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

I move:

That the Senate notes the adverse impact of the Abbott Government's proposed cuts to university funding and deregulation of higher education.

Today is a very inconvenient day for the Minister for Education because today a report card has been delivered on the performance of the Australian university system, and it is a very good report card. The Times Higher Education world university rankings show Australia has, indeed, a world-class university system. As Phil Baty, the editor of the Times Higher Education world university rankings, says:

This has been a strong year for Australia, with just about all of its top universities moving up the rankings.

The data shows that Australia does not have just a few world-class universities, but a world-class system …

Eight Australian universities have now made the top 200 and a further 12 universities have entered into the rankings in the 200 to 400 group. How inconvenient! We had the Treasurer yesterday saying that we had to have deregulation of the university system so we could get into the top 200. But now we clearly have evidence otherwise. It is reflected in so many of the different world indices just how strong the Australian education system is.

There has been no slide in international competitiveness, which is what has been asserted by the government. Rather, what you see on the evidence is improvement in the performance of the Australian university system. Australia's university system is no doubt—and, as a result of these rankings, this cannot be argued—amongst the best in the world. In fact, I believe it is probably fifth in the world systems at the moment.

We, Australia, are not sliding into mediocrity. We are well and truly punching above our weight. These rankings highlight just how good our universities are as a direct result of the funding put to these universities by the Australian Labor Party in government. There was a 100 per cent increase in funding. There was a 100 per cent increase over the life of the Labor government through to the end of the current forward estimates. Our record has shown major investments in science and research, with a 42 per cent increase in funding for science and research.

But all of this great achievement is under threat from the madcap ideology of the North Shore suburbs of Sydney and the merchant bankers' attitude that is so prevalent there, which thinks that everything west of the Sydney Harbour Bridge is a foreign land. They take the view that if you are rich and powerful then you are entitled to get public support, and the rest of us can go to blazes. This is a system that we have seen produce the mentality of the Treasurer, Mr Hockey, with his destruction of manufacturing. It is the sort of attitude that you see even Mr Turnbull expressing from time to time. All of those who are very familiar with the millionaires' club understand that if you look after your own people they will look after you as well, won't they? That is the whole premise on which the Liberal Party operates.

Mr Baty, the editor of the Times Higher Education world university rankings, says:

The big question, as Australia moves into a period of radical reform with the full deregulation of tuition fees, is whether this admirable strength-in-depth—

this is how he describes the present system—

can be maintained …

The reforms may help a small … elite protect or even improve their global standing, but what about the rest?

Are we going to see a greater polarisation in Australia between a global super-elite and a large number of also-rans …

In his assessment, a large number would go into a period of decline. These are very good questions. These are very good questions that we in this Senate have to consider because legislation is currently before a Senate committee of this parliament which poses these very questions.

The report we have today from this world index is a stunning rebuke to the government. It is a stunning rebuke to their savage cuts. A 20 per cent reduction is what this government is seeking in the teaching programs of our universities, with substantial cuts to research programs, fee increases of up to 10 per cent for research students and a system of deregulation which would lead to unrestrained increases in student fees and reinforce the notion that those with money should be able to protect their privileged positions in society and pass on to their kids those privileged positions. We see from this index a rebuke to this government's policies on research, with their cuts to the Australian Research Council and the Research Training Scheme and their introduction of higher fees for PhD students. The government's policies are clearly in tatters.

We know that this is a government—whether it be on Medicare changes, the protection of financial services, the wilful destruction, as I say, of manufacturing or the abandonment of Defence workers—that is deeply unpopular as the public understands just how much they were misled. They were misled by a government that went to the last election and said that there would be no cuts to education, there would be no cuts to health, there would be no cuts to the ABC, and of course we see after the election some of the most savage reductions in public expenditure in the nation's history. But it is not just that. We see the attempt to impose a philosophy on the operations of our university system that, at its core, suggests an immorality—an immorality that says that we should abandon people who are not so well off, we should abandon the traditional commitment that this country has had to the idea that if you work hard and if you have the brains then you have the right to expect a quality education.

This government is trying to price education out of the reach of hundreds of thousands of Australian families. You will not be able to find an interest group—one university, one student group, one staff group, one professional group—that actually supports the government's package as it stands; not one. It is a policy that is rotten to the core. It is a policy that cannot be fixed by the odd amendment here or there. It cannot simply be amended. This is legislation that cannot be sugar coated. We know that the minister is talking about the realities, as this government has had to do in so many areas, of introducing such ham-fisted, such illogical, such dishonest legislation as we see in terms of what is being done with the universities.

Yesterday the government had to acknowledge certain realities with regard to social security legislation. In so many areas the government has to recognise that its reductions in people's social rights will not be tolerated. We know now that the education minister is joining that long conga line of ministers trying to find some grovelling way to get out of his predicament. He is talking to his trusted vice-chancellors about how he can put this legislation off until next year. Maybe he can get past March next year. The lie that is being told—that the Senate has this choice between deregulation and budget cuts—is being exposed. The reality is that the government cannot impose its budget cuts without changes to legislation. That requires this Senate to agree. And despite all the minister's efforts to secure a majority, it is quite clear that a majority in this chamber does not exist.

