Nova Peris (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator Scullion. I refer to the minister's boast yesterday that a $409 million cut to Indigenous services in the Prime Minister's own department was a modest cut which will not have any impact on the ground to frontline services. Will the minister give the Senate an ironclad commitment that there will be no impact on frontline services and, if there is, will he resign?

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The actual funding cut, as I indicated yesterday, is $239 million. So, of my budget of $1,200 million a year, we are taking out $60 million a year. As I said, yes, I think it is a modest cut. Having had a very close look whilst I was in opposition at the delivery of those services and having seen that there is quite clearly such disorganisation, with the 1,300-odd providers and over 4,000 individual contracts, I am confident that we can find a 4.5 per cent efficiency dividend. I was confident about that yesterday and I am as confident today as I was yesterday.

Nova Peris (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a supplementary question. I refer to the minister's commitment that any of the savings that we have made across this budget are not going to have an impact on the ground. Of the $409 million cut to Indigenous services in the Prime Minister's own department, what cuts will be made to services delivered through the Indigenous Employment Program and the Indigenous Capability and Development Program and what will the impact of these cuts be?

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, just for clarity: the cuts across programs in my portfolio is in fact $239 million, not the $400-odd million the senator suggests. I reiterate that, across all of these programs, there is sufficient bureaucracy, red tape and mismanagement—which we saw characterised in the period of time that those opposition were in government—that I am very confident that the 4.5 per cent—

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, my point of order is on relevance. The particular question was about the Indigenous Employment Program and the Indigenous Capability and Development Program. I would ask you, Mr President, to draw the attention of the minister to those programs.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order at this stage. The minister has been going for 29 seconds and has 31 seconds remaining.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The two programs that were mentioned are of course part of my programs, and my reference to those is included. They will be subject to more or less 4.5 per cent savings. We believe those savings will be made in those programs. We are still waiting on the Forrest report, which will deal substantively with Aboriginal and Islander employment and engagement, and in the months coming we will have more to say on that. I would like to commend Mr Forrest on his excellent work.

Nova Peris (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a further supplementary question. Why won't the minister tell the truth and concede that cuts to services totalling more than half a billion across government will widen the gap rather than close it for Indigenous Australians?

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the real question is: why won't Senator Peris stop misleading Australians by continuing to quote the $500 million across—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is in the budget papers—$534 million. Read your own budget paper. Would you like me to photocopy it for you?

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate brilliantly points to—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is in your budget paper.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, indeed. But they have to take into consideration that it includes health. It also includes the fact that $115 million was taken across that budget. It does not include $54-odd million in cuts to come from the department. It is okay for them to try to lecture me about the frontline and the headline, but it is not reasonable to continue to frighten the public and to frighten Aboriginal and Islander people about a disingenuous approach. We know we can confidently make a modest contribution to repairing the terrible budget left by those on the other side. I know that Aboriginal and Islander people are behind us on those measures. (Time expired)

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Senator Payne. Senator, is it fair that many members of the current cabinet, including the Prime Minister and the Minister for Education, received their undergraduate university education for free, while your government is planning on increasing student fees for nursing students by an estimated 18 per cent, fees for arts students by 60 per cent and fees for engineering and science students by 55 per cent? Why should registered nurses earning average salaries of $55,000 a year pay an extra $8,500 in interest bills for their degrees?

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Rhiannon for the question. As I said to the Senate yesterday over a number of minutes in answer to a question from Senator McKenzie, what the Australian government is addressing in terms of our higher education system is a very, very important issue of competitiveness—making sure that we can be a world-class tertiary education nation that takes its rightful place, with its universities in their rightful place, internationally. What we have done in this budget is to look at key reform issues which have been ignored by those opposite—and ignored with aplomb, I might say—

Senator Brandis interjecting—

or 'insouciance', perhaps, Senator Brandis; you might be right—for their entire period in government. And we have decided that, in terms of competitiveness, and in terms of the engagement of what will be 80,000 more students by 2018 in our tertiary system, these are very important steps to take.

What Senator Rhiannon's question also does not address is the aspect of scholarships, which I did mention in brief yesterday—those scholarships which will be funded through the contribution of higher education institutions. The opening up of institutions which can participate in the tertiary spectrum, including those who offer diplomas and pre-bachelor degree courses, is going to make pathways so much easier for those who perhaps want an opportunity to see if they can do a Bachelor of Business or something like that.

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

That's not what they're saying at UWS.

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And the UWS College, Senator Cameron, as you would know, or should know—perhaps you do not; perhaps that is not something you have come across in your peregrinations through Western Sydney—is a very good example of exactly that sort of thing. It actually establishes an opportunity for students— (Time expired)

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Senator, doesn't your government's plan to charge interest at the higher rate of up to six per cent on all existing HECS debts constitute a broken contract with the 1.8 million Australians who are still repaying their student debt, many of whom have graduated and are in the workforce? This does not create the tertiary-educated nation you speak of.

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Rhiannon for her supplementary question. It is actually interesting that HECS is raised in the chamber this afternoon. I do not know whether all the members here have read one of Dr Andrew Leigh's co-authored books, Imagining Australia, but there is this very, very interesting piece in Dr Leigh's book—and I believe that those opposite are very familiar with Dr Leigh:

… we propose that Australian universities be free to set … fees according to the market value of their degrees. A deregulated or market-based—

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I draw your attention to the issue of relevance. The senator is speaking on issues not linked with the question and reading out quotes about that issue. Could you draw her attention back to the question asked, please.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I am listening to the minister's answer closely. There is no point of order at this stage. The minister still has 25 seconds remaining.

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me start again with Dr Leigh's words—he is, of course, the shadow Assistant Treasurer:

… we propose that Australian universities be free to set … fees according to the market value of their degrees. A deregulated or market-based HECS will make the student contribution system fairer, because the fees students pay will more closely approximate the value they receive through future earnings.

Let me also say that it is very important to note that current students will effectively be grandfathered. These new arrangements— (Time expired)

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Yesterday on Sky News, Minister Pyne stated that the coalition's university deregulation agenda would:

… drive the price down because competition always drives the price down.

But less than a minute later the minister stated that prices might go up or might go down, depending on competition. Senator, which of Minister Pyne's statements is true? And can you explain how prices go up if competition always drives prices down?

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that what is very important to note is that, in a competitive market, some prices go up and some prices go down. And we can be confident that some prices will go down because, for the first time ever, the Commonwealth will be supporting all students in all undergraduate courses, from higher education diplomas to bachelor degrees. With 80,000 more students funded for the first time, fees must go down. Competition between universities and colleges is also going to help to prevent fees from rising excessively. We will also, of course, as I mentioned earlier, have our universities and colleges being required to spend one dollar in every five dollars of additional revenue on Commonwealth scholarships which will provide support to disadvantaged students. This is a major equity program. The opportunities that will be available to disadvantaged students— (Time expired)

Senator Conroy interjecting—

Senator Brandis interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senators Brandis and Conroy, it would assist the conduct of business in the chamber if your discussion was held outside.