Triple J Hack

E&OE TRANSCRIPT TRIPLE J HACK TOM TILLEY Date 22/05/2014 TOM TILLEY: I actually do have Christopher Pyne with us now. Christopher Pyne, we've just had a caller - thanks for the call, Gemma(*) - really concerned about how much her degree is going to cost her, particularly at a time where jobs in the public sector, where she was expecting to work, are being diminished. What would you say to her, Christopher Pyne? And welcome to the show. CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Thank you to having me on the show, and I'm sorry that I'm running a little bit late. TOM TILLEY: No problem. CHRISTOPHER PYNE: I would say to Gemma(*) that every single dollar of her degree she can borrow from the Australian taxpayer and pay back when she earns over $50,000 a year. So, there is no reason for her to be concerned about the cost of her degree in terms of having to pay it up front. There are no domestic up front fees. I'd also say to her that the unnecessary worry that she's been caused by people spreading misinformation is just that - unnecessary worry and misinformation. Understand [indistinct]... TOM TILLEY: Okay. Well, it's interesting... CHRISTOPHER PYNE: [Audio breaking up] expand the competition in the system so dramatically by introducing [indistinct]... TOM TILLEY: Yeah. Christopher Pyne, unfortunately that phone line's breaking up. I'm not sure if it's anything to do with where you're standing or what we can do about that. But you made that point there about being able to borrow the entire cost of your student fees. But what we're hearing from a lot of people including Gemma(*) is that just because you can borrow it doesn't mean it won't change your decision to study, because whether you're borrowing, you know, potentially 20 or 30 grand versus, you know, fees that might be up as high as 50, 60, 70,000 is a big factor that will change people's decisions, they say. CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, the evidence is that students don't like paying fees and never have but it doesn't deter them from going to university because they know that when they get out of university, they'll earn over their lifetime 75 per cent more than someone who doesn't go to uni. TOM TILLEY: What's that evidence based on? CHRISTOPHER PYNE: It's based on the research that's provided by universities and non-university institutes into the patterns of decision-making by students, and that evidence indicates that while students don't like paying fees, they are not deterred from going to university because of fees. TOM TILLEY: Okay, but we haven't seen changes like this in Australia, so what previous events have you based that research on or is that research based on? CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, the Higher Education Contribution Scheme has been in place for probably about 20 years. The number of students studying in Australia has dramatically expanded over that period in spite of HECS debts of on average about sixteen and a half thousand dollars. The Government estimates that HECS debts might rise to about $21,000, so we're not talking about massive debts and there's a lot of misinformation being spread. But let me explain. What the Government's doing is enormously expanding the opportunity for young people to go to uni. We expect there'll be 80,000 more students going to uni because we are expanding the demand-driven system to diplomas and associate degrees and we are also allowing private providers to access the same Commonwealth subsidies that universities do. So there's every reason to believe that there'll be 80,000 more students being given the same opportunities that Gemma(*) has of going to university and they'll mostly be low SES and disadvantaged students because they are typically the ones who do a diploma as an entry pathway into undergraduate degree. TOM TILLEY: Okay. Christopher Pyne, a lot of the concern - even though you say people can borrow the money - is about the potential for fees to go up, and I guess people feel concerned because they have no guarantees. And Bruce Chapman, the architect of the HECS system, has told us that fees could easily triple at top level institutions because that's what we witnessed when the UK institutions - the best ones - deregulated in 2010. Can you guarantee to people that fees won't at least double? CHRISTOPHER PYNE: [Audio breaking up] rather important and complicated area of the policy. I can see that [indistinct]... TOM TILLEY: Oh, sorry, Christopher Pyne. We've got a very bad line there. What I'm going to do is get my producer - or if you could just call back in one more time. I'm just going to talk to Peter in Townsville for a moment and find out his questions and we'll come straight back to you. [Unrelated items - talkback callers] We have Christopher Pyne back on the line, I'd like to just get back to that question that a lot of people want the answer to. Christopher Pyne, how do we know that fees won't double, or triple at universities? CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well we know they won't because the extraordinary competition that will now be in the market will mean that prices will actually be forced down, rather than up. Now, if universities charge exorbitant fees for some of their courses, then they simply