Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Kingston proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Government's plan for $100,000 university degrees.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is an incredibly important matter for the House to deal with, because the government's plan for $100,000 degrees is still on the table. No amount of sweet talking by the government or the Prime Minister and no amount of reassuring coos by the new Minister for Education and Training can change the fact that this government's disastrous $100,000 degree plan is still on the table. What we have from this minister—instead of a radical change in policy direction—is merely a one-year delay in bringing on those opposite's disastrous policy, which would cut funding to universities and foist $100,000 degrees onto university students. Of course, the question is: why is there a year's delay? Is it because the minister decided that he needed to go back and think about this? No, it is not. The reason the minister had to delay it for one year is that he could not get it through the Senate. The previous minister and this minister both knew that the numbers were against them.

I do hope that the current minister has taken advice from the former minister—that is, do not demon dial the crossbench, do not pay consultants $150,000 to try to get through the door, and do not spend $15 million on an advertising campaign to try and convince the Australian people and the crossbench that they do not have a dud deal in front of them. On our side of parliament, we know that this is a dud deal. The Australian people know that it is a dud deal. Despite the fact that everyone in Australia—apart from the government—knows that this is a dud deal, unfortunately, the government still will not abandon these plans. That is advice that the new minister should take. The new minister should take advice from the Australian people and abandon these plans, but, as of yesterday, he is still backing the plans. Yesterday, Minister Birmingham said on AM Agenda:

So what I've said to date is that we will defer the start date on the currently proposed reforms till 2017 …

That does not sound like a revolutionary change; that sounds like a mere delay. When asked by Kieran Gilbert whether deregulation could possibly make a comeback, the minister gleefully responded:

… that is absolutely what I would hope to do and that is indeed the government's intention …

Despite trying to convince the Australian people otherwise, with a bit of sweet talking and some reassuring comments, the plan for 100,000 degrees is still squarely on the table.

We do know that they have tried to change the salespeople. In the Education and Training portfolio, we have a new, more cuddly minister than the member for Sturt. One would assume that they did not want to change too much, but we do not have the member for Sturt in the House representing the new Minister for Education and Training; we have the member for Cowper. He has made a sterling contribution on the deregulation debate. In fact, he has not actually mentioned higher education in the higher education debate in this House—not once. We searched, and we searched and we searched, and we could not find. I can see why the government are very desperate to change the salesperson. The member the Sturt regularly got up here and professed the importance of these changes, so I know that the government are desperately trying to change the salesperson, but perhaps they might have appointed someone who is actually interested in higher education and has actually mentioned it in the House. Many among those opposite have indeed mentioned it, but they are trying to keep quiet the fact that they have a plan to bring back $100,000 degrees. Even though they are changing the salespeople, they cannot change the product.

In the interim, Labor have announced our plan for higher education. Our plan for higher education is a very important one. It provides a student guarantee for universities so that they have sustainable funding into the future. It boosts quality, investing $31 million for quality teaching and resources, through TEQSA. This is a really important part of ensuring that there is quality in our universities. In addition, we have set an ambitious goal of 20,000 completions by 2020. We have committed to extra completions because it is not good enough just to enrol students into higher education; universities must support them to complete their studies and to get jobs when they graduate. So this has been a very important announcement and piece of work. I must commend the minister for higher education, Senator Kim Carr, for the work that he has done in this area—the shadow minister, sorry. I would like much better for him to be minister than the ministers on the other side.

We have not stopped there. A lot of work has been done by the members for Chifley and Blaxland—indeed, by the whole team behind me—on the policy for start-up years at universities, which will ensure that students can develop their idea, get business know-how and support, and study an extra year at university with that support to innovate and take their start-up ideas to market. These are concrete real ideas. These are concrete policies. These are not just a delay of an unfair and unpopular policy that no-one supported. The minister for Sturt—sorry, the member for Sturt—

Government Member:

A government member interjecting—

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is hard to know what his new title is, because he has been moved sideways.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are in opposition; we are in government.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can only hope that we are in government soon—before you can get your disastrous policy through—because, if you continue to pursue this unfair policy, then in Australia we will see many students worse off and many students not pursuing higher education.

The member for Sturt and, indeed, the new minister, continue to profess that they have the support of the universities. The universities do not support their unfair plan. Indeed, Universities Australia have said that it is time to go back to the drawing board to look for a sustainable funding model—and that is exactly what Labor has put up. So I am pleased that the member for Cowper is going to make a contribution, his first contribution, on higher education. I absolutely look forward to that. I hope he will say, 'I have learnt the lessons of the previous minister, the member for Sturt. Me and my minister in the other place will not demon dial crossbench senators and continue to pursue them, and pursue them ruthlessly, to support our unfair policy. I will not spend $15 million—

Mr Hartsuyker interjecting—

You might think it is funny to spend $15 million of taxpayers' money on a piece of legislation that has not passed the House. We on this side of the House do not think it is funny. We do not think it is funny that you waste taxpayers' money on a dud piece of legislation—legislation that was never promised before the last election and that was foisted onto the Australian people. No, we do not support that—and we will talk about it. We have a positive plan.