So, the minister is seeking to find an escape hatch—as he should. This is legislation that is fundamentally flawed. This is legislation that should never have been introduced. It certainly should not have been introduced without a proper discussion and in complete contrast with what was actually said prior to the last election. It should not have been introduced in the knowledge that it had such far-reaching implications. In the past when governments have sought to fundamentally change the structure of our university system the established practice has been to talk to people first—to have a green paper, a white paper, a consultative council—and then to have legislation. That is what John Dawkins did, for instance, when he wanted to champion—

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

I'm glad you brought that up!

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

I recall, Senator: John Dawkins introduced some changes which you vigorously opposed. Do you remember those? I think you are on the public record, down at Deakin saying that you strenuously stood on a platform opposing any fees whatsoever. I look forward to hearing you explain how you now support it. Perhaps you are like the Minister for Education, who, when he has been caught out on this, has said, 'I simply told people what they wanted to hear.' He was in training to be the education minister of the Commonwealth of Australia! As a student, he just told them what they wanted to hear—did not believe a word of it, he says now.

We have a situation where the government is seeking to delay these bills until next year. They will keep on being on the table. They will say, 'Oh, yes, we're sticking to our guns here; we're determined to fight on, but we'll have to deal with it another time.' And of course they know that come next March, under the current law, there is a need for a reconciliation between what is in the budget and what is in the legislation. They are withholding the money from universities at this time, despite the fact that the parliament has now rejected those changes three times. They are saying, 'We'll get them through later on.' We will find that by next March, under law, they are required to make a reconciliation and that universities will be able to pursue their legal rights at law.

It is not good enough for the government to simply announce that they are going to slash the budget where there is a clear piece of legislation indicating the way in which money is to be expended. They expend money on the authority granted by the parliament. They do not have the discretion simply to rewrite the legislation without parliamentary approval. The government knows this. They know it is bad policy, and they know it is flawed policy, so they need to find a new narrative to explain their funding cuts, their breach of promise to the electorate, their undermining of their commitments to the Australian people. They need to explain how they have stripped out of Australia the basic principle of a fair go. They have to explain what they have done to undermine the research program upon which our prosperity—new industries, new technologies, new opportunities—is so heavily reliant. They have to explain all of that. So they will simply be trying to run some sort of argument that the reality of their dog-eat-dog policies, their survival-of-the-fittest vision, has hit this tremendous brick wall. And that is what the Senate inquiry will be able to highlight to them—just how much of a brick wall they have hit. They simply will not be able to conceal the fact that the moral imperative of higher education cannot be escaped.

It is morally wrong to vastly increase the cost of a degree, to shift the burden of paying that cost on to students, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. It is morally wrong to claim that you are only asking for 50 per cent in payments when in reality we know that under the charges that have already been proposed by a number of universities, particularly the University of Western Australia, the figure is between 60 and 70 per cent; it is morally wrong to undermine economic and social opportunities particularly for women; and it is morally wrong for governments to undermine the position of rural and regional families and communities—and it is morally wrong for National Party to be so supine in their approach to participating in this government.

The government cannot salvage this plan through any attempt to verbal crossbenchers about what their position has been. How many times have we been told that the crossbenchers will say one thing publicly but privately they are saying something else? Why is it necessary for people to put their views to the minister in writing? That has happened because the minister was not able to get people to the various meetings that he thought they should attend, and that happened simply because they had been told so often what the position is—and, if anything is the case, there might be people on the cross benches to the left of the Labor Party on these questions.

The government fails to appreciate that these proposals it is advancing are so deeply resented by the Australian people simply because they are not in the national interest. Education is not just about private returns. Yes you receive a private benefit—of course you do—but that is nothing to be squeamish about. Fundamentally, though, the reason the government invests the majority of the money in our universities is the public good. For the basic social and economic infrastructure of our society we need an educated people—not just an educated workforce but an educated people. We need a commitment to ensure that our learning institutions, our universities, are able to pursue important issues in the development of new knowledge and to develop public understandings and civic responsibilities. We also need to ensure we have enough nurses, enough doctors, enough scientists and enough engineers. We have to ensure we have enough vets—even the National Party should understand how important it is to at least have enough vets in this country. They have to understand that, in a market system, if you are not going to earn a lot of money you are not likely to want to go into a program as an act of charity. The government has to ensure we have enough physicists. We have to be able to ensure that the country can progress as a civilised nation. Mr Pyne does not get that. However, I am absolutely confident that the Australian people do. They grasp just how important education is. The public understand how important it is not just to the individual but to society and to the economy. That is why you have this tremendous resentment being developed not just by students but by families across the nation. That is why people have an expectation of the social right that the quality of our education will not be dependent upon the income of mum or dad. The capacity to participate in our society should not ever be a product solely of your postcode. That is why the public is so deeply hostile to what this government is doing—they know that we will all be judged on the measures that this parliament takes. That is why I am looking forward to the next election. I think this will be a central issue. The prospect of full public engagement in the discussion about what sort of society we want to be and what sort of role universities play in that will be an important issue for determining the result of the next election. We want to ensure that access to higher education should depend on individual ability and choice but it should not be dependent on wealth or family background. We believe those principles are worth defending. We want to ensure that there is equality of opportunity in this society. The government's program of deregulation, of price hikes, of raising fees and of pampering to the privileged is disingenuous. They have tried to dress this up as something that it is not and have been found out. We understand in this country how important the education system is and in many respects that is why, up until relatively recent times, education has enjoyed broadly bipartisan commitments. What we do notice—I guess it is a pattern we saw with Minister Vanstone, as we see with Mr Pyne—is that when the Liberals get in they do feel the need to change things. (Time expired)

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to 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—

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator McKenzie, please resume your seat. I remind senators that interjections are disorderly and I ask, if you want to have a discussion, that you do it through me.

