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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Employment (Senator Abetz) and the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to questions without notice asked by Senators Carr and Polley today relating to higher education reforms.

This is a government in terminal decline; a government that is rotting from the head down; a government that has a Prime Minister that 40 per cent of the back bench do not want to be Prime Minister of this country. The budget was the worst budget ever presented to parliament in this country—a budget that is not accepted by parliament, is not accepted by the public and is not accepted by at least 40 per cent of coalition members. They know it is a dirty, rotten budget. They know it is a budget that cuts at education, that cuts at health and that cuts pensioners' payments—this is a budget that has no capacity to look after those most in need.

If Minister Pyne was not around, you would have to invent him. He is now a figure of fun; a figure of ridicule. It is said that he is the fixer. It is like some parliamentary equivalent of the Joker, where you get made up and you go out and do things to people. The things Minister Pyne is doing include forcing an Americanised system of education onto this country—$100,000 fees, and people will be in debt for evermore. They will never be able to pay their debt from going to university. This government does not care about education. Prior to the election this government said there would be no cuts to the education budget. Minister Pyne said in a media release on 26 August:

While we welcome debate over the quality and standards in our universities, we have no plans to increase fees or cap places.

This is another Liberal lie. The Liberal Party put out a booklet, Our planreal solutions for all Australians, which purported to be setting out what the Liberals were going to do in government. It said:

We will ensure the continuation of the current arrangements of university funding.

Yet another Liberal lie! Then Prime Minister Abbott, on Insiders on 1 September 2013—before the election—said:

I want to give people this absolute assurance: no cuts to education.

How many lies can you put out there? How many statements can you put out to try to convince the public that education will not be cut—and then go ahead and cut it?

Today Minister Pyne said that he would never give up on getting his cuts to the university system—because, he says, 'I am very committed to these higher education reforms, as is the government.' I am always interested to hear the coalition use the word 'reform'. I went to the dictionary to look up what the word meant. 'Reform' means 'to make things better'. That is certainly not what this rotting government are doing. They do not care about pensioners, about the health system or about the education system. They cut and cut because their ideology is all about cutting back on support to the most needy. Access to education is critically important in helping people from low-socioeconomic backgrounds fight their way out of their situation, but $100,000 fees will mean that education will be put beyond the reach of many of them. This is dishonesty in government.

Coalition members are not even prepared to stand up for their own communities. The South Australian senators were not prepared to stand up against the budget cuts to submarines, education or health. They are an absolute disgrace. (Time expired)

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Our higher education reforms are to the advantage of Australia's education sector. Not only do they help the tertiary education sector, the universities, but they also provide opportunities for students to get FEE-HELP in other areas—particularly trade areas and vocational education—where it is not currently available. In contrast to Labor's claims, our reforms mean that there will be more pathway courses available to low-SES and first generation university students, enabling them to break into university training.

Labor are talking about $100,000 degrees, but I refer senators to an article written by Geoff Sharrock, program director of the LH Martin Institute at the University of Melbourne. He says that Labor's $100,000 degree projections are misleading. He runs through, in some detail, how courses will be priced in a deregulated environment. He demonstrates that, with the three tiers of funding available for courses ranging from arts, nursing and education through to commerce, law and medicine, the cost of degrees comes nowhere near $100,000—while still providing significant funding increases for universities.

The claims by the Labor Party that the coalition is bad for education are hollow, especially when seen in the context of what they did while in government. Here is a coalition government providing pathways for people from low-SES backgrounds; providing FEE-HELP and VET FEE-HELP loans for people not currently entitled to them; and, importantly, providing funding for things like the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy, which employees some 1,500 Australians. We heard Senator Carr decry the government's management of NCRIS, but this rings hollow when, as Senator Wong, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, admitted today, NCRIS funding under Labor was a lapsing program. As of June this year, all the funding for that program which Senator Carr was getting so hysterical about was going to lapse—because his government, under his watch, set it up that way. What did he do when he was the minister, when Labor were in government, to prevent the program from lapsing? The lapsing of the program would have meant there would have been no funding for the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy. This government, as the Minister for Finance highlighted today, made it very clear in Budget Paper No.2—page 88, I believe it was—that money had been allocated to provide certainty to this program going forward.