I am very pleased that this next election will be a clear choice between the Labor Party—the party that stands for higher education; the party that stands for accessible higher education and quality higher education that will lead to a job at the end of it—and the other side of the House that does not stand for accessible education, that wants to foist $100,000 degrees on students, that wants to make a 20 per cent cut to university funding to ensure that universities have no choice but to increase their fees and that does not believe that access and equity should be a core part of their higher education policy. Unfortunately, those on the other side will not heed the concerns of the Australian people; they will not listen to the concerns of the Australian people. Well, it is time they started.

I offer a hand of friendship to the new minister and to the member for Cowper. They may be struggling for a policy, because what they have announced is a delay to their unfair dud of a policy. Perhaps if they are looking for a policy then, as we have a comprehensive policy—one that has been costed, one that delivers quality, accessibility and that supports student completion—I do not mind if they want to take that policy. I am happy for them to take that policy and ditch their old one. We will welcome that.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter of public importance. I found it quite surprising that the member for Kingston would try to lecture us on waste when the Labor Party were delivering us overpriced school halls. That was their contribution to the education system in this country. I must say that when it comes to higher education Labor's legacy is $6½ billion in cuts. They try and claim the high ground on higher education, but in fact their legacy is a legacy of $6½ billion in cuts. From the 2011-12 budget to the 2013-14 budget, Labor hacked $6½ billion from higher education. They made cuts to grants. They increased fees. They cut discounts for paying your HECS debt up-front. Labor cut the Sustainable Research Excellence scheme by some $498 million in the 2012 MYEFO. Labor made no provision for the Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy and the Future Fellowships program for research beyond 2015. Labor were happy to let our research efforts fall off a funding cliff.

Under Labor, international education went backwards. Export income fell by billions of dollars from its 2009-10 peak, because of Labor's neglect, Labor's policy weakness and Labor's bungled handling of what is one of Australia's largest exports and our No. 1 knowledge export. The number of international student enrolments fell by 130,000 between 2009 and 2012. This represents a decline in enrolments of 16 per cent over the 2009-2013 period. It is bad for our economy, it is bad for our education system and it is bad for the industries that depend on the income that education revenue produces.

Who could forget Labor's shameful treatment of country kids when it came to their access to higher education. Who could forget Labor's shame? Labor locked thousands of regional students out of higher education through their shambolic changes to Youth Allowance. This saw some kids miss out on going to university simply because they lived on the wrong side of a line on a map. Labor have no credibility in higher education, and Labor have no credible plan for the future of Australia's higher education system.

Let's get some facts straight. There is no support for Labor's scare campaign. We have weeks and weeks of scare campaign when it comes to the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. We have months and months of Labor's scare campaign when it comes to their false claim of $100,000 university degrees. Let's look at some of the comments out there. The fees announced by the University of Western Australia and the Queensland University of Technology debunked this scare campaign: it was simply dishonest. I quote the member for Fraser. He is one of the more knowledgeable members of the frontbench—a far cry from the member for Kingston. He said:

There is no reason to think that it—

deregulation—

will adversely affect poorer students.

In a Senate submission, the University of Sydney said:

In our view there has been widely exaggerated claims—

member for Kingston—

by the opponents of deregulation about degrees costing more than $100,000.

…   …   …   

In our view the market will not sustain such exaggerated degree prices … it is vital that we keep tuition rates down …

That was the University of Sydney. But Open Universities went further. They said:

… we are confident that for numerous courses, deregulation of fees will also lead to a significant decrease in the cost of tuition.

I will repeat that for the benefit of the House. Open Universities said:

… deregulation of fees will also lead to a significant decrease—

not an increase but a decrease—

in the cost of tuition.

We had Labor in government cutting $6½ billion out of higher education, and then persisting, when in opposition, with an endless scare campaign on this issue of the cost of degrees, going forward. I note that my colleague Senator Birmingham announced on 1 October that university funding arrangements for 2016 will be the same as for 2015—indexed, of course—while he consults on a sustainable funding basis for a world-class higher education system for students. When it comes to their own policies, Labor cannot even get their costings right. In relation to the alleged cancellation, or proposed cancellation, of HECS debts for maths and science students, Labor had three different costings over a period of 24 hours, and all of them were wrong. For all of the three versions of the policy that they created, probably on the back of an envelope, the costings were all wrong.