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

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President, for reminding me. Our reforms ensure that those young people—and indeed middle-aged Australians—who have, for a variety of reasons, been unable to access higher education will actually be able to do it. That has to be a good thing. I would really love to have a unity ticket with the Labor Party and the Greens on that particular aspect of our package.

Our reforms will mean that colleges and TAFEs in regional areas can offer more courses with qualifications leading to careers or further studies. Federation University Australia in Ballarat and La Trobe University, for example, have partnerships with TAFEs in regional Victoria to provide pathways to higher education for people who might not otherwise get an opportunity. Charles Sturt University in southern New South Wales states that 26 per cent of its undergraduate students gained entry via a partnership pathway with their local TAFE—TAFEs like Wodonga TAFE. That has to be a good thing.

We are abolishing unfair loan fees on VET FEE-HELP. So, rather than stand up here and argue for Grammarians' right to have a free education—they are already there, Senator Carr. We have got enough Grammarians in our higher education system. We need to get some more of my people and some more of your people from the western suburbs of Melbourne into higher education to ensure that they can both have the personal benefit and obviously contribute to the public benefit through their studies. We are also abolishing the unfair loan fees for VET FEE-HELP and FEE-HELP. That is 1,600 bucks a year in the back pocket of the people that need it most. But do not let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Rather than quote foreigners, I think I will quote locals who are champions of the government's reform agenda, who do recognise the need to change, who do recognise that we must get our higher education sector on a financially sustainable track. I go to the Chair of the Group of Eight universities, Professor Ian Young, who previously was Vice-Chancellor of Swinburne University: 'Deregulation will allow all universities to play to their strengths.'

Regional Universities Network—I love it that Labor comes in here and quotes this side of the Senate's concern for regional Australia. Sorry, through your legislative program over the last six years, it is little bit hard to find your concern with the mining tax, the carbon tax et cetera—but we will not go there. The Regional Universities Network has stated that 'the deregulation of student fees is the only feasible way that the sector can maintain quality and remain internationally competitive', provided that we ensure that those students from regional areas are supported through pathways to get to the higher education of their choice.

I have not had time to go into the role of Commonwealth scholarships in ensuring that those bright kids from Wycheproof High, from Bendigo, from Ballarat and from Benalla will be able to access higher education no matter where they are, getting them over the financial barrier of the 20-odd grand that it will cost their parents or themselves to fund their relocation expenses and their living expenses. I think that is fantastic. It is not just about ensuring regional kids have access in their local environment; it is ensuring they have access to whatever area of study they feel is best. What we are interested in doing is not only empowering universities to chart their own course but empowering Australian students to make decisions about their future, and hence our nation's future, with respect to where they want to study. I think that has to be a good thing. I cannot believe the Labor Party is proposing that we restrict student choice, that we restrict their capacity.

In relation to the NUS $100,000 scare campaign, I have an alternative press release, and it does quote the NUS report stating that it is not claiming that every degree at every university will cost $100,000. I wish that were out in the media, because that would ensure that those low-SES students who are price sensitive, for very good reasons, are not scared off getting excellent quality at an Australian institution.

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

The higher education package that the government has put before us is very troubling because what it would do to Australia in the long term is extremely serious. It would rip billions of dollars of funding from our public universities, it would put enormous hardship on our students and their families and it would really change the make-up of the types of people who would have the opportunity to gain an education. That is because of the way the government wants to restructure the debt, ripping huge amounts of money, $5 billion, out of the sector.

It is interesting in this debate to follow on from the previous speaker, Senator McKenzie. She misrepresented what this legislation would do if it were passed. She has failed to represent her own constituency, the regional people of Victoria. The Nationals are failing to speak up for what will happen to regional universities. Maybe that is an area I could start with. Regional universities would be put at huge disadvantage under what is proposed by this government. Let us remember that even large regional centres—for example, Newcastle, one of the biggest regional cities in this country—only have one university. So how does competition work when you only have one university?

So many of the arguments behind Minister Pyne's justification for bringing in such an extreme range of changes through this legislation just fall over when you start looking at it closely, particularly with regard to how regional universities would work. They would lose out. We are not hearing that from Senator McKenzie. We are not hearing Nationals senators get up and question what will happen to regional students, how their universities will fare. At the moment we can see that they will not benefit and in fact will lose out from the way in which this is structured.

