Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to be able to speak on this issue of the vicious cuts to higher education and the devastating impact that this will have on regional students, families and universities. I regularly get accused of class warfare in this place. If you want to see an example of class warfare, have a look at the Abbott government's budget that drags billions of dollars out of the pockets of our pensioners, of our seniors and of our sick. It is just absolutely unbelievable that this type of class warfare can take place in this country in this day and age. To understand the scope of the class warfare being carried out by the coalition against the poor of this country you have to look at all aspects of the budget, not just at education. But on higher education in particular, the coalition have form. The coalition have done this before. There is a book called The Australian Moment, by George Megalogenis, one of the most praiseworthy and praised academic writers in this country. He looks at issues that are important for this country and in The Australian Moment he says, 'On 20 August 1996, Costello'—the then Treasurer of the coalition government; one of the worst Treasurers this country has ever seen—'announced $7.2 billion in savings, $800 million short of their original two-year target of $8 billion. The spending cuts were valued at $5.2 billion.'

It all sounds a bit 'here we go again'. He went on: 'The revenue measures were another $2 billion. The single largest cut was to tertiary education funding.' The cuts were to our universities. Mr Megalogenis continued: 'The savings were expected to secure a small surplus of $1 billion in 1998-99, but this time Treasury was being too pessimistic. The budget was balanced a year ahead of schedule and it went back to surplus, as Keating had said it would, jumping to $3.9 billion in 1998-99—almost four times above Costello's original estimate—and then to $13 billion in 1999-2000. Costello subsequently reversed many of the spending cuts, though not those to universities or to the public broadcaster, the ABC.'

So, it is in the DNA of the coalition to attack the ABC and higher education. Mr Megalogenis said: 'These choices were ideological. Howard and Costello agreed with the Hawke and Keating governments on the broad outline of the economic reform program to float financial deregulation, tariff cuts and surplus budgeting but they rejected Labor's cultural agenda and used the budget to wind back Hawke's "clever country" spending and Keating's funding for the arts. The savings from universities, for example, were not banked but used to promote private sector schools.' So if ever there has been a position of class warfare it was when the Howard-Costello government—picked up now by the Abbott government—attacked the fundamental issues that allow working-class people to get ahead: access to university.

I am one of the few people here who have never been to university. I was a tradesperson. I left school at 15 and got an apprenticeship. My sister and my brother have university degrees. My two kids have university degrees. I know what it is like to try to assist two children from a working-class background to get through university. Most people know what that is like. My two kids—like many other kids—had to work hard. They had to take jobs to get themselves through university, because I could not afford to do it on one wage in my house. So I know what it is like, and I know how important it is to get to university.

Getting through university now is a bit like getting through high school in the days when I went to school. In those days you had to get through high school to get a job; now you have to get through university to get some jobs. Even some engineering and trades jobs require people with degree qualifications. So it is different now, and to make it hard for young Australians to access university is a class warfare attack of some significance.

This government came to power based on lies and deceit. There were going to be no cuts to health, no cuts to education, and no cuts to the pension. You cannot trust this mob one inch. And the impact of this budget on regional students, families and universities is absolutely huge.

You have to ask yourself: what do they have against working-class people getting access to an education? Why do they constantly rip billions of dollars out of higher education so that it is only the rich and privileged who can get their kids a university education? Why do they do that? They have done it now and they did it back in 1996. So these people on the government benches have form. In my view it is ideological. It is as George Megalogenis said: it is an ideological obsession of this government.

And this government are now trying to argue that universities will be better off with less funding. They argue that universities will be better because you can privatise and get more players coming in; there will be more competition. That really is a sort of social Darwinism from the coalition: the strong will survive and the weak can just die away. I have heard them say that this is not an Americanisation of the Australian university system. Rubbish! It is exactly all of the worst aspects of the United States university system being imposed on this country because of their ideological bent that it should be basically the rich and the well-off who can get their kids into university. What have they got against working-class kids getting into university? What is the problem here, other than their ideology? It is okay if you have gone to a private school. Megalogenis said that money was taken out of the universities, where working-class kids were getting access to a good education, and put into private schools. I just had a look at what the fees are in private schools. If you go to Canberra Grammar, it is $20,140 for a term. With what the government wants to do here—get the cleaners back on to $17 an hour—how many cleaners in Canberra will be sending their kids to Canberra Grammar? The answer is: none. If you go to SCEGGS in Darlinghurst in New South Wales, it is $32,179.

An opposition senator: How much?

