Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Nobel prize winner, Professor Brian Schmidt, said about the government's shameful attempt to hold 1,700 scientists and their work hostage for its own political purposes: 'This is not the way a grown-up country behaves. It is very childish.' Why did it take the government so long to back down on this childish plan?

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Prime Minister for the opportunity to answer this question. I think the Labor Party must have left the wrong questions pack in their offices, because they have obviously come in with a set piece question time strategy which has been utterly obliterated by the decisions that the government announced earlier today to re-fund the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Bendigo has asked her question. We will have silence so that the minister can answer it. That includes all in what I might term this afternoon 'the naughty corner'.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The thing about opposition, Madam Speaker, as you would well remember, is that you have to be nimble. You have to be capable of changing your tactics when circumstances change. The problem with the Labor Party is that they are still running the same tactic they were planning at this morning's 10 am questions meeting. The Manager of Opposition Business needs to understand that, when the circumstances change, a good general changes their tactics, as Ataturk once famously said.

Before question time the government made two important announcements. We removed from the higher education amendment bill the Commonwealth Grant Scheme reduction by 20 per cent. We have decided to put that in a different bill so that the government's vital deregulation agenda can stand on its own merits and be dealt with by the crossbench on its own merits this week.

Opposition members interjecting—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The naughty corner will be quiet.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We also found the money to re-fund the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy that Labor cut. Labor not only cut $6.6 billion from higher education over three years; they also did not fund the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy. Due to the generosity of this Prime Minister and this Treasurer—

Ms Butler interjecting—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Griffith is warned!

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

we have found the money to ensure that that vital scheme keeps going. We are already spending $9 billion a year on research across government—and I thank the Treasurer for his generosity—and we will continue to fund the NCRIS.

Do not take my word for it about why this reform is so vitally important. This is what Peter Beattie said about this vital deregulation reform:

Make no mistake, without funding reform, Australia's universities will inevitably slip towards mediocrity and the quality of Australian graduates will decline in relation to our international competitors, both in business and education. This means Australia will be greatly disadvantaged as graduates of other countries become better prepared for the knowledge-based jobs of the 21st century. In blunt reality, we will no longer be competitive.

On this side of the House, we will free universities to be competitive. On that side of the House, they will slam the door in the face of low-SES students.