won't attract any consumers, because there's so many different options in the market for students. TOM TILLEY: Okay, so fees will go down? CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Some courses, fees will go down. In some courses they might go up. But... TOM TILLEY: On the whole, which way do you think they'll go? CHRISTOPHER PYNE: If universities charge exorbitant fees, they won't attract any students, and that's the way it should be. But universities should also be able to value their courses, and if you want our universities not to keep falling behind their Asian competitors, then we have to give them the opportunity to be the best they can be. And they need the revenue to do that. But there is no more revenue from the Commonwealth taxpayer, in terms of extra money for universities. We'll give them the very support, the strong support we give them now, which is about $15 billion a year, but the taxpayer is stretched, and if you want our universities to be given the great opportunity to shine, then I think students will need to contribute more. TOM TILLEY: It's interesting how you say that fees could go up or down, and it seems that you're very unsure, considering that you're bringing in this policy at the start of 2016. And to talk about that competition being the only safeguard - if you look at the US, they get away with charging huge fees, because it makes their uni - some unis are more prestigious because they can hire the best academics, and you see people paying $100,000 for a degree, based on that competitive system. That worries people. CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well Tom, the facts are that there is no Higher Education Loan program in the United States... TOM TILLEY: Well they do have loans, they're just not as big as our ones. CHRISTOPHER PYNE: They don't have the Higher Education Loan program, nothing even closely resembling it. And you can't really compare the US to Australia in that respect. But let me say that what we are doing too is by allowing the universities to charge fees and also too, we are requiring them to put one in every five dollars into a Commonwealth Scholarships Fund, we are massively expanding the Commonwealth Scholarships that are available to students, which means more low SES students will get to go to university, which means the smartest kids from whatever backgrounds will be able to go to the best universities, and they should be able to do that. So we're expanding opportunity through the demand-driven system, through scholarships, and then of course, for people who don't want to go to university, we're establishing this Trade Support Loan program which is like the Higher Education Loan program, so that apprentices can borrow up to $20,000 for their living expenses, and pay that back to the taxpayer after they earn over $50,000 a year. TOM TILLEY: Okay, now - for the first time ever, you're going to make PHD students pay fees. Are you worried about deterring people from doing PhD and thus reducing the quality of our research, and its international standing? CHRISTOPHER PYNE: No I'm not, because we're only asking PHD students to contribute 10 per cent of the cost of their education. At the moment undergraduate students contribute about 40 per cent. The other 60 per cent is paid for by the Australian taxpayer. And less than 40 per cent of Australians have a university degree, which means more than 60 per cent of Australians are paying for about 60 per cent of the cost to a student's tuition, and they will go on to earn 75 per cent more than that taxpayer. Which is a very generous deal. For PHD students, we're asking them to pay 10 per cent, and they will also go on to obviously earn 75 per cent more on average than people without a university degree. In fact, probably more with a PHD. So these are contributions that I think are fair, and I think for those Australian taxpayers who don't have a university degree, I think a 50-50 split with undergraduate students is a very fair split. TOM TILLEY: Okay. Alright, what about the new interest rates that you're looking at bringing in, they'll have a maximum of six per cent. Have you thought about how they'll impact on female graduates who take time out of the workforce to have children? Their interest payments are going to rise at a higher rate than their male counterparts. CHRISTOPHER PYNE: All we're asking, in terms of the interest rate, is that the student, when they earn over $50,000 a year, start paying their debt back to the taxpayer at the same interest rate that we are charged by the people we borrow the money from to pay for it up front. TOM TILLEY: Okay - specifically for women though, that leave the workplace to have a baby - they're at a disadvantage, aren't they? CHRISTOPHER PYNE: No I don't accept that. At the moment, the government is paying four per cent, or just less than four per cent interest, on the loan that we take out so that those students can go to university. All we're asking is they pay us back at the four per cent rate, the same rate as we're paying, so that the tax payers don't again lose money every year, hand over fist on the help debt. So you also have to remember that people don't start paying this debt back until they earn over $50,000 a year... TOM TILLEY: But isn't different