Matt Williams (Hindmarsh, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

What we have not heard in this discussion this afternoon is what is best for the university sector, what is best for the students of our country and what is best for the future of Australia. The opposition has conveniently neglected to address these issues. In reflecting on some of the things that universities have said about changes they would like to see in the way they operate, I will quote a few of their leaders. The peak body representing Australia's universities says that the reforms are a 'once in a generation opportunity' to shape a higher education system that is 'sustainable, affordable and equitable' for students of the nation. Universities Australia Chief Executive Belinda Robinson said failure of the package will condemn the university system to 'inevitable decline'. The Vice-Chancellor of the ANU said it would be 'a great tragedy for our nation, for our universities, for our future generations' if this opportunity were passed up. Over the last year we have heard former Labor members like Gareth Evans, John Dawkins and Maxine McKew, and the list goes on, endorsing a change.

We know that universities in Australia are facing great challenges. They are facing competition from the ever-powerful universities around the world, particularly in Asia, including China. They know that the system needs to change to give them a better chance to succeed, a better chance to operate their universities the way they want to and a better chance to determine their own future. We know the government is not increasing fees. We know that, through competition, universities will be forced to set reasonable fees. We have heard a lot about $100,000 degrees. My good colleagues, whether the member for Dawson or the member for Pearce, have clearly articulated that there is no evidence for that. As the member for Pearce said, it is like the sighting of Elvis—all myth and no evidence, no reality.

The member for Kingston raised the issue of STEM—science, technology, engineering and mathematics. She failed to acknowledge that the federal government has been investing considerably in STEM in recent years. There is an extra $12 million to restore focus and increase students' uptake of science, technology, engineering and mathematics subjects in primary and secondary schooling across the country. This builds on another $5 million program. So we are committed to STEM—always have been, always will be. If you commit to something, it is important that you get the costings right. We have heard about Labor's costings for surpluses. Just recently the member for Dawson raised their costings for their HECS subsidisation. We know their costings bounced around numerous figures, whether $350 million or $42 million, and the media just tore this part. There is a lack of credibility to their costings. They were done on the run, with very little thought.

Labor are running a scare campaign on this issue.

I go back to what has been said by universities themselves. The Queensland University of Technology have released the modest fee increases that there would be under a deregulated system, with degrees in science and nursing costing just under $30,000, and their business-law double degree, 'one of the best in the country', would be $14,272 a year for 5½ years. That is evidence that there is no credibility to these claims of $100,000 degrees. That is Labor, again: scare campaigns, falsehoods, lack of credibility on costings and on policy. They have talked about policy a lot, but all we have is their wish list for subsidisation of degrees in which they could not even get the costings right, whereas we have moved on to what is really needed for our nation in terms of the reforms that are required to drive the university sector forward.

It is not just universities that are backing this; it is our industries and the key leaders of our business councils, such as the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. They have all submitted their recommendations on the need to change our higher education system for the future of our country because we need to compete in a new world, in a new space, with a knowledge based economy. The skills of our future generations need a change in structure and support, and that is what these reforms would offer if they are allowed to proceed. I thank the House.

See this speech in context