at the expense of people pursuing a TAFE education, and quite often TAFE is the best place to pick up the skills that you need for many of the jobs that are available at the moment. So yes there are elements of this that we are prepared to support, I've made that very clear to the Government. I know that there are members of the crossbench who'd be willing to support these elements as well. But as a whole package, it is not possible to support this whole package. Because at the end of the day, it's $3.8 billion of cuts over five years. It's higher fees for students, repaid sooner, for a poorer quality education.

 JOURNALIST: So you support all the parts that would cost more money - how should those be paid for?

 PLIBERSEK: Well how about we don't give big business $65 billion worth of tax cuts? I mean, Australian students already pay the sixth highest contribution to the cost of their own education across the OECD. We've seen very modest growth in university costs in recent times, tracking around about the same level as inflation. So we're not dealing with runaway costs, we're already dealing with students paying a high share of the cost of their education by OECD standards, we got a warning last week from the compilers of the list of the 100 best universities and the 200 best universities around the world saying that if Australia persists in these deep cuts our universities, which are well-regarded internationally but slipping in these international rankings, will continue to slip further behind. So we're not doing so well now that we can make billions of dollars of cuts and not see our international rankings continue to decline. We've been given a warning, we need to heed that warning, and continue to invest in higher education.

 JOURNALIST: But have any of the crossbenchers expressed concerns about the compressed timeline and also feeling pressured about such a momentous bill?

 PLIBERSEK: It's very important for the crossbench to speak for themselves, but I've had extensive conversations with a number of crossbenchers over many weeks now, and they all share my concerns about higher fees, repaid sooner, for a poorer quality education. Many of the crossbenchers are also especially worried about the effect on regional universities. I'm not sure what the Government tactic is in saying well if you don't make the cuts this week then you won't make the cuts. I mean it doesn't sound like a very clever bargaining tactic to me.

 JOURNALIST: Can I ask about Jacinda Ardern's policy [inaudible] free university for the first three years. What do you think of that plan?

PLIBERSEK: Well if New Zealand can afford it then terrific, good for them. We have, in Australia, for many years, had a policy of students making a contribution to the cost of their university education when they can afford to do so, when they get into the work force and they're earning a decent living. What the government is now trying to do is push up the total cost of university education and make students repay that cost sooner, at the same time as they're fist moving out of home, perhaps trying to buy a house, start a family. It’s Labor's policy that it is reasonable to expect students to make some contribution to the cost of their university education but it has to be a reasonable cost, repaid as students are able to afford to do so.

JOURNALIST: And just on another education matter, public submissions are open in to David Gonski's look at how best to spend money in schools, is Labor going to make a submission?

PLIBERSEK: I think you wouldn't have to be reading the secret tea leaves to know what Labor's policies are when it comes to improving the quality of our schools. First of all, you can't cut $17 billion from school funding and then talk about improving what's going on in our schools. Every single thing we want to do to improve our schools does require some extra support, some extra funding. So when we talk about focusing on teaching quality in our schools, if we want teachers to have the opportunity of lifetime continuing professional development, so even the best teachers can continue to upgrade their skills throughout their professional lives, then that costs money. It costs money for them to do the actual continuing professional development, it costs money to have relief teachers looking after their classes while they're doing it and when you're talking about the difference that more one on one attention for our students makes, so kids who are struggling get the intensive support they need to catch up, well that costs money. If you're talking about students who are gifted and talented getting the extension activities that will keep them engaged at school, that costs money. So the very first thing that the Government ought to do is properly fund our schools, not cut $17 billion from school education. Thanks everyone.