Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is morally wrong, Senator Carr, to scaremonger. It is morally reprehensible to look at the scenery and induce fear into young people about their future when that fear is incredibly misplaced. To frighten students, to bully vice-chancellors and to bluster and blow is to remain entrenched and immovable in your 1960s Cold War sphere of thinking. Good luck to you—I am looking forward to next week as we travel around the nation listening to stakeholders in this debate. I, unlike Senator Carr, have an open mind about what they will have to say. We have received over 100 submissions to the Senate inquiry on a reform package the likes of which we have not seen since Dawkins. I am so glad Senator Carr brought Dawkins up. Unlike Senator Carr and his generation, I graduated high school into the Dawkins reform year. We took to the streets like no-one's business—we did not just burn effigies here and there. The Treasurer at the time later had some things to say about that—he was Prime Minister by the time he reflected on the Dawkins reforms. Senator Carr, I think what you are actually dreaming of and wishing for is an era long-gone, where free education is a right. Wouldn't it be lovely if it was? But unfortunately that would be financially irresponsible. I am quoting from, I think, Paul Keating's opening of Victoria University—Sunbury campus, which is, as you know, Senator Carr, in western Melbourne—very unlike Western Sydney. Keating said:

HECS was introduced in 1989 to a cacophony of student complaints. We were told that free education is a right, HECS will restrict the access of the poor to higher education. Higher education helps all society, and thus should be fully paid for by the government.

And he just wanted to spend a minute or two, like I do right now, addressing some of these issues. I cannot believe I am agreeing with him, but here I am. 'There is no such thing, of course, as a free education,' said Paul Keating. 'Somebody has to pay.' In systems with no changes those somebodies are all taxpayers, and sorry, but when I look at regional Australia, our median income level is a little lower than for the people who reside in Melbourne and in Sydney, and a lot lower than for the people who reside in Perth. You are asking those Australian taxpayers living in regional Australia to subsidise somebody else's education. I think we have to keep in mind those Dawkins reforms, which have washed through our system over a period of time now, and that we are now entering another great reform phase for our higher education states.

You also mentioned that 'survival of the fittest' is where the government's reforms will lead to. We want to ensure that excellence can grow and be promoted within the global context and that our strong tradition as a nation in ensuring access for all to a quality education can be maintained in a fiscal environment that, thanks to the reforms of former government into the higher education space, are unsustainable. Maybe you need to take a note out of Ed Miliband's conference speech; to have a look at injecting some financial sustainability methodology into your approach to higher education. We would all get on a lot better if you did. But my view of the Senate inquiry is one of openness—we see a lot of submissions and we are going to go out to stakeholders and prosecute those. I am looking forward to the hearing. I would recommend, Senator Carr, that you study the submissions over the weekend. I hope that would improve your line of questioning, given the rhetoric you just spewed out for 20 minutes, to more than inquiring of Vice-Chancellors how much they earn. It sounded like a bit of an NTEU campaign to me—anyone going through an EPA at the moment? Your line of questioning really needs to improve if you are wanting to prosecute the arguments you so strenuously and passionately espouse here within the chamber. So I hope that you can come up with some decent questions over the weekend.

You also touched on research and you claimed that the government was cutting research. Sorry, but we are increasing the ARC budget. We have also done something you did not do—and I hope you had time, Senator Carr, because I know you are quite passionate about science—to get down to see the NCRIS displays in the Great Hall this week in Canberra. It was absolutely fabulous. For those listening who might not know what NCRIS is, it is the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy. You may have heard Senator Carr's rhetoric about being passionate about building our scientific capacity and encouraging and ensuring that international research is done here on our shores—well, this is the program and the strategy that delivers it. It was not the former government that chose to fund it—no, you cut it. No money. It is this government that has put $150 million into ensuring this strategy with a review, because you gave them nothing. Talk to the researchers, talk to the scientists—27 projects; 1,500 skilled technical experts; 222 institutions; 30,000 researchers, domestic and international—doing some fabulous cutting-edge and applied research. It was exactly the type of science and research strategy that this nation needs to fill our trajectory as the 21st century centre of excellence, particularly in our region, for higher education.