for females, Christopher Pyne, that want to have a baby? Can you address that point of the question? That, compared to their male counterparts, interest will accrue while they're not working, and they'll have higher HECS debts than they would have before because these interest rates are higher? CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Everyone's circumstances are different, Tom, and I am not going to respond to those kinds of hypothetical questions. TOM TILLEY: Well it's definitely going to happen, it's not hypothetical. CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, you're saying it's definitely going to happen.. TOM TILLEY: People are going to have babies, that have graduated. CHRISTOPHER PYNE: And if they don't earn over $50,000 a year, they won't be starting to pay back their help debt. TOM TILLEY: But the interest will be accruing. CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Tom, the truth is, this is a very fair system, that students will be able to continue to go to university, in fact, more students will be get to go to university. And I think that the fairness of this system will become more and more obvious to people. It's particularly fair to the 60 per cent of Australians who don't have a university degree, who are paying for students to go to university. I think that students who are currently at uni, who are also grandfathered from having to pay anything under this new system, they should be particularly grateful that this taxpayer has been so generous to them over such a long period of time, and will continue to be, so they can go on to earn 75 per cent more than those taxpayers who don't have a university degree. TOM TILLEY: Okay, you are listening to Christopher Pyne and we are having a robust interchange about the proposed changes that came in in the Budget last week, and there's been lots of robust discussions on the streets as well. We'll continue to take your calls and questions as we speak to the Minister about all things education. [Unrelated item – Hack intro] You are listening to Hack. I'm Tom Tilley. With me is Christopher Pyne, the Education Minister. And Christopher Pyne, there seems to be a bit of confusion about the timing of the university deregulation changes and the whole suite of changes, actually. Here's the Vice-Chancellor of Sydney Uni, Michael Spence: MICHAEL SPENCE: At the moment, the details of the Government's proposed arrangements are unclear. Confusion about potential future arrangements presents a barrier to people thinking about coming to universities, and that is why we need to sort things out. TOM TILLEY: Vice-Chancellor Michael Spence from Sydney Uni, confused about which students will be affected by the changes. Let's try and find out why he's confused. Here's how Tony Abbott explained the timing of the changes on ABC Radio yesterday: TONY ABBOTT: If you start a course under one system - if you are studying now, your conditions of study won't change. If you start next year, your conditions of study won't change. It's only for those who start when these changes kick in in 2016 that will have the different conditions applying to them. TOM TILLEY: The Prime Minister Tony Abbott there. Now, Christopher Pyne, is Tony Abbott predicting what's in the Budget papers? Because they say that it's only people - the only people exempt from the changes are people that were already enrolled before Budget Day. CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, Tom, the Prime Minister's office has already indicated that statement from him wasn't entirely accurate. TOM TILLEY: Okay. CHRISTOPHER PYNE: …can clear it up for your students - or, for your listeners. Anyone who is enrolled after 1 January, 2016 will have the new arrangements apply to them, and universities don't have to charge fees if they don't want to. But University of Canberra's Stephen Parker has already indicated that they will not. Before that, people who were enrolled before the Budget will have no changes to their arrangements. Anybody enrolled between the Budget and the end of next year will continue under the current arrangements, but from 1 January, the new arrangements will apply to them so that therefore it's grandfathered; so that everyone applies or goes into the university system knowing exactly the arrangements that will apply to them. But if you were there before the Budget, you are unchanged. It's a very generous provision, and I'm very glad about it - I mean, I worked very hard to make sure that would be the case. Because what we're trying to do in the Government, Tom, is expand opportunity for students. There'll be more students going to uni, which flies in the face of the claim that some people are making that this will somehow deter students from going to uni. It will not. TOM TILLEY: Okay. Let's look closely at the timing of those changes. So, given that clarification you've just made does that mean that someone who's considering enrolling now and then starting university next year will see those changes in the second year of their course? CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Oh, well that will be up to the univ… yeah, well, that's right. I mean, if they - from Jan… if you enrol from now, you will have from now until the end of next year under the current arrangements