Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to sum up this debate on the motion to disallow the Higher Education (Maximum Amounts for Other Grants) Determination 2013. I thank Senator Rhiannon for her indication of support by the Greens. Far be it from me to criticise those that are voting for the proposition we have before us. I do enjoy listening to the Greens provide us with advice on being pure and more proper and more principled than any other political organisation in the country. I suppose that comes from having a party position that allows you to have the very best social conscience that money could buy, as we see within the Greens, who are only too happy to criticise Labor for our actions but do not ever acknowledge the simple facts of life here—that, under a Labor government, support for higher education doubled. When I was minister, the amount of support for science and research increased by 43 per cent, the biggest level of increase for science and research in this country's history. I say to you: 190,000 extra students is a record that any government could be proud of.

Well may you criticise the decisions that were taken in the budget of last May, Senator Rhiannon—you are entitled to put that view—but I think you misrepresented me. I indicated at the very beginning of my contribution that Labor had changed its position. We put aside money, hypothecated money, last year to support the Gonski changes, to provide support for a six-year funding program for the schools system. We kept the budget savings within the education system. We said that, if you want to sustain a higher education system longer term, you have a look at the fundamental problems within the school system. I might also add that we provided additional support in the vocational system—more students in vocational education facilities across this country than ever we have seen in this nation's history. We never get any acknowledgement for that. I also say this—and I made this point in my remarks—that, when the government came in, they abandoned the position that they took to the election about supporting Gonski. They abandoned it and, as a consequence, the original funding that was earmarked for the Better Schools Plan was taken and put into consolidated revenue by this government.

So, Senator Ryan, I return to you, by drawing your attention to the fact that I also said that these are now decisions of this government, initiatives of this government, determinations by a Liberal Party minister. They have become your initiatives. I made that very, very clear. You have made the decision to cut university funding because of your bent ideological presumptions about what universities are about. We heard it from you again today. It was all about subsidising ski clubs. It may well be that your friends spend a lot of time in their Range Rovers at Mount Buller, but I say to you: I do not have that many friends that spend time there. Maybe they are just supporters of Melbourne Football Club; I do not know. But I just make this observation: you have a very distorted view about what actually goes on in universities. Liberal ministers, Liberal members of parliament, have demonstrated an extraordinary ignorance of the importance of universities, and they have a particularly perverse view about the role of education. They say money does not matter, yet they also say it is only reasonable that parents pay up to $30,000 a year to send their children to the most elite private schools in this country. So clearly money does matter to somebody. At Geelong Grammar, tell them money does not matter! Tell the parents that have to pay those fees that money does not matter! To suggest now that money does not really matter to the quality of education, I think, is to misunderstand how it really works.

The proposition we have before the chamber draws attention to the government's failure to fund the school system and the university system and the government's failed policy position when it comes to the question of the importance of education. The government do this under the pretext of a budget emergency, when in fact what they are doing is living out their ideological fantasies. We have had the Nobel prize-winning economist Mr Stiglitz tell us that, by international standards, this is a country to be proud of, that our budget performance is something to be envied, that there is no excuse for the cuts to higher education in this country and that they are wrong—and I think the word 'criminal' was used. That suggests to me just what a difference in mindset exists.

We have a government here that seems to want to mortgage the future. We have a government here that is not interested in ensuring the future. It wants to mortgage the future by suggesting that those with resources—those who are wealthy; those who are privileged—can enjoy and reinforce their privilege by ensuring that these educational institutions, which we all know unlock the door of inequality in Australia, are shut to the working people of this country. That is what this government's policy will mean. You withdraw the public resources and it is the private resources that take their place, so the people with money enjoy the benefits and the privileges of higher education.

We understand that there is a balance. We acknowledge the private benefit, but we also say that the overriding question is the public benefit of investment in education. That is why we say that the balance is about right at 60:40. Under the previous Liberal government, the balance shifted. The Howard government, despite the promises they made when in opposition, increased the level of private contribution by 100 per cent. That is where we get the 40 per cent from. When the HECs arrangements were first introduced they were about 20 per cent.

What we have seen over every successive Liberal government is a continuation of a policy theme of hostility to higher education, the culture of university and the importance of innovation, and a view that those with money should enjoy the benefits of having money and reinstate the privilege that they get from having that money. As a consequence, we are now seeing the Liberal policy under Howard being continued under Abbott. This policy will impose on the poorer people in this country, working people, particularly people in rural and regional areas a profound disadvantage—not freedom; an imposition of government to make the economic inequalities in this country greater. We know what a struggle it is to even up the score in our society. The Liberal's policy is to make that score even more uneven—to reinforce privilege and to reinforce inequality.

These measures that we are seeing today are not about spending money on education. I want to make senators very clear about this. This is about taking money out of education and putting it into consolidated revenue. That is the point of these changes the government has introduced. These are Liberal changes initiated by a Liberal government by a Liberal minister and—as we heard today in the defence from Senator Ryan—are all about Liberal philosophy. For those reasons, I call upon the Senate to reject these proposals and to support the disallowance motion.