As I said, this legislation will rip billions of dollars out of our public universities. Also significant to this debate is that some of the money that once went to public universities will now go to private providers, private companies, making a profit out of higher education. Effectively these changes would shut the door on educational opportunities for so many young people, particularly disadvantaged people from regional areas. That is something that we should be giving great consideration to. While there were problems under the previous government in terms of how funding was allocated, there was certainly a greater opportunity for a range of people from diverse backgrounds to access our education system. But now funding will be slashed and a higher debt burden will be pushed onto students, with compound interest being imposed. So the debt burden will last for many more years, more so if you are low-income earner and more so if you are a woman who takes time off to have children. The way it targets certain groupings really does reflect poorly on this government and is a reminder that the sort of higher education system we would end up with with this government is a system that really returns us to the old days where higher education was more the domain of wealthy white men. That is certainly not healthy for our society.

Something I have certainly been picking up since the budget was announced, bringing forward this horror package, is the anxiety it is bringing to many students and their families who are unsure of their future, unsure of how much their sons and daughters will have to pay and uncertain about what cost burden they might have to pick up, because, understandably, many parents want the very best for their children and will step in. You start to feel that that is what the government is relying on. I was very disappointed with Senator McKenzie. How she has betrayed the urgent need to have strong voices for regional universities needs to be emphasised because that is one sector that will lose out badly here.

Senator Carr, when he spoke, detailed the Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2014-2015 that came out today. That has been very timely on a day when there has been so much about our education system in the news. It has been very useful to be able to have it in the public domain today because, effectively, what that has shown is that so many of our universities have increased their ranking. It is something that we can all be very proud of. Congratulations to the students and staff who put in the hard yards and worked so hard. That is essentially why it has been achieved. It is further proof that what Minister Pyne is bringing forward is not the way we are going to achieve the top ranking—it has already been achieved. Our universities are going up in the rankings already, and his idea that it has to be pushed into the marketplace, that you have to rip the billions of dollars out of it, that we need to bring in all this competition, that we need to deregulate the system and that students should pay record fees is a step backwards. You would see the rankings going down. It is important that we bring those two aspects of the debate together.

The other issue that is very important here and that we need to give attention to is the issue of private providers. Of all the troubling aspects of this legislation, this is one of the most serious. Here we have a minister and a government set to rip billions of dollars from the higher education system. How could you do that? We hear the fine speeches from conservative politicians about how they support an innovative, educated nation. You cannot achieve that when you have cutbacks at this level. But, when you look at the cutbacks, not all of it goes out of the education system. Yes, it goes from public universities, but about $500 million goes to private providers. This is very serious when you look at what has happened to the TAFE system in Victoria and how much that has been damaged by the penetration of private, for-profit companies that undermine the standards, the level of teaching, the range of courses that are available and the pathways of education that bring back into the workforce and into society so many people who have felt marginalised. This is not something to be taken lightly. This really goes to the heart of the future quality of our education. I would argue that the evidence is in that the minister has got it wrong and that he should now be ripping up his elitist reforms because it will strip away opportunity from so many students.

Just on this issue of private providers, I was interested to note Senator Carr's contribution—and I think there was an interjection from Senator McKenzie—about the former minister for education in this parliament, John Dawkins. Some people call him a reforming minister. His name is associated with many aspects of the changes to higher education. It is worth looking at what is happening there. It is a story I am starting to hear about and there will be more about it in coming weeks and months. Let's remind ourselves that it was only as recently as December last year that the former minister withdrew from the policy development that he was involved in. He had been chair of the National Skills Standards Council. He resigned from that. He also said he was not going to continue as chair of the Australian Qualifications Framework Council when his term there expired. What was announced was that he would then move over to the company Vocation.

This is a training, recruitment and student management company that was formed out of the amalgamation of three companies that work in this area. When it was floated on the stock market, this company's shares and value went up very quickly. I want to remind the Senate of the three companies that came together to form this company. This is very significant because it is part of this trend where both Labor, to some extent, and the coalition, to a much greater extent, are pushing our higher education down a track that is largely unproven. Drawing on the TAFE experience, there are now many examples of where it can be damaging. But in terms of a large scale delivery of higher education, there is certainly a big question over it.

In the case of Mr Dawkins, Vocation, the company that he has now moved over to, is made up of three companies: AVANA, a specialist in ecotourism training; CSIA which was one of the founding companies and had a paper value of $378 million when it was floated; and BAWM, which started out as Taylored Gardens and at one stage was the biggest recipient of state government training funds. The huge amount of money that this company has pulled together and the fact that its share price, within just one day when it was first floated, climbed from $1.89 to $2.03 in just a matter of hours does illustrate that there are many people looking at this as a quick and lucrative way to raise money because you are secure in terms of your money source because it is coming from the government. This is an area that is worthy of being watched. Mr Dawkins, when he went over, became the non-executive chair.

Some information that came out today shows that Vocation, which is a very large training provider, has been frozen in its entirety by Victoria's Department of Education. I draw the attention of senators to that fact. This issue is very relevant. We need to understand what is happening with private providers, because that area is a significant part of this legislation. If the legislation is passed, it is widely understood this will be a growth area. Now one of the biggest companies—with somebody very prestigious at the head of the organisation, Mr Dawkins—is being frozen. Why that has occurred and what the failures were within the company are things that we need to watch very closely.