and after 1 January, the new arrangements. But you know that now, when you are enrolling. TOM TILLEY: Okay, yeah. Some people are worried about that and how soon these changes are coming. Because people are going to have to consider them basically straight away. Sandra Harding, the chair of Universities Australia, had this to say: SANDRA HARDING: There are so many moving parts here, and for us to try and give students entering from middle of this year information about what lies ahead for them in 2016, we just can't do that in six weeks. This is a major change to higher education in Australia, and what we need to do is make sure we get the design right. We shouldn't be rushing it. TOM TILLEY: Sandra Harding from Universities Australia. What do you make of that point, Christopher Pyne? Would you consider delaying this? CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, the new arrangements are delayed until 1 January, 2016, and so I would say to Sandra Harding and every other person who is talking about this subject, if universities - there is no requirement for universities to change the current arrangements at all until 1 January, 2016. That gives us 18 months including them [indistinct]… TOM TILLEY: But as we spoke - as we talked about, someone - that will affect people in their second year. People thinking about applying now will have to consider the cost of their degree as they make their applications over the next few months. CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Tom, I thought for a person who organises rave parties as a sideline you'd be more glass half full than glass half empty [indistinct]… TOM TILLEY: Well, my job is a journalist [laughs] Christopher Pyne. CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Sandra Harding and the others have got 18 months. We've all got 18 months to work together to make sure that everything on 1 January, 2016 starts smoothly. There's no necessity for any university to change anything in six weeks at all. The universities can keep things exactly the same as they are now. They don't have to charge any fees to anyone until 1 January, 2016, and even then, they can make their own decision… TOM TILLEY: Okay. CHRISTOPHER PYNE: …about whether they want to charge fees. Sandra Harding represents Universities Australia, which has 39 universities in it. They all have very different interests, and so delaying because Universities Australia says we should delay would only be going to the lowest common denominator position. We've made a decision. We think it's very fair to the taxpayer. We think it spreads opportunities to more students and it will allow our universities to pursue excellence and compete against their Asian competitors, and we certainly are not going to delay that fantastic reform - one that I'm really proud of. TOM TILLEY: Okay. You are listening to Christopher Pyne, the Education Minister, who seems to know a bit about the Sydney rave scene as well. CHRISTOPHER PYNE: [Laughs] If only. TOM TILLEY: Now, Christopher Pyne, there's been a lot of conjecture to your changes to the school chaplaincy program, and we've got Hannah on the line, she's a student welfare worker at two schools, she's been there for a total of two years. Hannah, you've got a question for Christopher Pyne? CALLER HANNAH: I have, yes. Yes unfortunately I'm one of those workers that possibly could lose my role to a chaplain. So my question is: if questions don't push their religious beliefs in this role onto the students and families, what can a chaplain offer to a school, students, and their families, that a secular welfare worker can't? TOM TILLEY: Christopher Pyne? CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well the chaplaincy program was established under the Howard Government as a chaplaincy program, and Julia Gillard changed it to chaplaincy and social workers, or school counsellors. Our view is that school counsellors or social workers should be provided by state and territory governments, should they choose to do so, but we want to return the chaplaincy program to its original intention, which is one that involves a religious element. TOM TILLEY: But why is that? Is it just about returning to what John Howard implemented, or is there a problem with the current system? CHRISTOPHER PYNE: We think that school counsellors and social workers are properly the responsibility of state governments, and our chaplaincy program should be exactly what it was supposed to be, which is a chaplaincy program. TOM TILLEY: Okay. What do you make of that answer Hannah? CALLER HANNAH: Well firstly they're asked not to take their religious views into the school, so that's one. Secondly, not all student welfare workers are counsellors. Some are purely there for student support, exactly the same as a chaplain, but without the religious side. So they really do, if you speak to any chaplain and a student welfare worker, you will find they provide exactly the same service to students and families. TOM TILLEY: Yeah, Christopher Pyne, if they're not meant to bring their religious views into the schoolyard, what difference does it make? Why are you changing this? CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well the Labor Party left us a funding cliff, Tom, on school chaplaincy. They didn't