It amuses me that I am here on Thursday afternoon debating yet another stunt by the Labor Party that is pretending to care about the future of Australia's higher education system and students. This is a Labor government whose legacy to these students, and to the Australian people, is a gross debt that is projected to rise to $667 billion—that is a billion dollars of interest a month. That is a lot of research; it is a lot of support for education, not just higher education. This is a Labor government that proposed cuts to higher education and research of over $6.6 billion, including $2.8 billion on one day in April 2013, in a desperate grab for funds to help their ballooning deficit. A Labor government which capped self-education expenses, leaving thousands of nurses—I am so glad you brought up the nurses, Senator Carr—teachers and other professionals out of pocket. The Labor government left a complicated and unwieldy mess of regulation applying to universities and neglected international education. International education is our third-largest export and No.1 knowledge export—a $15 billion export industry. There are a lot of NTEU members whose livelihood relies on that industry, that fabulous export industry of international education in our higher education institutions, continuing. Yet under Labor's refusal to consider ensuring that their own increase in funding places can be financially sustainable, there will be no future.

Let's not forget Labor's cuts to and neglect of research and, of course, its dismal treatment of regional students throughout their entire tenure. Every time they tried to fix it up another bungled cohort of students and teachers would make their way, thankfully, to Senator Nash's office, where she was able to prosecute their concerns most admirably through the previous parliament.

They are now continuing their financial irresponsibility in opposition. There is no greater example of irresponsibility than opposing your own cuts. They do not want Australia's finances getting back into good health. I really do not think that is a rational position to continue to take, Senator Carr—because it is stubborn. You are being stubborn about your approach to the fiscal situation and you are being stubborn about higher education reforms. I hope that during our inquiry next week, as we see students, public higher education providers, private higher education providers, TAFE directors and TAFE students, you will keep an open mind and start thinking about how together we can make a difference, how we can put Australia on a sustainable footing going forward.

Senator Carr also mentioned the international rankings. I love that he chooses to quote people who do not even know how our system operates, but let's not let the facts—or a local—get in the way of a good story! The fact of the matter is that we are doing well. There are some great examples of excellence in this nation. We should be very proud of that. That is why this government has chosen to look forward, to fund Future Fellowships, to back our young researchers, and to make sure that we are giving them the opportunity to study, research and excel here at home—so that we can have continuing research capacity well into the future. Unfortunately, the Labor Party does not back that.

If you look at the international rankings, yes, there are pockets of excellence—fabulous. In fact, as I have travelled around the country as chair of the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, I have noticed that, no matter where you go in this nation, excellent research and teaching is occurring. It is just that we do not all need to do all of that everywhere. That is the reality. There are better ways we can do it—and that is what we are hoping to do, so that excellence can continue to be supported and access can continue to be supported.

What Senator Carr forgot to tell the Senate, or selectively did not remember, about the higher education rankings is that, whilst we went okay—we added a couple into the top 200, we maintained our ranking and we are in the top six or so internationally in the ranking of institutions—there is an issue with respect to rates of change. That is where, Senator Carr, innumeracy becomes a problem. Quoting numbers is one thing; understanding the rates of change and their context is a much bigger issue. The rate of change of Asian universities through the rankings of both the top 100 and the top 200 is the thing we need to be concerned about. That billion-dollar export industry that we rely on—that employs the union members, Senator Carr, who back your preselection—in turn depends on international students. Our education export industry relies on international students, not international students from America or the UK but international students from this region. As those universities in our region progress through the international rankings, our export industry is at increased risk of becoming unsustainable—and affecting your preselection, Senator Carr, so please get on board.

I have digressed. I shall now talk about the fabulous reforms that our government has instigated. One of the issues that I do not think has been prosecuted enough by the media—and by those stakeholders with vested interests—is the fact that our reforms will see an additional 80,000 students accessing higher education. Research tells us that low-socioeconomic students—students from families where going to university is not the done thing, is not something you naturally head off to do—is that they need supported pathways. We need to have a system that lets them dip their toe in the water with an associate diploma at their local institution—in their own context, in their own space. Confidence builds. 'Hey, I can do this.' That six-month course will become a year. 'I might try and do 18 months.' After that, they might think, 'Okay, I am going really well; I am going to try and get a bachelor's degree.' Research studies have shown that those students who progress through a pathway do incredibly well once they do get to higher education institutions.

I am a regional Australian, but I do not come to this place with the assumption that, just because I come from the country, that means I am less intelligent. I do not have that assumption.

Senator Polley interjecting—

Senator Polley, I cannot wait to hear your contribution. The year 12 completion rate for your state means that you do not get to bag out this government's absolute, committed attention to the fact the students from your state need to be supported through to a bachelor's degree—through precisely the mechanisms that our reforms seek to promote. When we ensure that happens, it will go gangbusters for the young people in your state and with people that have not completed year 12.

Senator Polley interjecting—