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

() (): I seek leave to take note of the Australian government's response to the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations committee report Higher education and skills training to support future demand in agriculture and agribusiness in Australia.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carr really missed his opportunity earlier on, but the government will allow him to take note.

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

On that point, Mr President, I specifically asked for guidance from you on this matter. I specifically asked for advice. I was given that advice. And Senator McLucas also asked for advice and was given that advice. For Senator Ronaldson to make those sorts of churlish remarks indicates just how far from the mark—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carr, that is unnecessary. You have sought leave. All you sought for me was whether you could do this by leave, and I said yes, you could. I also confirmed that with Senator McLucas. So, you have now sought leave.

Leave granted.

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

I welcome the government's response to this Senate report. This is a vital issue that is central to the nation's future. Our Chief Scientist said just three days ago:

The future of agriculture – and consequently the future of this country – rests on our capacity to back you with science.

… … …

A modern farm needs a workforce that makes innovation its daily agenda – and a culture that puts science at its core.

So I find it extraordinary that the government's response is silent on the most pressing issue of agricultural science—the mismatch between agricultural science and jobs and this government's unfair cuts to higher education. This is especially the case given the focus the government has placed on increasing our agricultural productivity and performance in order to take advantage of the recently negotiated bilateral trade agreements.

Science and agricultural science will be savagely hit by the higher education legislation that is currently before this chamber. The vice-chancellor of Charles Sturt University said that as a result of the government's changes:

Science fees would need to be increased by 62%, Agriculture by 48% and Environmental Studies by 114%.

He said that as a result an agricultural degree at Melbourne University could cost between $97,000 and $112,000—as a direct result of the changes that this government is introducing. The Weekly Times reports that it is cheaper for students to undertake this tertiary study in New Zealand and in Canada and the United States than it would be to undertake this study in Australia. I just want to repeat that, because we have heard some words uttered just in the last hour or so from the government benches about the cost of the government's proposed changes. I repeat: the vice-chancellor of Charles Sturt University said that as a result of the government's changes science fees would need to increase by 62 per cent, agriculture fees by 48 per cent and environmental studies fees by 114 per cent, and at Melbourne University you would see an agricultural degree costing between $97,000 and $112,000.

The Chief Scientist has singled out agriculture as one of those areas in need of desperate government attention. Professor Chubb said that Australia desperately needed the skills of agricultural scientists, with free trade agreements demanding an increased level of food production, plus changing rainfall patterns and farming regions shifting. He said:

The cost of an agricultural science degree to a student would go up something like 37 per cent. Why would you charge them more to do a degree that's so critically important to our international relations, to our own capacity to produce food for ourselves, and to export it as well?

I think that is a pretty good question, and I would ask why the government is pursuing a policy that so seriously disadvantages agricultural science in this country.

More importantly, where is the National Party on this issue? Where are the country based Liberals on this issue? This is another reason this government must reconsider this legislation. This is why this legislation ought to go back to the drawing board. This is a government that has clearly made higher education a battle ground for the next election. And I would welcome that. There should be no more significant an issue for the public to be able to cast a vote upon. It will be a battle ground in regional seats, not just in the cities. Australians know that these changes will have catastrophic effects on rural industries, catastrophic effects on regional communities. This is a government that should wake up to itself and reject these proposals, should withdraw these bills—not just postpone them until after the Queensland election. It should actually get these bills off the Notice Paper, these relentless cuts, these relentless assaults upon the fundamental principle of a fair go in this country. This is a government that should withdraw these bills, and I am looking forward to the day that happens.

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

I am absolutely delighted to follow Senator Carr and his question of where the country Liberals are, because the report about which he is speaking is one I presented to this chamber, and I presented it in June 2012. For the benefit of those in the public gallery, the normal protocol is that a government of the day responds to Senate reports and recommendations within three months. It is interesting that the then agriculture minister, Senator Ludwig, is also here, because at the end of three months I waited and at the end of six and nine and 12 and 15 and 18 months I waited and waited for a response. That is the level of interest of the then Labor government in agriculture and agribusiness. It took until we came into government for even the courtesy to be extended. So do not come in here and start asking where the country based Liberals are; it was my report—and you failed to even acknowledge it! But let me get to the interesting bit.

Senator Kim Carr interjecting—

Senator Carr goes on about the high cost of agricultural science degrees et cetera. Senator Carr, what this talks about is competition. One of the finest universities in the world in the field of agricultural science, I am very proud to say, is the University of Western Australia. It has a proud history going back over 100 years in light land farming, trace element deficiencies, animal nutrition issues and animal production issues. The unfortunate thing for me is that most of them did not want to do veterinary science because they would not go to the University of Queensland. Senator Carr, this is where competition comes in. You are not talking about $100,000 degrees. The vice-chancellor of the University of Western Australia, one of the fine universities of the world, has already said there will be a cap of $16,000 a year on his undergraduate degrees. Four years at $16,000—

Senator Kim Carr interjecting—

I have even got my shoes off so that I can count with my toes! Four years at $16,000 is a maximum of $64,000. To Senator Carr's embarrassment the government of which he was a member did not even have the courtesy to respond to this report. The report made 10 very sound recommendations. I am delighted to be able to report to the Senate that five of those 10 recommendations were endorsed in principle by the government—the coalition government, the one that had the courtesy to actually respond to this very important report—four recommendation were noted and only one was not supported.

I think it was probably 2012 when we again started to focus the attention of this parliament on the importance of agriculture and agribusiness. I can assure you that, when this other crowd were in government, they had no interest in it at all—and, in all honesty, there were plenty on my own side who were not all that focused. A few moments ago I made the observation that, as I speak, the Premier of Western Australia is delivering the Muresk Lecture at the Muresk Institute, of which I was an academic. In fact, the last person to present the Muresk Lecture was my good self, two years ago. Why is this important? Because Mr Barnett is now again seeing the importance of agriculture and agribusiness coming back into the balance as, unfortunately, our mining industries are dropping off—which is simply because of the failure of the last government to attend to and invest in mining exploration. Of course, Mr Barnett, like all of us, has seen the absolute value to the north of Western Australia. Over here, you are all Pacific West Coast US centric. But we in the West are of course Asia centric—and we are seeing the enormous value of the possibility of agricultural produce extending even further into the Asian markets. Indeed, our report recommendations did talk about the importance of the industry coming together to speak with one voice.

Under the excellent stewardship of Mr Andrew Robb, we have signed a free trade agreement with Japan—the first country in the world to do so. We are also about to sign a free trade agreement with South Korea—and I must acknowledge the support of the Labor Party—which will have an enormous impact for our agricultural exports in particular. And work is well advanced for us to become the first major power to sign a free trade agreement with China. Why will we be doing that? Because they have great faith in our value-adding capacity and our food safety.

I am delighted that Senator Carr sought and received the approval of the Senate this evening. I would have been incredibly disappointed not to have had the opportunity to draw attention to the failure of the then Labor government and its discourtesy in not even bothering to respond to a report which we now see as being so important in terms of framing the future for our country.