Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

What a week it has been. This is the opening week of the parliamentary year, and what do we have? It is declared that this week is the 'start of good government'. I know how the whips have been getting people out there: 'You must get out there and talk on higher education because we need to bolster that up. Talk about the universities; they want the money.' I understand all that. But as you guys sitting on the backbench over there know, some of those 39 who did not vote for Tony Abbott—particularly those who are sitting on a margin of five per cent or less—know that in their electorates the idea of deregulating universities certainly has not gone down too well. It is up there with the GP tax, it is up there with cuts to pensions. As a matter of fact, this is one of those things that for the Liberal Party to come out and talk about deregulation is ingrained in their DNA. But this is something that you guys cannot sell to your constituents. And do you know why? Because it is a dog of a policy. It is as simple as that.

Deregulation: just think about what this means. 'We are going to say to all those institutions out there, "You can charge what you like as long as the market can bear it. As long as a student can cough up the money to do the course, you can charge whatever you like".' Market forces for higher education: that is real smart politics, isn't it? Particularly if you believe that education, and higher education in particular, has something to do with the future prosperity of our country.

We believe that higher education and people getting a degree—it is not just that they can earn more money in due course and pay more taxes in due course, it is what they deliver for the future of this country that matters. Guys, take your eyes off that at your own peril because, as I said, your constituents understand this. Either you are impervious to what is occurring in your electorates, or you are choosing to ignore it to support your leader. You know that is true.

You know deregulation comes hand-in-hand with the cost of 20 per cent, on average, to fund higher education. In other words, you are saying you can charge what you like, but we are going to take this money, we are going to do a grab for cash, out of higher education. You are going to put the costs for education on to students. So if universities are going to charge what they like, then students have to pay it. You guys think you can put your hands in your pockets and not contribute to higher education. This is where the mentality of this policy is.

And when it comes to scholarships—I know my old university got out there and Sydney decided to say how many scholarships they wanted to offer. But what they did not go on to say is who is going to fund those scholarships. The other full-paying students will fund those scholarships. Those of you who represent electorates, or purport to represent electorates, must start understanding: it is not just policy that counts; it is necessary to give people a future. If you attack higher education, you are attacking the future of your constituents. (Time expired)

See this speech in context