Having a world-class higher education system is vitally important. We on this side of the House know that if we are going to grow our living standards into the future, if we are going to be a knowledge economy of the future, a high-class, world-class higher education system is a vital part of that. Our universities are the key to developing a smarter, more agile economy. Our higher education sector generates, as I said, substantial export income. And the international education sector is a major employer. Our higher education sector and the international sector support some 130,000 Australian jobs.

The reality is that universities are entering an increasingly competitive global environment where they will be competing not just with Australian universities but with the very best universities around the world. So it is vital that our higher education system will have the resources that it needs and be sufficiently flexible to meet the world competition that it faces now and will face increasingly into the future. We need a funding model that supports a high-class, world-class higher education system.

All the credible experts on higher education agree that reform is needed. We are consulting widely about exactly what the best way is to reform the system. But there seems to be one organisation in this country that denies the need for reform and that wants to be stuck in the past and, in fact, wants to go backwards, and that is the Australian Labor Party. We had Senator Carr—good old 'Comrade' Carr—suggesting that he may go back to the future and reintroduce caps on university places. That would lock thousands of students out of university. It is quite surprising that Labor cannot even get the costings right on its own policies.

We on this side of the House understand the importance of higher education. We on this side of the House understand the importance of all facets of education, be it school education, education through the VET system or higher education. We on this side of the House understand the importance of having a high-quality VET sector as well as a high-quality higher education sector. We understand the ability of education to lift the wellbeing of all Australians, to transform the lives of disengaged kids, to allow people to strive to be the best that they can be. We on this side of the House are committed to a quality higher education system into the future that will be world class, that will compete on the world stage and that will generate export dollars for this country in increasing amounts each and every year. We are about supporting higher education. The members opposite are merely stuck in the past.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can understand why the member for Cowper has previously never spoken on higher education—because he has absolutely no understanding of it. He actually did not talk about higher education once in that speech over the last 10 minutes. He did not mention a university; he did not mention a program; nor did he outline what the government's policy currently is. All we know is that it has been delayed. He has not told us anything except that it is important. We all agree it is important, but what are you actually going to do about it? On the record at the moment, you have a disastrous policy—a policy that is terrifying people, a policy that is seeing students who are about to go into their VCE exams at this moment determining that they will not apply for university because they do not know if they will be able to afford it into the future. So frightened are students from all backgrounds that they are saying, 'Well, there's no hope.' There is no hope of their going to university and actually being able to pay their fees.

It is not just because of any old campaign that you may accuse Labor of. The students look at the UK and the US and see the debt that those students are burdened with for the rest of their lives. The greatest debt carried by people in the US is not a Visa card debt, credit debt or mortgage debt; it is university debt, which they live with for the rest of their lives. That is what you want to impose here in Australia—a country in which we need to diversify and find other job opportunities because this government has crucified the manufacturing industry. We now need to look at other sectors, and all of those sectors will need a university degree. It is predicted that, in the future, two out of every three jobs in Australia will require a degree. How are those kids going to get a job if they cannot afford to get a degree?

We used to be the country of equity. This policy that the government has is not a policy of equity and opportunity. It is a policy of the past, where getting to university depends on your parents' salary and your postcode. People like me would never have got there. My parents certainly never got to university. But they sent five of their children to university because of their ability to pay. I am so old that I got my first degree free. My younger brother and sister had to pay HECS, but it was a system that was manageable.

This system that this government wants to introduce will not be manageable and it will be disastrous for my electorate, which is home to two of the largest universities in the country, Monash University and the city campus of Deakin—which the majority of Deakin students attend. There are over 100,000 students who reside in my electorate, and a massive proportion of them are overseas students. They are already paying a huge price for their degrees. We understand how important the higher education sector is to our export market and to the working of our economy.

I have seen in the last 12 months the highest increase in unemployment in my electorate in the 17 years I have been in this parliament. Why? Because of actual job losses in the higher education sector—mainly in TAFE at this point in time. The member for Cowper wants to cry about TAFE, but you have denuded TAFE—$200 million has been taken out of that sector. You have not cared for that sector; it is dying. It is as important in the higher education space as university is. Do not be fooled by this new Prime Minister. Everybody is excited: 'We have a change; it's not Tony Abbott.' Well, so what? It is sound and fury signifying nothing, because the policy has not changed. The policy has not changed; it is just fury. Deregulation and $100,000 degrees will return under Malcolm Turnbull and his new Minister for Education. Do not be fooled. Extreme ideologies are there, and those degrees at $100,000 come from NATSEM modelling. It is a reality that will be forced onto the community. Malcolm Turnbull is on the record as wholeheartedly supporting the changes. He said:

I support unreservedly and wholeheartedly every element in the budget. Every single one. … I support the reforms to higher education.

