Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I am not sure if I will be here personally to do that, Senator Carr, but I will probably be snapping at your heels from somewhere else. The issue of higher education has followed me through the Senate, but it was a passion long before. Nonetheless, I do have an interest in seeing that we have quality higher education, well-funded education and accessible education in this country, and hence the reason for many of my concerns with the previous government. But I was always happy to acknowledge where they did some good things, too—when they did them.

Even if the protocols are to be retained, there is no reason or justification to attach a financial penalty to universities for noncompliance. Universities may very well respond favourably to advice from government on improving governance. It is something which vice-chancellors are currently discussing among themselves, as I understand it. But the national governance protocols have too much of the big stick about them and, for that reason, we do not support this disallowance motion before us today.

I heard the minister refer to some of the budget measures as indicative of a commitment by the new government—the Rudd government—to supporting higher education. I want to put on record that, of course, we support any money that goes into the sector—whether it is for capital works, teaching and research or ‘student amenities’, although I do not know exactly what that will mean in the context of the budget. But when this government wants to be serious about an education revolution, it has to include in the budget and other policy measures a commitment to removing the barriers to participation in education, specifically at the higher education level—and that clearly means fees and charges—and, of course, it has to invest in student income support. If it does not, its criticism of the former government means nothing.

Student income support was one great lost opportunity in this budget. Through you, Madam Acting Deputy President: I suspect that Minister Carr knows that, because I know that he and I have had many debates about these issues over the years. You cannot have an education revolution without removing barriers. You cannot have an education revolution without investing significantly in the human capital, not just in the capital infrastructure. You cannot have an education revolution when you have interference in institutional and academic autonomy that is unprecedented. The government’s intention through the legislation that we will be debating—maybe not tomorrow morning, Senator Mason; I do not know at this rate—over the remaining sitting weeks of this Senate period has worthwhile objectives. We look forward to supporting those objectives.

I am disappointed to see this last-minute attempt to salvage some aspect of the previous government’s higher education policy come at us—particularly from Senator Mason, who I thought would know better. Nonetheless, we will not be supporting this disallowance. To hark back to the dark days of institutional interference in higher education is something that I would have thought the former government would want to leave behind. It is embarrassing. It is unnecessary. It is undesirable and it is anti-intellectual. That is something that characterised aspects of that government.