Let us compare the words—the hollow rhetoric—of the ALP today with their actions when in government. In the 2011-12 budget, they reduced the HECS-HELP discount for voluntary repayments, a saving of nearly $608 million to the government. They reinstated band 2 student contributions for mathematics, statistics and science students—over $1 billion ripped out of the system. This was in an environment where are looking to encourage young men and women to take up maths and science, the very things we need to grow the engineering capacity of this nation, to develop a sustainable, innovative and smart future for Australian and our young people. The Labor government ripped a billion dollars out of higher education from the very areas that are critical to achieving that future. All up, the previous government took some $6½ billion out of higher education. This government is looking to put in place reform measures that will make higher education more affordable, sustainable and, importantly, accessible to people who need it, but the best the ALP can do is come here and criticise it—while completely ignoring the fact that, when they were in government, they disadvantaged the very people they now claim to support and represent. The government stands by these measures. (Time expired)

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

I would like to make a contribution this afternoon. From what I can see and what the public is hearing in relation to higher education, there is nothing that is fundamentally more wrong for the nation and for students than this piece of legislation. This whole debate has gone one step further, because the federal member for Bass, in Tasmania, has yet again come out swinging in relation to this particular bill. What he is now doing—and we know this because I have spoken about it before—is attacking a professor at the University of Tasmania for daring to question the government's agenda. But he has gone one step further. He is now engaged with none other than a veteran of journalism, Paul Bongiorno, today questioning his right to comment with Mr Nikolic.

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

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

Paul has gone that one step further because he has said, 'Meaningless? Really, Andrew? And don't lobby my employer.' That is what this debate has come down to. Now, I have been advised—

Government senators interjecting—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! There are too many Tasmanians in the room, I think—

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

that not only is Mr Nikolic attacking a professor at the university but he is now threatening to sue Jenna Price from The Canberra Times, because they published an article that outlined the need for freedom of speech and for the university and staff to be able to participate in the debate around issues of great importance to the community. So Andrew Nikolic attacks not only people like myself and Michael Powell, but anyone who dares to criticise this government. If this policy was such good policy he would not have to threaten people. He would not have to write letters emailed to the University of Tasmania at a very critical time, I may add, when negotiations are going on with the university through this government—

Government senators interjecting—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Polley, just resume your seat for a moment. I will call the Senate to order. There are too many interjections.

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

If those on the other side want to cast aspersions, at least put it on the record. I would never ring up and threaten somebody's employment. And in saying, 'I am not trying to stifle a debate,' why else would he email the vice-chancellor of the university? But nothing surprises me. This is a desperate government that has no vision and no policies for the future. What they are trying to do is have a system where only those who can afford to go to university will be able to go to university.

Senator Bushby interjecting—

You might take everything out of The Examiner, Senator Bushby, but I do not. At least learn the facts before you make those sorts of assertions. But I—

Government senators interjecting—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Polley, just resume your seat for a moment. I would ask senators to cease interjecting. And I would remind you, Senator Polley, to address your remarks through the chair. But I want to make it clear: I have called the Senate to order on a number of occasions now. I would ask senators to remain silent for the rest of this contribution.

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

We, as elected members of either this place or the other place, should be encouraging debate around very important policy issues like higher education. So why would the government and a government member try to stifle that debate? Simply because they do not agree with this government's views, or that individual members' articulation of the government's policy. What we need in this country is debate about the issue of higher education going forward to ensure that all Australians, not just those whose families credit card is large enough to pay for them, can go to university. Once again, what we have seen from this government is another backflip—yet another one. They are in chaos; they really are in chaos. They are out there trying to govern to protect the Prime Minister's job. That is what they are doing. Anyone who does not support the likes of the 'enforcer' of the government, who has been referred to in this article as Mr Nikolic—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have the 'fixer'—

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

Yes, the 'fixer' and the 'enforcer' in the government's caucus. That is what we have. So who next? I suggest to those opposite to at least engage with the community. If you are engaging with your constituency, you will see that the Australian people do not buy your policy. They do not want an American-style education system in this country because they know the failings of what happens in the US. We should be ensuring that every Australian, based on their ability, has the opportunity to go to university. Threats to people's employment to stop them debating the issue will not cloud the judgement of the Australia community.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is extraordinary how Senator Polley and Senator Cameron open their remarks about the poor policy and how it is affecting universities and, yet, they do not then go on to address the substance of what the government is proposing. Instead, the troglodytes on the other side attack and launch into some sort of class warfare as if the university sector in this country is perfect as it is and just needs a bit more central planning before it can be perfected. The second thing I will point out is that Senator Polley, rather than play the issue, goes in and pursues and continues this sort of obsession—it really is not decent—with the member for Bass, who is a great man. I think he is an excellent member and representative—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He served his country in Afghanistan, unlike you.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He served his country with distinction and is now serving the nation through the national parliament. And, yet, Senator Polley just harangues and harasses him for daring to stick up for what he believes in. I am disappointed with that. Senator Polley has the audacity to claim that he is somehow bullying someone because he writes to another adult saying, 'I disagree with what you're doing and I think it's wrong.'

We know that those on the other side do not take kindly to being told they are wrong but in this case I am pointing out that the troglodytes are wrong. The university sector in this country needs reform. The university sector in this country needs the opportunity to advance the interests of Australian students while also providing additional opportunities for those students who want to get to universities.

