Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Human Services, Senator Payne, representing the Minister for Education. Can the minister advise the Senate of recent commentary on the need to pass the government's Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill?

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

I particularly thank the senator for his question today, because it has been fascinating. Since the introduction by Minister Pyne of the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill in the other place last week we have had higher education leaders around the country calling on parliament to pass the bill, and specifying amendments. But today's media reports are particularly interesting. That is because the first paragraph of the article in The Australian begins, 'The architect of the former Labor government's education reforms…' The side bar is headed, 'Gonski backs Libs on uni fees.'

And we know that those opposite regard what Mr Gonski says with regard to education as holy writ. So one imagines that as the Chancellor of the University of New South Wales—and exceptional university, I might add—and one of the nation's most respected businessmen is now backing 'the government's plan to deregulate higher education fees, claiming it will free up universities even greater,' it would be welcomed by those opposite.

Mr Gonski said that it would improve the student experience and there would be better teacher-student ratios et cetera. Those would be real benefits for students but, of course, those opposite will continue to ignore that.

I think I mentioned yesterday that Universities Australia, the overall peak body, has simply said, 'Approve the higher education package with amendments.' The Innovative Research Universities' members, including Murdoch University and Griffith University headed their statement with, 'Support higher education legislation with amendments'. They said:

IRU members support the direction of the legislation, which will provide a viable basis for universities over the next decade.

The Australian Technology Network universities, including universities like Curtin University and QUT said:

… passage through the Senate is crucial to protect the international reputation for quality higher education, representing around $15 Billion in export earnings … ( Time expired)

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a supplementary question. Can the minister inform the Senate of what university leaders have said would be the consequences if the government's higher education reforms fail to pass.

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

I would like to go back to Mr Gonski but in deference to Senator Seselja I will pursue those issues. The chair of Universities Australia, Professor Sandra Harding, the Vice-Chancellor of James Cook University, has said that the status quo is not an option. The Universities Australia statement said, further:

Either the status quo of ongoing inadequate investment, or further cuts without deregulation will condemn Australia's great university system to inevitable decline, threaten our international reputation and make it increasingly difficult for universities to meet the quality expectations of our students.

As the University of Western Australia said:

The status quo is not feasible as it will over time erode the quality of our education and research activities—not a good position to be in when our nearest Asian competitors are investing so heavily in these areas.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a further supplementary question. Can the minister apprise the Senate of any alternative approaches to university reform.

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

I would like to be able to advise of alternatives but unfortunately it is a bit of a blank sheet, because all we have offered by those opposite is cuts—no plan and no reforms. That is the alternative to the government's package: cuts without positive reform. The previous government cut higher education research spending in this country by over $6.6 billion. And at the same time they did not provide universities with the opportunity—

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

That's rubbish.

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

Come in spinner! They did not provide universities with the opportunity to offer diploma and other sub-bachelor places that they wanted to offer. They did not give them the freedom to set their own fees. They left organisations like the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy and the Future Fellowships on a funding cliff. And they know they did. The quality indicators for learning and teaching that university leaders recommended, and that would provide students with the information they needed—they did not provide that, either. All of these depend on this reform bill