Christopher Back (WA, 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 how students will be disadvantaged without the government's higher education reforms as amended?

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

I thank Senator Back for the question. As the senator knows and a number of other Senators also know, the government has indicated it will accept Senator Day's amendment—a very sunlit Senator Day's amendment—to retain the indexation rate on student debt at CPI. I know there are a number of other senators in the chamber who are also very interested in that proposal. We will also support Senator Madigan's amendment in relation to a HECS indexation pause for new mothers and fathers. I believe that proposal has also interested for example, Senator Wang. The government is open to other constructive proposals from members of the crossbench in the Senate and that discussion is ongoing.

But as Paul Kelly wrote in The Weekend Australian:

If the eminently defensible university reform compromise is not passed the result, as Universities Australia says, is that higher education will face an 'inevitable decline in quality, performance, competitiveness and reputation'.

That is what those opposite apparently want to have happen. But it is actually the students who will lose the most. In fact, Prof. Greg Craven of the Australian Catholic University has said just today that the higher education reform currently before the Senate will help to sustain the future of a system of uncapped government supported university places which has delivered so much opportunity for so many Australians.

As the chamber is aware, under the reforms the demand driven system will also be extended to sub bachelor places, making higher education even more accessible. However, Prof. Craven warns if the reforms are not passed, the ability of universities to provide opportunity and support to students from poorer neighbourhoods would be threatened. There would be less money available for scholarships. Tens of thousand of disadvantaged students would not get scholarships— (Time expired)

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

Mr President, I rise to ask a supplementary question. Can the minister appraise the Senate what other impacts will flow from failing to implement the government's higher education reforms?

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

There is a number of other very serious impacts. Not only will there be fewer opportunities for students but there will be less scholarship support and, frankly, ultimately lower quality education. Amongst other impacts, 130,000 students will continue to pay loan fees of 20 and 25 per cent that other students do not have to pay, and those opposite do not care. Our universities are going to face a status quo situation which the universities say is unstable and uncertain as it was under the previous government with Labor's $6.6 billion of cuts, and those opposite do not care. Our $15-billion international education industry which has a dependency of about 130,000 jobs will end up at risk. Our research will also suffer. There will be no funds for the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy and some 1,500 people will lose their jobs. The no more future fellowships— (Time expired)

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

Mr President, I rise to ask a final supplementary question. Can the minister inform the Senate whether there are any credible alternative proposals to the government's higher education reforms.

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

As I have already indicated, there are constructive proposals from members of the Senate crossbench. But there is absolutely nothing from those opposite. There is no plan, there is no credible alternative and theirs is the party that took $6.6 billion of cuts to higher education and research during their term. They left funding cliffs for the research fellowships and for infrastructure. No-one seriously believes that they have any idea on how to provide universities with the resources they need because they do not. Former Prime Minister Gillard lauded the demand driven system as one of her greatest achievements. Last week we had Senator Carr dropping hints about reimposing caps on places, closing the door to university inevitably for many low-SES students. Today they even flagged, I read, withholding funding from universities—more of the same from those opposite. Universities have to be put on a sustainable and certain funding footing and research must continue. (Time expired)