That was Malcolm Turnbull on 2GB, June 2014. He has not changed; he is only delaying.

Why is he delaying? In the last budget there was still a 20 per cent cut to higher education that has been put on hold. There is still mass uncertainty out there. The Liberal Party still has a plan for deregulation. There is a mess out there created by the former minister, the member for Sturt, and it will burden Australians for their lifetime—(Time expired)

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Labor Party are experts at peddling misinformation about coalition policies. We know that they say that we cut things, when we have actually increased the funding. We have heard them peddle misinformation about our industrial relations policies today; we have heard them peddle misinformation about the China Free Trade Agreement in a somewhat disgraceful and I would say almost racist manner; but perhaps the greatest peddling of misinformation that has been going on for 18 months is this scare campaign, which we are hearing again today, that the coalition wants to introduce $100,000 degrees. It is absolute misinformation that they are peddling. Worse than peddling a lie, they are spreading false hope to so many people. They are telling young people that they may no longer be able to afford a higher education degree because of the policies that will be introduced into Australia—that they will have to pay $100,000 up front to get a degree—when we know that is wrong.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The members for Lalor and Charlton are out of their seats.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me make this very clear to the Labor Party: the first point is that next year the policy which governs the fees that are set by the university will be exactly the same as they are this year. We have made that clear, but, even if full deregulation went ahead next year according to the previous plan that we had on the table, we still would not have $100,000 degrees. How do I know this? Why am I so certain about this fact? The reason I know this is that the universities themselves have said what their fees would be in a deregulated environment. In a deregulated environment, they would set the fees and they have told us what the fees would be. For example, you can ask Vicki Thomson, who is the head of the Australian Technology Network which represents five universities. She said, in this article, 'Don't be fooled by $100,000 degrees':

Let me repeat what has been said a million times: the university sector is not looking to introduce standard $100,000 degrees and deregulation won't deliver them.

Those who have brainwashed some journalists and independent senators

and the Labor Party—

to accept that we plan to do just that deserve to be shot down.

It is not only wrong, it is shameful for the fear such myths are creating in the community.

That is what Vicki Thomson, the head of the Australian Technology Network, representing five universities, has said.

If you do not listen to her, then perhaps you could listen to what the Group of Eight universities have said. If any university were going to put up their fees by the most, it would be the Group of Eight that would do it. They are sometimes called 'the sandstone universities'—universities like Melbourne, Monash, ANU or Sydney. They put out a statement about fees in a deregulated fee environment. For the benefit of the member for Kingston, who is really not paying attention—and I do not know why, because this is key information for her—the Group of Eight universities in their tabled statement said that their indicative annual fee for a three year undergraduate degree would range from $9993 per annum up to a maximum of $19,849 per annum. At the very most—and this is for a commerce degree—you would pay $59,548 for that. That would be a degree from one of the Group of Eight universities.

Given what the universities themselves have said would be the fees in a deregulated environment, why do the Labor Party spread such malicious fear throughout the community? Is it because they are a bit slow in listening? Is that what it is? Is it for any other reason? Are they suggesting that universities themselves are lying? No. I think this is deliberate, brazen politics and it is because of the politics of fear that they are doing it. They should be condemned for spreading fear amongst the community and convincing young people that they cannot afford to go to university.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is astonishing to sit here, on this side of the House, and listen to members opposite—some of whom, like the member for Cowper, represent regional communities like my own, and I see that the member for Braddon in Tasmania is about to jump up—try to defend their track record in higher education: 'Here we are, the masters of announcing same-same-but-different policy in this area.' It is like: 'Well, we've got this dirty little policy that we just want to keep secret for another 12 months now, so let's just let slip it down in the bottom drawer and pretend that we've got nothing to see here. Labor—you guys—are all out there on a scare campaign.' It is just like when you accused us of scaring people on a GP tax that was never going to happen—remember?—but we had to defeat you four times on that one until you learnt your lesson. It is going to be the same again now; Labor will have to stand up here and defend higher education again and again until you guys opposite learn the lesson that you cannot out-price education in Australia.

It is a line in the sand, not only for Labor but also for the Australian people. They understand the need to ensure that our universities are places where people go who have a capacity to learn that is not based in any way, shape or form on their capacity to earn, or that of their parents.