fund it beyond the end of this year, and therefore the Government had to decide to recommit to the program or not. Given the very tight financial circumstances that we are in, we have reduced the scope of the program slightly, and in doing so, because we can't afford to do it all, I've decided that the area that the states and territories could do is the counsellors area, and we will do the chaplaincy area. But I'm very happy if Adrian in particular here in NSW, or whomever minister in each state wants to re-fund that program as a school counsellors program. But we can't afford to keep spending taxpayers money on things that aren't our area of responsibility, given the debt and deficit disaster that we inherited from Labor. CALLER HANNAH: But Chris, I refer people to counsellors, I refer families onto services, you know? We link these students and families into those services. CHRISTOPHER PYNE: I'm not suggesting for a moment, Hannah, that you don't do a very good job. I'm just saying that the state government or territory government should fund that position, not the Commonwealth. TOM TILLEY: Okay. Hannah, we've had a good chance to try and get through to some of those question, I'm sure it doesn't make you feel any better about potentially losing your job but we're going to have to move on. Thanks for the call. TOM TILLEY: Dot's called in from Canberra. Dot, you're a primary school teacher. What would you like to ask the Minister? CALLER DOT: I am. Happy Public Education Day. TOM TILLEY: Thank you. CALLER DOT: Christopher, I'm wondering as a public education teacher how you can justify not going through with the Gonski reforms for the full four years that you had promised prior to the election and not for the whole six years that were taken to the election by the Labor Party? CHRISTOPHER PYNE: We are funding the next four years of the school funding agreement. In fact, we've put $1.2 billion more in that Labor took out. I brought Western Australia, the Northern Territory, and Queensland into the national school funding agreement and over the next four years, which is the usual period of the school funding agreement and, of course, the forward estimates, spending on schools will increase by 3.1 per cent in real terms. We're spending $18.1 billion in 2017 when Labor would have spent $18 billion in 2017. So, we're actually spending more money than Labor would have. And then beyond that, we're saying that the funding will increase with CPI and enrolment. So, we're putting more money into school education every year from now on. But Labor never put the funding in the Budget for the blue sky promises that they made around the so-called Gonski funding model, which never actually existed, because that called for $114 billion of new spending. But we are keeping the needs-based funding model, which is the new school funding model, and I am funding it exactly as I promised before the election. TOM TILLEY: Okay. So, you're funding it for the four years. But what about after that? Why are you switching to a CPI model there and not sticking with the Gonski model? CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, there was no such thing as the Gonski model but it seems hard to explain that to people. But there is no year five and six in the forward estimate. There's four year funding agreement; there's a four year forward estimate. What happens in 2018, 2019, and beyond will be subject to negotiations that we conduct with the states in 2017. But we know that it'll be increasing spending all the time. But Labor's not even committed to putting that money in because they know that the Australian taxpayer doesn't have it, and we can't just keep borrowing money from overseas and paying back a billion dollars in interest every month, which is like putting the interest on the credit card on your mortgage. We can't keep doing that in perpetuity; it's not possible in our functioning democracy. TOM TILLEY: Alright. CALLER DOT: That's a really fair point. But why are we continuing as taxpayers to fund for someone to send their child to a private school and we're supporting them to the same level of as these low socio-economic people that you insist will get into university… TOM TILLEY: Okay. CALLER DOT: …if we're not funding those [indistinct]…? TOM TILLEY: Alright, Dot, we're just about out of time. CALLER DOT: Thanks, Tom. TOM TILLEY: I'll give Christopher Pyne a very quick opportunity to respond to that question. CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, thank you, Tom. And, of course, we have since 1963 the Commonwealth has funded non-government schools, but it's still needs-based. So kids at Kincoppal don't get funded to the same extent as children at Marrickville or in the western suburbs of Sydney, and they get more money where the need is. The Coalition is as committed to that as the Labor Party. TOM TILLEY: Alright, Christopher Pyne. We're out of time; we thank you so much for making time to speak to us and all of our listeners on JJJ's Hack program today. I'm sure there'll be lots more questions arising as people move through these proposed changes and very interesting, also, to see how they'll progress through the Senate. Thank you so much for joining us. CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Any time. [ends]