$32,179. If you go to Brisbane Grammar School, it is $23,345. In South Australia, if you go to Pulteney Grammar, $21,530. In Victoria, Geelong Grammar, $34,000. In Western Australia, Christ Church Grammar, $24,200. I am sorry, I cannot give you Tasmania's, because the figures are not there; they must be a secret.

The kids that go to these private schools get money that is taken out of the public school system and put into the private school system. Their parents can afford to spend 30-odd thousand dollars to put them into a private school. Will they have a problem like my kids had when they went to university? They will not have to worry about going out and getting a job. There will not have to worry about whether their parents can buy them a book. They will not have to worry about whether their parents can buy them a beemer to head off to university every day. They will do it easily. But working class kids in the western suburbs of Sydney will not be able to do it.

When I get accused of class warfare, I say, 'Accuse me all you like, because if I am going to stand up for kids in the western suburbs of Sydney—I am a New South Wales senator after all—I am going to stand up for them.' The kids that go to SCEGGS, the kids that go to Sydney Grammar, the kids that go to Canberra Grammar and the kids that go to Brisbane Grammar do not really need me standing up for them here because they will do okay, thanks very much. Their parents will give them more than enough money to look after them and get them an education in university.

I have to say to you I am absolutely appalled the more I hear from the National Party. If anyone was here when Senator McKenzie gave her speech, and if you managed to go through the 20 minutes without falling asleep, you would have heard some interesting points. What she was saying was that you have to have these innovative universities that can match it with the best in the world. And for the rest, you have to have universities that can meet domestic demand. Now, 'meet domestic demand' is really code for 'going to second-class universities'. That is what that is about. And she says that, 'You want to bring everyone down to the same level.' Well, I have news for Senator McKenzie: I would like every university in the country to be at the same level as the best universities in the country. But I would like them to be supported financially to do that. The coalition certainly will not do it.

She went on to say, 'You have to balance equity of access against global competition.' Well, 'equity of access' simply means that if you have plenty of money, you will get in. If you do not have a lot of money, you will not get in. And 'global competition' means that if you have plenty of money, you will go to the best universities. If you are a working class kid in the western suburbs of Sydney, you will go to the 'domestic demand' university—the second-class university. And she says that they are putting in $224 million to support regional universities. This is the debating trick that this mob over there use all the time. They look at the budget and say, 'We are spending $224 million in unis.' But they do not tell you how much they have pulled out. They have pulled $5.8 billion out of higher education in this country. That is what has come out from this mean-spirited, class-warfare-ridden coalition—$5.8 billion.

Going back to what Senator McKenzie said, she actually should get her facts right if she is coming in here and making these claims. She says that the great universities—and quotes Harvard and Oxford—are not universities that are in capital cities. Well, I have news for her: Boston is the capital city of Massachusetts, and that is where Harvard is. It is 12 minutes from the CBD of Boston. Oxford is one hour and 16 minutes from London. That is about the same time it takes for you to drive from Penrith to the CBD.

On the other issue she raises, she said, 'We are going to help the tradespeople of this country; we are going to give them all this money in the Trade Support Loans.' What she does not say is that $914 million has been taken away from apprentices. The Labor government had the Tools For Your Trade program to help young working class kids get access to tools so that they could get their trade training. That was worth $914 million. If you go to the budget papers, you can see quite easily that $914 million was pulled out of that program. Guess how much they are going to spend on the trade support program in 2015-16: they are going to spend $2.7 million. So $914 million disappears and $2.7 million comes in.

Then we have the argument from the National Party that there are winners and losers. They say, 'You have to be in the real world.' That means that government should just step away and let the market rip. 'Government should just step away and let ordinary working people in this country just battle away without any government support.' This mob is all about small government. It is not about looking after people that need help. This budget epitomises that. This budget absolutely epitomises that.

The National Party should hang their heads in shame because this budget will affect regional and rural Australia more than the CBDs—it will affect it much more than the cities. In rural and regional Australia, you are going to get hammered with more costs. In rural and regional Australia, that is where people depend on support through family tax benefit A and B. More people who depend on that support live in rural and regional Australia than in many of the capital cities. The electorate of Page, on the North Coast of New South Wales, is one of the biggest recipients of family tax benefit A and family tax benefit B. What has happened to that benefit? It is being cut. There are more pensioners up in that area. What has happened to their pensions? They are being cut. There are more seniors in those areas. What is happening there? Their benefits are being cut. These are the big problems that we have.

The Liberal Party are not the Liberal Party that people think they are. They are not the Liberal Party who are supposed to be standing up for a fair go for everyone. They want to Americanise our system, and that is just unacceptable. The problem for them is that, if you lie to the public and you come to power based on a lie, you will pay a price.