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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Education and Training (Senator Birmingham) and the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to questions without notice asked by Senators Carr and Polley today relating to higher education funding and to taxation policy.

We have just witnessed quite an extraordinary proposition where the parliament has been brought back to discuss a series of measures which the government does not have ready to bring into this chamber. It does not want to be able to present a motion and, in light of the fact that next week there is a Senate hearing into why questions about the CSIRO have not been answered, where the opposition asks a legitimate question, following a similar request yesterday in which assurances were given that questions would be answered, we discover that answers to five of the 29 questions which we were assured would arrive will, in fact, happen. What does the government do? It then chooses to filibuster for an hour and a half in a vain attempt to avoid having to deal with a number of motions that are coming up today and, probably, tomorrow, because the standing orders are very clear on this, and the resolution we have already carried makes it perfectly clear which legislation we are dealing with. That legislation has not been dealt with in this chamber because we are still waiting upon the House of Representatives.

I raised a question today with the Minister for Education concerning the government's education policies. We clearly know there are two fundamental issues at stake here: just how much is the government now planning to take out of university funding, and what is their plan in regard to deregulation? We know what the government's formal policy position is because it has been stated. It has been stated twice at Senate estimates—in October and February this year—and stated in MYEFO in December of this year, and the statement has been made by the minister on Sky TV on a number of occasions that the government is seeking to take further savings from the university system.

What we know is what their election campaign will look like, and that is where we get into interesting territory because this is a government that has said, just like the last election—remember the last elections?—'No cuts to education.' No cuts to education was the policy position they took, and what they are trying to do, once again, is slither through the election campaign without any assessment of their policy and then make the assumption that they can climb back into office and introduce a 20 per cent cut to the universities—a $5 billion cut to universities—over the forward estimates.

We now see what I understand is quite a clear proposition: Senator Birmingham, I am told, has gone off to the cabinet and sought further cuts, only to find that the cabinet has thrown him out because the cuts are not big enough. This government wants to impose additional cuts upon the university system, because we know how the universities are treated by this government. They regard the universities as fair game. We know that the Parliamentary Budget Office has made it very clear that the overwhelming reason for a blow-out in the student loan scheme is the stated policies of this government to impose a 20 per cent cut on the universities and to regulate university fees—the $100,000 degree which they are seeking to impose. If the deregulation agenda becomes law, the annual cost of the student loan program will have risen from $1.7 billion to $11.1 billion within 10 years. That is a 46 per cent increase in the public debt, and we know what the assumption for that is based on: the government's stated policy position.

What we are talking about now is that the minister claims he is continuing to consult with the sector. I have absolutely no doubt we will hear talk about another review into the implementation of the government's budget cuts. According to the PBO, on the current unlegislated higher education measures, that is a cut of $12 billion over 10 years. The minister will be forced by his Expenditure Review Committee to seek additional cuts on top of those. The Liberal policies are very clear. They have created a mountain of debt and they have now sought to impose that mountain of debt upon students and taxpayers like. They are determined to pursue the same old Liberal Party ideology: a move from public provision to private provision, a move away from a fair go, and the entrenchment of those who already have power and privilege. What they are seeking to do is to slam the door shut on opportunity for individuals and the nation, and the minister's plans are becoming abundantly clear to all those prepared to listen. (Time expired)