To those on the other side who say, 'We don't want to Americanise the university system in this country,' I say that no-one wants to see a broader range of opportunities for Australians to pursue their academic scholarship in this country than I. But I also want to see Australian universities reach the pinnacle of achievement. I want to see more Australian universities in the top 50 globally. The fact is that we often see American universities there. We will pursue and reach into that limit.

We will also see many Australian students choose to attend some of these finer schools anywhere in the world. I want those international students to choose to come to Australia to get outstanding degrees. The thing that holds those on the other side back is that they are not interested in ensuring that there is reform in order to modernise our university system. There is a whole range of things, quite frankly, that could be tapped into it. One of those things is fee reform, which would see fees lowered in some instances and go up in other instances. We would see more private colleges perhaps emerge out of this to provide opportunities. Universities would be able to choose to specialise to provide, perhaps, a tighter curriculum opportunity for students who come in and say, 'I want to go to the pre-eminent university for languages'—or for science, medicine, veterinary studies or for anything else. This would be good for Australia.

I want to address the other reforms that I think the university sector needs to consider. We have to consider some of the bureaucracy within the university movement. We have to consider other services being provided to students as being important. I would like to see reform of the student amenities levy, which is compulsory. It is basically a student union fee that they have to pay, even though some do not benefit from it. We have to ask ourselves: is it important that we provide as many facilities on campus as making the campus education available—either through distance learning or through tele-learning—to those who cannot attend on campus? Should we be looking at a more rigorous tutorial model? There are a whole range of things that could happen within university sectors. But in order for them to have that flexibility the primary thing they need to do is to be able to set and establish their own priorities for their students. The market will assist in that.

I have researched the American university system with respect to the $100,000 degrees. In the United States you will find that an overwhelming number of people graduate with student debts that are less than $30,000 or $40,000. In fact, only about 10 per cent of students have student debts in excess of $40,000. So that bells the cat that we are going to have everyone graduating with these massive debts. It is not necessarily the case. It is about how it is managed. We need to get the troglodytes into the 21st century.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Recently we have seen this government execute some pretty impressive backflips. We saw the Prime Minister's paid parental leave disappear. We saw the backflip on the GP tax. We saw the backflip, last week, on the automotive transformation scheme. All of these backflips are designed to keep the Prime Minister in his job.

But this week the award for the most impressive backflip goes to the education minister the member for Sturt, Mr Christopher Pyne. His backflip yesterday would have impressed even the most agile of gymnasts. After claiming on Sunday that the jobs of 1,700 scientists and researchers were inextricably linked to the passage of the higher education legislation, the minister then went and executed a perfect 10 when he made a humiliating retreat from that claim yesterday afternoon. Suddenly, what was inextricably linked to his higher education reforms was now no longer on the table. But no matter how many backflips, hoops or hurdles the minister tries to tackle in his attempt to pass the bill, the fact is that deregulation of Australian universities and the cutting of funding to Australian universities is a very, very bad plan. It is bad for students, it is bad for taxpayers and it is bad for the future of Australia.

The education minister this morning said that he will never ever give up. He will never give up on his plans to introduce $100,000 fees for university degrees for students. When will the members of the coalition opposite realise that these education reforms are not accepted by the people of Australia? And when will they realise that the Australian people are absolutely sick and tired of all the backflips by this government and all the game-playing with such an important piece of Australian policy as our higher education policy.

Minister Pyne's humiliating back down on his threat to take $150 million from the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy unless this place passed their higher education deregulation legislation was, for a minister of education, incredibly juvenile and incredibly irresponsible. It was indicative of a minister who is completely out of his depth. And it did not work. The crossbenchers who he was trying to appeal to saw right through it, as did the Australian people.

Then there were the nervous nellies in his own coalition party room, who knew that if he persisted with this ridiculous threat that their jobs would also be at threat at the next election. Presumably, they or the Prime Minister told Mr Pyne to back down. Mr Pyne then went on SkyNews in one of the most embarrassing but, I have to say, entertaining interviews I have every seen. There he was wearing his best Stepford-wife smile and trying to explain the government's backflip on national television. But he quickly became, of course, the laughing stock of the nation. He claimed he was a fixer and that, in dividing the legislation, he had dealt with the issue. But of course what would not divulge in that interview, and has still not divulged, is how. How will the minister fund NCRIS? Where is the $150 million going to come from? Where will the funding for Australia's 27 research facilities come from? According to Mr Pyne, the Minister for Education, in this interview: it is a surprise. It is a surprise, and we will just have to wait and see.

Australia does not need surprises. The university sector does not need surprises. What they need is certainty and a higher education system that is well funded. What the people of Australia need is a higher education system that guarantees affordable, accessible and quality education for all those Australians—particularly our young people who want to go to university and who we need to go to university—who do not need to exit the university system with degrees that have left them with a debt of $100,000 or more.

The answers given in question time today to the questions asked by the opposition gave us no guarantees at all that— (Time expired)

Question agreed to.