Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I subscribe to Thomas Jefferson's dictum that education is the first defence of the nation. It does not matter whether it is early learning, schools, vocational training or tertiary education; they are all equally important. The education cycle is virtuous and lifelong.

Indeed, in my maiden speech to this parliament I talked about the need for a greater focus on the pursuit of excellence in Australian education. That is why I cannot for the life of me understand why the Gillard Labor government has cut more than $2.3 billion in funding to universities at a time when our universities have never been more important. These funding cuts have hit right across the board. Research, teaching and student support are all affected.

Moreover, to do so on the basis of the Gonski school funding program is even more unconscionable, given that education at school and university are inextricably linked. To cut one will inevitably diminish the benefit of the other. The government will piously claim that they have increased university funding, but this is simply false.

In the words of Fred Hilmer, Vice-Chancellor of the University of New South Wales and a non-partisan figure:

The government's claim that it has hugely increased funding to universities, and that despite these cuts growth will continue only at a slower rate, is smoke and mirrors.

As Hilmer points out, the creation of a demand-led system has led to more student places so that the level of real funding per student is, at best, flat.

It is just not good enough that Australia ranks 25th out of 29 leading economies when measured in terms of public investment in the tertiary system. It will be our universities that turn out the graduates who will help ensure Australia remains competitive in the Asian century.

I ask the government: what is the point of having an Asian century white paper, which makes uncosted and unfunded promises to turn Australia into the innovative capital of the region and, at the same time, cuts funding to the very sector which can spearhead that objective?

There are over 1.2 million university students in Australia. Seventy per cent are domestic and 30 per cent are international. The income earned for Australia from international students alone is over $10 billion annually. These students come here from the region because they expect a good education. If we keep stripping money out of the university sector, they will know that we cannot provide that.

I have Swinburne University in my electorate of Kooyong, with its more than 30,000 students and a University of Melbourne campus as well. These are great institutions and I want them to not just survive but prosper. But we can only do that if we improve their funding streams, not cut them; if we reduce the red-tape burden, not increase it; and if we consult with the sector in a mature and fair manner, seeking their input into government policy decision making. In fact, Fred Hilmer said:

Universities were blind-sided with this recent announcement. There was no consultation, to my knowledge, other than a few hours' notice before the first media releases landed.

This is not good enough—and that statement comes from the vice-chancellor of a group of eight universities and, in fact, the chairman of the Group of Eight. If we get the opportunity on 14 September we will do a better job with our universities. (Time expired)

See this speech in context