Australians take little comfort from the recent announcement that the Liberals have decided to hit the pause button on their unfair plan for $100,000 university degrees. We did not get to hear the new ministers talking about how the previous minister—ironically named 'the fixer'—could never actually quite get it past anybody in the Senate. He could not actually fix anything up there—he could not even get his foot through the front door. So, now, far from being 'the fixer', he leaves the mess behind for the new minister to clean up. The new minister jumps up and says, 'Oops, we are just going to hit the pause button; this is all a little bit too hot to handle,' rather than fess up to the Australian people: 'You know what? We got it wrong. We got this really, really wrong.'

We know that deregulation is going to hit universities, like mine at Newcastle. I know there are members of the Liberal Party who have got campuses in their seats on the Central Coast and members of the National Party who have got Newcastle campuses sitting in their seats. It is going to absolutely decimate regional universities, like Newcastle, that offer quality education—both quality and excellence—without prejudice. More than one-third of the students in intakes at the University of Newcastle come from low socioeconomic backgrounds. They are the students coming out of the National Party seats—like the students from the member for Cowper's seat who come down to the University of Newcastle to study. I met them there at O-week, Member. They are there because that is the university that has always reached out. Never once has it compromised on quality and excellence, but its door is open to students who should be there, who have a capacity to learn. It is the university with the largest number of Indigenous students enrolled in this country: there are 1,000 Aboriginal students at the University of Newcastle. What a tremendous track record. It has also graduated more than 33,000 students through alternative pathways to education. These are kids—and, frequently, mature age students—who were unable to come up to university through the ordinary channels, through going through high school.

The women, in particular, that I met that are coming through those open foundation courses now, wanting to take up a university course—and I have been on at least three visits to the university this year to discuss this issue—have said to me, 'Sharon, I don't know that I can enrol in university next year. I've already got a mortgage on my house. I cannot take it on, whether it is $30,000, $50,000 or $100,000; I cannot afford that debt.' Labor wants students to graduate with a quality higher education degree, not a lifelong sentence to debt. That is what our policies are focused on, and members opposite could do well to come on board and adopt Labor's policies. (Time expired)

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not surprised to see the member for Kingston run this scare campaign, because she has form. She was flown into Launceston last year to debate me at Launceston College. They bypassed every Labor senator and every Labor member in Tasmania and brought in the higher education spokesperson to debate me. So she had exactly the same bag of scary spiders and bag of skeletons to scare the people in my home state. She failed miserably, because my interest then and my interest now is in actually making higher education something that more young Tasmanians desire—and we have to do that, because in my home state, I regret to say, less than seven per cent of young people attend university, compared to a mainland average of about 40 per cent.

So my interest is to have a lot more young Tasmanians in the future coming to university—choosing that tertiary pathway—because, even though we need strong vocational pathways, higher education reform is vital. As we look at the engine room of global prosperity shifting to the Asia-Pacific region, we need to make sure that we have that engine room of innovation and research in all of our universities, including in the University of Tasmania.

That is why I am disappointed to say that the long-term future of Tasmanians is being white-anted by this sort of myopic politicking, and Labor does it in far too many policy areas: trade, higher education and others. The inevitable offspring of success in both of these policy areas will be jobs and a more resilient economy, so I know how disappointed people in my state will be with this sort of scare campaign. What those opposite ignore is the necessity to fix the government-supported pathways and diploma courses which promise to make higher education available to thousands more young Tasmanians. Without that higher education reform, there is little scope to change the way that things are now.

Labor achieves nothing with these scare campaign apart from attracting comparisons with the Greens. I heard the member for Chisholm talk about the affordability of higher education. As we know, the truth of it is that higher education is accessible by people in Australia. There is a thing called HECS, whereby no Australian student has to pay a dollar up-front to attend university. They can borrow the full cost through a taxpayer funded scheme and do not need to repay anything until they earn in excess of $53,345 a year and then at only two per cent of their income in the initial stages. The member for Chisholm talked about cuts. Let me state for the record: that is not true either. I refer her to page 6-19 of Budget Paper No. 1, which confirms that funding for higher education grows every year across the forward estimates, from $8.97 billion to $9.47 billion in 2017-18.

If there is any remorse to be had about higher education, then it is clearly linked to the inaction that we saw under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments from 2008 to 2013, with billions of dollars cut from higher education. In fact, $6.6 billion was cut from the higher education sector. Even the often-quoted David Gonski has publicly criticised those Labor cuts. Labor continues to fail in this vital policy area through the sorts of false claims it makes about degree costs. In fact, the education minister announced on 1 October that university funding arrangements for 2016 would be the same as for 2015 while he consults on a sustainable funding basis for universities. Even when we were looking at trying to implement the higher education reforms, the highest fees announced by universities were less than half of what Labor is now proposing those fees would rise to. That demonstrates that, if you discount everything Labor says by at least a factor of 50 per cent, you start to get to somewhere close to the truth.