I want to return to how this proposed legislation is playing out in the community. As I said in an earlier speech today, who can remember when a budget has caused so much anger for so long? What I am finding when I am out and about is that this budget is putting pressure on a lot of people. It is causing a lot of uncertainty; people are wondering about what the future holds for them. Many families are troubled about their children's futures. I would like to share with the Senate a personal story. While the bulk of the harsh measures in this budget are mainly loaded onto disadvantaged people and working-class people, I have realised that when it comes to higher education this budget is reaching into the heart of middle-class Australia. I was at a friend's place having a barbecue on a sunny winter's day. The father is a lawyer, the mother runs a small business and they have four small children. The children were running around. We were chatting about different things, and then all of a sudden the dad said: 'I really wonder how I am going to pay for their education. I don't know how I am going to do it.' These people are not hard up, but they are already looking at what the future holds for their children. They feel very responsible for their children, as so many parents do, with the desire to have higher education. What do they do about it?

This government would be wise to consider that this issue is resonating widely in the community. The anger is there. What Minister Pyne has brought forward is deeply wrong. He is incredibly out of touch. We know he has an amazing style: he chatters on, he has a laugh, he likes to talk to everybody and he makes out that he is willing to negotiate any time. But in fact this minister is somebody who has gone too far down the neoliberal path of shoving everything into the marketplace. Personally, I do not think that any education should be in the marketplace, but to open the higher education system up to market forces to such a degree cannot work. It cannot work for the system, it cannot work for the business community and it cannot work for industry. We need an educated workforce, but this is not just about skills for a job; it is about the wonder of being informed and the wonder of knowledge. That is something that is being killed off in the way that this minister has structured this bill. This is legislation that should in no form be allowed to pass.

It is worth reminding ourselves that, prior to this government coming into office, Australia was already lagging behind OECD nations in terms of funding. The level of per student government funding in Australia is well below the OECD average. When you look at the OECD analysis, Australia is lagging in a number of areas to do with higher education. That is nothing to be proud of. This is a reminder of how fantastic the news on university rankings was today—that is something to be proud of. It is because of the hard work of those in the sector, even though nearly 50 per cent of the workforce are casual and working under shocking conditions. These people are so deeply committed to their work. A good job is being done, but it is being done on a shoestring budget at the moment. So those figures are very much worth analysis.

In this debate, some comment needs to be made about Labor. I acknowledge the very strong speech made by Senator Carr on Labor's commitment to higher education. We had a debate earlier in the day where we saw Labor go wobbly despite the fact that their opposition leader Bill Shorten signed a pledge about not allowing changes in higher education to go through the Senate. Labor has now flipped over and is ready to work with the government on issues around relocation and other issues to do with student arrangements. We also need to remember that when Labor was in government they planned on cutting the education budget. It was a Saturday in April when the former minister, Mr Emerson, came out with an announcement to cut $2.3 billion from the higher education budget. It is one of the failed policies that they took to the election.

After the election, a strong campaign kicked in. The Greens, the unions, students and community members put the pressure on Labor, because we thought that Labor in opposition sometimes are a different beast and that under pressure they might come to their senses. They did. They dropped that wrong policy of funding cuts, and now they are resisting the bulk of these changes to higher education. But we need to put on the record that Labor need to be consistent in their policy, not just in opposition but in government, because sooner or later this government will be voted out. We have to ensure that when they are voted out, we have not in the meantime passed this very bad legislation.

I am certainly looking forward to the hearings of the committee that we have set up to inquire into this legislation. A range of people from our universities—including staff and people who analyse trends within the academic world and higher education in terms of government policy—will come to give evidence. That will help inform us to come back to this chamber to have an even more informed debate. There are already many warning signals here around private providers in terms of the level of deregulation and in terms of the way the debt would be structured. The warning bells have already sounded. A wise minister, if Mr Pyne were such a person, would withdraw this legislation, stop this elitist approach and sit down with the sector and with the Greens and Labor to come up with a plan to make higher education work for students and for the country.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak once again on the government's reckless move to deregulate Australian universities, cut university spending and increase student fees, and in turn create an endless cycle of debt and inequality in this country.

In November 2013, Christopher Pyne said:

We want university students to make their contribution, but we're not going to raise fees …

And everyone knows the famous quote the now Prime Minister made hours before the last federal election that there will be 'no cuts to education'. We know that that could not be any further from the truth.

But the contribution from Senator McKenzie a little earlier was breathtaking. She comes in here purporting to represent rural and regional Australia, as a Nationals senator, yet she is supporting a government that is going to do nothing but make it even more difficult for students from rural and regional Australia to go to university.

If this bill were to get through we know what effect it would have on universities across the country, no more so than what it would do to the University of Tasmania, in my home state. A lot of what Senator Carr has already put on the record spells out the arguments as to why we are opposed to this legislation and this attack on higher education, and it is for the same reason that many in the community have strongly voiced their concerns. They know what the effect will be, not only on the students who are at university now, but on so many families who will have to make choices. Those choices are going to be tough ones, if these changes were ever to be implemented. There will be some families that will have to make a choice about which of their children, if any, could ultimately attend university. We on this side of the chamber will always stand up for those young people, because they deserve an opportunity to go to university if they choose to.

If only Australians had known of this government's plans before the last election. It really makes you question what this government stands for. In total, this government intends to cut $5.8 billion from higher education, teaching, learning and research in our universities.