I ask those opposite to put aside their fake skeletons, bag of spiders and scare campaigns and think of the tens of thousands of Australians, and the many thousands of young Tasmanians, who would benefit from higher education reforms. Stop discriminating against those who would benefit most from a revitalised higher education system and join us in evidence based policy making.

Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to speak on this matter of public importance. Accessing education, particularly higher education, is so vitally important. Those of us on this side of the House in the Labor Party are committed to making sure that our younger Australians can access universities and can access them without having $100,000 degrees. The fact is that, regardless of who leads the Liberal-National government, the savage attacks on our young people just keep coming. They just do not stop. Under Prime Minister Turnbull, we have a Prime Minister who is out of touch. He is particularly out of touch when it comes to regional and rural Australia. This is especially true when it comes to looking at our younger people in regional areas being able to access university education. This government is still committed to $100,000 university degrees. In country areas, in regional and rural Australia, we blame the National Party for this. I see that the member for Cowper is still here and he spoke earlier. We blame people like the member for Cowper for these unfair increases and the fact that there will be $100,000 university degrees.

This MPI goes right to the heart of this cruel government's cuts and how that impacts on training opportunities and subsequent future employment opportunities for our young people. Compounding this situation is the fact that this government has no new ideas at all for education or training for our young people. One of the most ruthless attacks is the deregulation of university fees, the proposed 20 per cent cut in funding, and, of course, we will end up with $100,000 degrees.

At the moment, the government have put their plans aside for 12 months. That is all they have done. They are absolutely committed to deregulation, but the fact is that this plan should be scrapped—not delayed but totally scrapped, totally forgotten, totally dumped. That is exactly what should happen with it. This legislation has been rejected twice by the Senate and the reality is that its implementation in 2016 is virtually impossible. So the government has done no more than admit the obvious, but they have to end all the uncertainty. For once and for all, drop these unfair plans. The fact is we know how committed those on the other side are to these plans. We have heard speakers today talk about how good it is. They are absolutely committed to pursuing it. We also know that the Prime Minister is committed to it. He is on the record supporting the changes. On 2GB on 5 June 2014, he said:

I support unreservedly and wholeheartedly every element in the Budget. Every single one.

…   …   …

I support every element ...

…   …   …

I support the reforms to higher education.

And he still supports that.

It should be noted that, since they recently announced the one-year delay, we have had a lot of members supporting it. Indeed, today we have heard so much support for it as well. Families from rural and regional areas such as mine, in the electorate of Richmond on the North Coast of New South Wales, know that these really harsh cuts mean that kids from the country will not be able to get to university. It is as simple as that. They will not be able to afford it. It will compound so many costs associated with being able to access university and many families tell me that uni is off the radar for their kids.

I would like to talk about the wonderful university in my electorate, Southern Cross University, which, I might add, has a campus in the member for Cowper's area. He knows how good they are, so why is he supporting cuts to that university? Over the four-year period, until 2019, real cuts in funding for Southern Cross University will be more than $64 million. Southern Cross University services the North Coast of New South Wales and also has a Gold Coast campus on the border. It is outstanding. But the cuts over the four-year period of more than $64 million mean that fees will increase and all the kids who access our great regional universities will not be able to do that. It is a shameful disgrace that the National Party are pursuing this.

Also, they are pursuing it at a time of record youth unemployment. In areas like ours on the North Coast of New South Wales, we have incredibly high youth unemployment and the kids need to be able to access training or educational services such as higher education. We have seen so many cuts in youth training programs and also cuts to TAFE, so, no matter which way young people look, this government is making so many cuts. Labor is absolutely committed to making sure that our young people can access university. We released our plan which will provide security and certainty to students by increasing the number of students completing their study by 20,000 graduates a year from 2020. We know how important it is to do that. We are investing $31 million to boost the quality of teaching and resources in our universities.

But the fact is today that this plan the Liberals and Nationals have for their $100,000 degrees must be dumped. The community wants it. They have spoken loud and clear about it. I condemn this government, and particularly condemn the National Party, for their ongoing cuts to rural and regional Australia. It shows yet again that the Nationals just cannot be trusted. They are so out of touch. In this case they cannot be trusted with our young people's future educational needs.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This was meant to be Labor's year of big ideas. Instead, we see instalment after instalment in Labor's concerted campaign to frighten the Australian people back into poverty. It is not enough that they want to trash the transformative impacts of the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. They also want to put reform of the tertiary education sector into reverse. Unlike those opposite, the coalition government has made a commitment to the Australian people that we will seize the opportunities of the 21st century, including export opportunities in the tertiary education sector.

Reform in this sector is absolutely essential if we are to see the substantial economic and educational opportunities that lie ahead of our nation in the 21st century. Not only do those opposite put at risk the competitiveness of our national universities, but they also put at risk the very viability of our higher education system. Australia's tertiary education sector is a fundamental pillar of Australia's economy and export industries.

Given that we are talking this week about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, I think it is really important that we focus on that export capacity. We have to stop making this argument, centred squarely in the 1970s and 1980s, and bring forward reforms to this sector, in a bipartisan way. Whilst we debate university reform, the tertiary education sector is left, unfortunately, to languish without the tools needed to remain globally competitive.

In terms of the reform that we were prosecuting, the thing that I found particularly important—and this might be relevant to the member for Richmond, given her criticism of country members on this side of the place—is the Commonwealth Scholarships scheme. This was particularly important to me in my electorate, because when I was travelling around my electorate I would hear day to day from parents and students who came from regional areas that the biggest barrier for them in going to university had absolutely nothing to do with fees. After all, we have the Higher Education Loan Program, or HECS as it was called. The biggest barrier, and this might come as a surprise to the member for Richmond, was the cost of picking up, leaving home and getting accommodation in Adelaide, Sydney, Melbourne, or Canberra. That is where the real barrier was, and that is where the Commonwealth Scholarships were going to assist rural students. But, unfortunately, we did not see the academic honesty on the other side of the House to be able to acknowledge that significant step forward towards the appropriate reform agenda.

I could also talk about sub-bachelor degrees and how these can be paid for. The James Morrison Academy of Music, in Mount Gambier, is a classic example of opportunities being provided to students in a sub-bachelor framework. Those opposite will not concede this and do not want to concede it, because all they say is their misinformation about $100,000 degrees. The idea that students, who will over the course of their lifetime earn $1 million more than those not undertaking or attaining university or tertiary qualifications, should not pay their fair share is a ludicrous slap in the face for the majority of Australians, who are not receiving and will not receive a university education. I heard that every day in my electorate, and it is a fair submission that has been made to me and others in this campaign.

You can tell that this is a fear campaign, a campaign of misinformation, if you take the opportunity to consider that part of the university that is already deregulated. Let us look at postgraduate degrees and at international students. Those opposite, who want to talk about $100,000 degrees and want to live in that globe of fear will not say to you, 'Look, postgraduate degrees are between $10,000 and $30,000 in this country.' International qualifications are similar. They will not speak about that. Instead, it is disappointing that what they want to do is frighten the Australian people all the way back to poverty. It is a campaign we have heard a lot about and I think we will hear more about it in the lead-up to the next election. Shame on them.

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, hasn't this MPI set the cat amongst the pigeons. Here I was preparing this afternoon and thinking: we might get there and someone on the other side might get up and announce a new policy. I was quite hopeful that perhaps we would come in here this afternoon, all prepared to talk about $100,000 degrees, to find that they had been dustbinned. But, no, what we have learnt this afternoon is what we knew before we got here. What we have learnt is that while the member for Sturt is busy 'unleashing his revolutionary', the new minister is hiding the mess left by the member for Sturt, the self-proclaimed fixer, who has gone off to fix something else.

What we have learnt is that they are not throwing out this terrible policy. They are not going to stop the cuts to universities. They are not going to stop the $100,000 degrees that they want to foist on the young people in my electorate of Lalor. No, what we have learnt today is that they are trudging on with this great policy of theirs. They are trudging on with their unfairness. They are trudging on with that 2014 budget. They are trudging on with the cruel, unfair measures from the 2014 budget. New minister? There is nothing new to see here, though—$100,000 degrees are alive and well, just as we thought. All we have heard from the new minister is a concession that he could not possibly bring in the price rises in 2016 because it had been beaten in the Senate twice and he could not put the legislation through a third time. The fixer has been foiled, one might say, and left this mess for the new minister to try to clean up. Rather than come in here today and make an announcement of a new policy—rather than follow Labor, lockstep, down the road in the year of ideas and give us an idea—they are staying with this policy, which has been rejected soundly by the Australian public. I am trying to remember what month it was last year when the petition ticked over to 100,000 signatures against the $100,000 degrees. I am trying to remember when we ticked over that milestone.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're addicted to this number. There are other numbers!

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These are real numbers—$100,000 is a real number for a degree. Those opposite can persist in not believing what has been put in front of them, but, unfortunately, they have a trust problem when it comes to education—strangely enough, they have a trust problem in this area. The deregulation, the cuts to universities, the $100,000 degrees and the Americanisation of our tertiary education system that they tried to sell to the Australian public and tried to push past the Senate twice are still alive for the government.