Under the government's changes to universities—unprecedented, I might add—they will be forced to put up their fees just to cover the loss of funding, which amounts to an average of 20 per cent across all undergraduate studies. Unrestrained fee hikes, and applying a compound interest rate to all HECS-HELP debts will hurt students across the country. It will create debt for students beyond belief. At worst it would deter Australians from going to university.

Members of this government are the gatekeepers. They are initiating these unfair, unprincipled decisions in order to keep people from going to university. They are engaged in conduct to create further inequality in this country. It is shameful and I will not stand for it, and nor will my colleagues. The Labor Party will not stand for it and the Australian community will not stand for it.

Senator McKenzie said that we should be putting the facts to the chamber, so I would like to address the contribution that was made by Senator Cash. I believe that I will be able to demonstrate that she misquoted the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation. In their submissions to the Senate inquiry on higher education reform, the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation said that a nursing degree under a deregulated system would range from $24,000 to $34,000. Whilst this may or may not be right, what it certainly does is dispels the lies and disinformation that is being spread by the other side that a degree would cost $100,000. To quote the federation, 'Depending on fee levels that could be set at any range following deregulation, and as our submission clearly states, nursing degrees could increase in excess of $65,000.' I thought it was important that we put that on the record.

We know that in the United States, the system Christopher Pyne seems so keen to emulate, university fee rises are out of control and student debt now exceeds credit card debt. The system is broken and it feeds inequality. In Australia, under the current system, the very system we have today, universities have perfect freedom to compete on price. So we know fees will go up substantially. We will have $100,000 degrees. But that is not all. This government has also decided to add a real interest charge on the HECS-HELP loans. Just when you thought it could not get any worse, yes, it does. Applying real interest rates to HECS is regressive. That is why students and stakeholders are opposed to it. Every single stakeholder, except the worst Treasurer in our history, Treasurer Joe Hockey, thinks this idea reeks. A real interest rate on HECS-HELP loans means a degree will cost a lot more than the course fee and will take much longer to pay off. Without compounding interest, those who earn low incomes or who take time out of the workforce to raise a family will end up paying the most. That is what this government does not take into account. It does not take into account the individual circumstances of students and the individual circumstances of families. What about a single mother who wants to go back to university and who wants to better her future and the future of her children? How is she supposed to cope? How is she supposed to get by and afford to go to university?

Ignoring all the evidence of higher fees and crippling debt, Mr Christopher Pyne has claimed that his higher education changes will actually benefit students from low socioeconomic backgrounds because they include the so-called Commonwealth scholarships. This claim is the biggest mistruth of all. The scholarship scheme will receive no Commonwealth funding—no money at all from this government. It is to be funded entirely by other students. It is shameful. Shame on those opposite for bringing in the most detrimental changes to universities in Australia's history. A university education is a path to opportunity for individuals. It allows individuals, families and the community more broadly to benefit from individuals who would like the opportunity to better themselves through higher education. This opportunity has been recklessly ripped away from students.

I want to reflect briefly on Labor's record when it comes to higher education. We have a proud record. We are the party that understands that if someone wants to pull themselves up through higher education, then they should have the opportunity to do so. It should not matter where you live or what family come from. If you are an Australian, then you should be entitled to go to university at a cost that will not burden your future. Labor boosted universities' real revenue per student, including government and student contributions, by 10 per cent. This represented an extra $1,700 for universities to spend on quality teaching for every student. Labor lifted government investment in universities from $8 billion in 2007 to $14 billion in 2013.

We are committed to proper indexation for university funds. If we kept the funding model introduced by the Howard government, universities would today be worse off to the tune of $3 billion. If our funding model were to be maintained, Commonwealth investment in universities would be $17 billion a year by 2017. Labor made it easier for young people to study with the students start-up scholarships, which helped more than 427,000 Australians with the cost of study. We also introduced a relocation scholarship, helping 76,000 people leave home to obtain their degree.

Labor boosted funding for regional universities by 56 per cent. There are 750,000 students at Australian universities today and one in every four of them is there because of Labor. We put 190,000 more students on campus, we boosted Indigenous student numbers by 26 per cent, we boosted regional student numbers by 30 per cent and we had more than 36,000 extra students from low-income families in universities compared to 2007. Labor also invested $4.35 billion in world-class research and teaching facilities through the Education Investment Fund. That includes $500 million earmarked for regional Australia, so that country kids would have the same access to quality courses in universities and regional universities would be able to attract and retain world-class researchers.

That is what we did. We are not like those on the other side, who come into this place and purport to be here representing rural and regional Australia. We actually deliver to rural and regional Australia. We did all of this not because it was a vote winner but because it is the right thing to do. We did this because we understand what university means in a way that the coalition never has and never will. It is an opportunity for every Australian, but I do not think that those opposite will ever understand it. It really is a shame.

Now I will talk a little bit about my home state of Tasmania and the University of Tasmania. We in Tasmania only have one university and it is a great university. It is already feeling under pressure from this government, because there will be in excess of $30 million ripped away from that university. There is not necessarily other opportunities for Tasmanians to be able to choose to go to another university. They may not have the means to be able to move interstate and to study at other universities. There will not be any competition that is going to make their opportunities any better in my home state.

I can tell you about a visit that I made recently to the university at the Hobart campus; it was to the Wicking Dementia Research and Education Centre. I discussed with those students there their passion for what they are doing. This centre is providing opportunities for individuals to obtain to degrees which will help people suffering from dementia and help people overcome this debilitating disease. This is a real and pressing concern in my home state of Tasmania. That is, that the University of Tasmania will be forced to cut staff, cut courses and condense what they are able to offer to the community.

It has recently been reported that the Newnham campus in Launceston will be forced to condense its campus. Downgrading the university's northern campus will force students to think about whether they attend university at all, whether they are able to attend the University of Tasmania in Hobart and whether they would be forced to try to access an interstate university. There is real doubt about the future of the university in northern Tasmania, because of those opposite. That is because of their decision to cut $30 million from the University of Tasmania's funding.

Senator McKenzie made reference to the fact that we have a low retention rate of young Tasmanians going on to higher education. That is exactly right. But instead of trying to ensure that those young people have the opportunity to attend the University of Tasmania, they are going to make it more and more difficult. I have been informed that there are currently discussions occurring about restructuring and downsizing the staff, so there will be staff cuts if this goes through. Unfortunately, it seems that the member for Bass, Andrew Nikolic, is in favour of the university downsizing and potentially relocating to Inveresk. I cannot fathom why Mr Nikolic would have this view. This was how he was quoted in the newspaper yesterday. He knows that a cut to the University of Tasmania to the tune of $30 million means that it will be forced into an undesirable position—one for which this government will bear the consequences.

Those opposite fail to understand the importance of education. Every time those opposite get into federal government they do exactly the same thing: they cut education. They would rather see people from low-socioeconomic backgrounds not go to university, because they do not agree with the option of there being higher education for all. That is really sad. Every time there is a change of government and Labor come back in, we build up the education system in this country. We give greater opportunities for all students to go onto university, to have the best education they can, because we know the value of education. Sometimes people just need a helping hand. They need a hand-up; they do not want a hand-out. But the government—as we know from the budget measures that they are trying to get through this place—are abandoning the most vulnerable people in our community. They are making it more and more difficult for young people to access higher education.

The then Leader of the Opposition said before the election that there will be no cuts to education. And what happened? Those opposite are proposing cuts to education that will have an enormous impact on all the universities in this country. Those opposite said that there will be no cuts to the pension; there will be no change to the pension. That was clearly wrong, because the way they intend to index the age pension will affect those who rely on it in this country.

Those opposite said that there will be no cuts to health, and now they want to introduce a $7 co-payment for GPs. Every time you have a pathology test, it will cost another $7. Some people have to have blood tests on a regular basis. People will be trying to decide: 'Should I really have the blood test this month or not? Do I have that extra $7?' For those people on the other side, $7 probably does not seem like very much to you. However, as I have had to live on a very limited income and be reliant on the government for part of the time in raising my children, I can tell you that at the end of your fortnight $7 is a lot of money when you just do not have it—not because you have wasted your money but because you are on a limited income. But those people on that side of the chamber clearly do not understand those circumstances.

So I say again to those opposite that they fail to understand the importance of education. They fail to understand the importance of providing the young people and the mature-age people of this country with the opportunity of attending university to either further their education or take undertake study for the first time because they were not able to do so before. Unfortunately, people on that side of the chamber fail to realise that. They do not realise that every Australian has the right to improve their lot in life. They deserve the opportunity to go to university. They do not deserve to be saddled with a huge debt when they leave university and are trying to establish themselves in the workforce or providing for a family.

The proper funding of universities is an investment in Australia's future. This government should not be let off the hook when it comes to university funding. This rushed package of broken promises must be scrapped. We on this side will not rest, and I know that there are those in the community who will also not rest, until this package of bills is defeated. The government should go back to the drawing board and consult with the sector and the community before it announces policy changes that will create greater inequality in this country.

The failings of this government are in a whole range of areas, not just in health, not just in education and not just in my area of responsibility of aged care. This government does not know how to go out and consult with the community or with the sectors. They do not understand that. As I said earlier today in the chamber: the minister responsible for aged care in this country has taken his eye off the ball. He has not taken advice from his department. He has not consulted with his sector. And here we have yet another example of an arrogant, out-of-touch government that has failed to consult the education sector. (Time expired)

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I make this contribution as a former academic at a university in Western Australia—in fact, it was a regional university—of some 11 years experience. I have also been a visiting academic—on two occasions at the University of California, which is probably one of the greatest university systems in the world, and at the University of Kentucky. For Senator Polley's information, I also make this contribution as a person who went through university without any financial support from my parents. I was from a low-socioeconomic background. I went to the University of Queensland and I paid the cost of my university education. So I will not stand here and be lectured to by Senator Polley or by anybody else about what people apparently on our sided are about.

I say this and I say it in all seriousness to the Labor Party and to the Greens: come on board with these reforms, come on board with this new legislation, or be left out in the dark. You will be left out where you should not be, because you do have a proud record associated with university education. But understand this—and I say this to Senator Carr in his absence—if he thinks by obfuscating in the way in which he has been that he is in some way going to force this government to a double dissolution election and if he thinks he is going to trash the opportunities of tens of thousands of young and middle-age Australians in their attainment of a university education or a higher education simply because of some cheap political means then I say he will be damned, and so will his party be damned. Be part of the solution.