I implore this government: see sense now, before it is too late. Really, what you could do is read our policy. In this era, when we need innovation, you can take it from the party that understands education, the party that cares about education and the party that will go to the ramparts, fighting for fair education for the young people of this country. You could pull out our policy documents. Look at our announcements, which will tell you how to support students in getting a tertiary qualification. They will explain to you that, rather than create $100,000 degrees, you should actually be reimbursing the HECS of those students who are prepared to study the subjects we need them to study, who are going to drive the new economy. In question time today, I heard the Prime Minister say, 'We can't rely on iron ore anymore.' I heard him say it. It is something new that he has said.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, invest in higher education.

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Invest in higher education—there is a thought. Come up with a new policy. But, right now, the public knows, and today's MPI has proved it: you have no new ideas. You are going to stay with the cruel, unfair measures of the 2014 budget and you are going to persist with the Americanisation of Australia's universities. That is the plan to date.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let the market rip!

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And they say they understand markets. If they understood markets, they would know that, if you put a 20 per cent cut in place, deregulate and offer a business the opportunity to make that up, gee, they will charge higher fees. (Time expired)

Karen McNamara (Dobell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here we are again, and welcome to another round of 'Let's debate Labor's lies', probably the worst game show in town, but at least we have front-row seats. The word for the week is 'duplicitous'—the same lies, the same rhetoric, the same mistruths and the same scaremongering, over and over again, just on different topics. I am sure that they decide their topics over a cup of coffee at morning tea or around the water cooler—'What are we going to lie about today?' The topic for today's lies is the $100,000 university degrees. Last time, the poison being spread was about the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Next week, who knows what it will be?

Let's talk about today's issue and the scaremongering campaign designed to shock every Australian into thinking the government is going to raise the cost of university degrees to some ridiculous amount. As an astute member of parliament, I thought I would do a bit of research and see the background behind these claims and assertions. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that it was actually a former member for Dobell who started the lies and scaremongering about the $100,000 degrees.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That guy?

Karen McNamara (Dobell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No! It was when he was opposition education spokesperson. Who might I be referring to? Before everyone gets too excited, I am not talking about the infamous Craig Thomson. I will mention him later, but I am talking about Michael Lee. Famously, during an interview back in 1999, when he was opposition education spokesman, Mr Lee spoke about a topic that, unfortunately, at the time he did not quite understand. It appears that his modelling was slightly flawed. Then, in 2003, the then shadow education minister, Jenny Macklin, jumped on the untruth bandwagon and also began spouting about issues that she had little knowledge of—and guess what? It was $100,000 university degrees. Are we really surprised?

Let's get some facts straight. This government is not—I repeat: not—planning to raise the cost of university degrees. In fact, it is not the government that is responsible for even setting the cost of university degrees. This is the responsibility of the institutions themselves. So I am unsure why there is an assumption that the government is raising fees; unfortunately, the opposition is helping to spread this innuendo. However, as we know, this is a familiar tactic—it is the same game as is being played now with the issue of penalty rates. It is common knowledge that the Fair Work Commission are the ones who make any changes to penalty rates, not the government of the day.

The member for Kingston earlier mentioned a waste of government money on advertising campaigns. I need to remind her of the unions' $30 million advertising campaign and other things that they are up to to spread lies about penalty rates and ChAFTA. This is $30 million of union membership fees. Perhaps they should have got advice from the Health Services Union on using members' money before they embarked on that campaign. Why should this debate be any different at all to all the other lies? I guess at least this is a debate we have been given prior notice of, not like some other invitations we have received lately.

Let's remind the opposition of the $6.6 billion worth of cuts to higher education and research which Labor announced from 2011 to 2013. How convenient that they forgot to mention that. Weren't we are lucky that not all were legislated? Some of Labor's own cuts have themselves been blocked in the Senate, which is a perfect example of the dog chasing its own tail. These proposed cuts included the removal of the 10 per cent HECS-HELP discount and the five per cent HELP repayments bonus and a cap on tax deductibility on self-education expenses. What a great example of showing the Australian community how much you care about higher education! This is in contrast to the coalition government, who have increased higher education spending since being in government—I repeat: increased.

Five minutes is not enough time, really, to adequately talk about the ridiculous lie campaign regarding higher education that the opposition, in conjunction with their union masters, is working to maliciously spread within Australian communities—scaring students away from tertiary education. What a shame. This is an opposition that cannot even get the costings on their own education policies right, sprouting three different figures in 24 hours, which is hardly surprising when you think of my predecessor—I did say I would mention him—whose credit cards probably paid for three different figures in 24 hours as well! (Time expired)

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The discussion has now concluded.