Let us all be very, very clear on why the university sector finds itself where it is now. It is because the Labor government at the time lifted the cap on the number of students available to go to universities but did nothing to actually deregulate the industry—the higher education sector. So they found themselves in a circumstance where the universities simply could not pay for the increased costs of the students. The only way forward are the initiatives of Mr Pyne, and for this legislation, with amendment—and I accept that—to be passed.

We just heard Senator Polley talking about funding. She omitted to say in her contribution that the Labor Party, before it left government, was intending to cut some $6.6 billion out of higher education research. I give credit to Senator Rhiannon. She said that of that $6.6 billion, $2.8 billion was removed by the Labor government in April 2013. So do not come into this place on your high horse and talk about activities that the Labor government would have done. Senator Polley also spoke about the start-up scholarship scheme. But she did not say that it was being turned by the then Labor government into—you would not believe it!—a loan. What hypocrisy for them to be standing in the road of a loan scheme when they themselves were going to introduce it. We should always in these circumstances not take advice from ourselves; we should take it from the leaders of the institutions who are responsible for the delivery of the services. I look at the excellent work undertaken by the universities. There are policy notes on higher education reforms and on modelling the impact of higher education reforms; the policy notes Paying off HELP debts: case studies; Tuition fees at Australian universities and Understanding graduate earnings; and the speech, 'Micro-economic reform of the Australian higher education system'. This is the sort of quality of data that is available to us all, which I would hope the Labor Party and the Greens will avail themselves of.

Let us turn to what the leaders of Australia's tertiary institutions are saying. Ms Belinda Robinson, CEO of Universities Australia, said, 'failure of the package will condemn the university sector to inevitable decline.' Is that what Senator Carr wants? Is that what Senator Polley wants? Is that what the Labor Party and the Greens want? I hope not, as a proud university graduate myself and past academic. 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. I quote from the Chair of Regional Universities Network and Vice-Chancellor of Southern Cross University, Professor Peter Lee:

… deregulation of student fees was the only way that the sector could maintain quality and access and remain internationally competitive, as significant, additional government funding is unlikely, irrespective of political party composition

This is what the leaders of the universities are saying. The Executive Director of the Australian Technology Network:

To reject the legislation out of hand … would be to sign the death warrant on a globally respected higher education system. The demise wouldn't be overnight of course; it will be slow and painful …

There are many statements from all of the leaders of the university sector. That is what we are faced with in this country.

What is the government proposing to do? It is a ground-breaking and legendary. It is an opportunity for students throughout the socioeconomic scheme to be involved. It is an opportunity for a further 80,000 students to benefit across the sectors of higher education diplomas, advanced diplomas, associate degrees and going on to study undergraduate courses. I say, as a regional university person, that this is the very value to the regional universities of this scheme. I had the privilege of giving the occasional address at Curtin University's graduation ceremony the other day with the vice-chancellor. She has been quoted as saying that the opportunities that this will provide, for example, for the WA School of Mines, will be valuable. I have said so also for the Muresk Institute, of which I was an academic for some time. It is by coincidence, at this very moment, that the Premier of Western Australia, the Hon. Colin Barnett, is the fourth premier to be delivering the Muresk lecture, which he is doing at this very time. I have no doubt that he will be talking about the opportunity to expand the academic availability of courses at such an institution.

We talk about the loan schemes: the HELP scheme and the HECS scheme. Any student from a low-, middle- or high-socioeconomic family has the opportunity to engage in a higher diploma or degree without paying a cent. It is only when they have reached $50,000—CPI linked—that they will be required to repay anything at all. Even then it is capped at some four per cent of their salary. When that person gets up to a $200,000 income, it is capped at eight per cent. In comparison to other countries around the world, this is a very good deal. Comment has been made about the Commonwealth scholarship scheme, which will be made available to students of lower socioeconomic families, particularly those in regional areas. They can apply for the HELP scheme as well as the Commonwealth scholarship.

Let us dismiss some of these lies and myths about $100,000 courses. The University of Western Australia, one of the Group of Eight, has said that it will charge $16,000 a year for its undergraduate courses, which, after three to four years, is about $50,000. The fees for students entering through La Trobe University's Aspire program in 2015 will not increase by more than 10 per cent. If anybody is in any doubt about what is likely to happen to fees, we need look no further than international students. As we have brought international students into Australia, they contribute richly not only to the economy of our country but also to tourism, especially when their families and others visit. Have we seen international student costs absolutely burgeon? No, we have not. Why? Because of that word that Senator Carr will never understand: competition. There is competition within the sector and between the universities. How wonderful it is that, in Mr Pyne's proposed legislation, we have non-university providers. Can you imagine a course run—for example, in economics or commerce—by Harvard University and one of the big four accounting firms being able to be offered in this country? Not only the university sector but the private sector and the non-university sector can get involved. This is good stuff. I say to Senator Carr again, 'Come on board or be lost in the dust.'

Debate interrupted.