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 take note of the answer given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to a question without notice asked by Senator Dodson today relating to higher education policy.

Today we saw a new gyration from the government around their policies on higher education. No matter what gyrations we see, and no doubt we will hear a great deal more on this in the forthcoming period, no matter what high trapeze act we see being performed, no matter what fiddling we see, the fundamentals remain the same. Senator Dodson's question was direct: what is the government's policy? What is the government's policy in relation to deregulation of university fees and cuts to universities? Of course, the answer has to be based on what the government said today and what we know is on the public record in regard to the underlying position that we see within the government's budgetary statements.

The government's goal remains: deregulation of university fees and a $20 billion cut to public universities over the next 10 years—a goal that will see the $100,000 degree and the prospect of lifetime debt embedded into the higher education system of this country. We know that the unlegislated measures outlined by this government cut $20 billion from the university system and that the bulk of that will go into the private sector. We know that this is the real face of deregulation.

This is a government that walks away from its responsibilities to properly fund education in this country. This is a government that oversees the transfer of billions and billions of dollars from taxpayers to private operators—$17.8 billion under this government's measures, embedded within the budget arrangements under the unlegislated measures, will be transferred from the various operations and predominantly directed to private colleges. All of that is underwritten by a blowout in the public loan scheme—a measure which we saw in 2015, in the last MYEFO and in the estimates processes.

All of this now has been reinforced by the inspired leaks of recent weeks that of course confirm the government's agenda of a commitment to the $100,000 degree, to the deregulation of fees, and now proposals to introduce a new superprofits tax for universities. Under the scheme the government is proposing, which was identified first under Minister Pyne, there will be attempts made to impose further levies on universities, particularly the Group of Eight universities, should they charge more than the government expects. We know that to be the case because of the statements that have been made by this minister and the various inspired leaks we have seen, particularly to TheAustralian Financial Review.

We know the history of this policy. This has been road-tested in the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom this very policy was pursued and of course ultimately rejected by a conservative government because of the impact that it had on increasing university fees to students. Of course we all know that the fundamentals are not about to change under this government. We know what a dog of a policy this is. It was a dog of a policy when it was first announced under Christopher Pyne. It was a dog of a policy through its various versions and it remains a dog of a policy today.

This is a government that has relentlessly pursued its plan to cut $20 billion from public universities. This is a government that has sought to strip money from our world-class university system, transfer that money to the private sector and blow-out the cost of the loan scheme. Of course we have now seen a model that will be pursued through the vocational education system. This government has allowed the waste and extravagance to go beyond all possible imagination.

What we have is a government that believes it is simple: 'If you have got the money, if you have got the power and if you have got the privilege you could embed that.' We should not have an education system that actually opens the doors of economic opportunity. The fundamental principle that has been the hallmark of the Australian education system is: if you have ability and work hard you should have the opportunity to succeed. Under this government's policies we know that there will be a major shake-up in the education system if it ever gets the chance to implement them. It will see the price of going to university skyrocket, a massive blow-out in public debt and an undermining of the fundamental principle of equality in our education system. (Time expired)

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

It is always wonderful to follow Senator Carr and to add my comments to this debate.

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

We used to think you were the most right-wing senator. With the next speaker you are going to have to lift your game.

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

I look forward to the very honourable Senator Paterson coming after me and doing an outstanding job. Labor are going to find as they pursue these lines—be it on higher education, education, health or other policies—that they fundamentally have no credibility. If we want an example of why they have no credibility and why they cannot be trusted on money, we saw it yesterday with the unravelling of the fundamentals of their campaign, with the $19 billion hole in their costings. This is no ordinary hole in costings. We have seen holes in costings from the Labor Party before. This is no ordinary hole because this $19 billion hole is fundamental to their entire campaign, which is about $100 billion of new taxes, extra taxes, and tax increases so they can apparently spend money in health, education and various areas. Those are the fundamentals of their campaign and last night we saw that campaign blown out of the water.

Margaret Thatcher famously said that the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. Never have we seen before an opposition leader who has run out of other people's money before coming into office. That is what we saw yesterday. The Labor Party has already run out of money. We knew it was pie in the sky. We had these claims.

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

You have adopted $70 billion of our policies.

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

This is a really important point. Whilst I do enjoy Senator Conroy's interjections, I need to make this important point. I will do it so that Senator Conroy can listen.

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

You have forgotten what you were going to say.

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

No. I really want you to listen to this point. We have seen in the debate in recent times the Labor Party making these extravagant claims about $80 billion. They say there is $80 billion in cuts. That was always a lie. It was a lie because they never had the money. The Labor Party never put the money in the budget. They did not have the money. The only way they could ever get the money was to borrow the money or to increase taxes. That has become apparent during this campaign as they have said they are going to have $100 billion in extra taxes.

This $19 billion so-called rounding error, in the words of the Labor Party, this $19 billion hole, is so important now because it confirms every concern the Australian people have about the Labor Party. The fundamental concern that the Australian people have about the Labor Party is that they cannot be trusted with money. Even if you ask Labor Party supporters—even those who vote for the Labor Party because they want more spending and they are not that worried about fiscal responsibility—who they want to look after the budget, who they want to fix the budget, they will say in a heartbeat, 'The coalition.'

If anyone wanted evidence or to be reminded—perhaps some Australian people were starting to give the Labor Party a chance—why the Labor Party should never come back on this side of the chamber it happened yesterday. The Australian people do not trust Labor with money. Why don't they trust them? Because Labor inherited no government debt—$70 billion in the bank—and they left us a legacy of hundreds of billions of dollars of debt.

Now they say, 'If we come back in we are going to spend even more than we did last time'—$80 billion extra apparently on health and education. Well you do not have the money. The Australian people are not fools. Every time during this campaign—this is going to follow Bill Shorten like a bad smell during this campaign—Bill Shorten and his team promise something people will be saying, 'Where is the money coming from?' He will say, 'We have got our new taxes.' Well he does not. It has been shown to be a farce. It has been shown to be an absolute lie. This is what this campaign will be about. Labor cannot be trusted with your money. (Time expired)

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The desperation of this government is now quite palpable. At a time when this government should be looking to focus on its own plans for this country's future we now see that this government is desperate to try to shift blame and to get the eyes of the nation to look elsewhere by concocting a hole in Labor's costings. This is a very, very desperate measure.

Senator Dodson's very worthwhile question during question time touched on higher education. In my opinion, higher education is one of those matters which should be above party politics. It is a question that goes to the future of our country. An extract from the report by Cadence Economics says:

The ability of our nation to expand the knowledge and skills of our workforce to drive productivity growth is vital if Australia is to raise living standards into the future.

When it comes to higher education, we should all be advocating for better education policies. But, unfortunately, we have a government—the Turnbull government—whose planned cuts to higher education are ruthless. As Senator Carr indicated, under their current plan there are $20 billion in cuts from Australian universities set to take place into the future.

But it is not just the cuts; it is also the debt collection. We have heard that the Prime Minister, alongside Minister Birmingham, are conspiring to collect HECS debts from those who have passed away, all the while planning to increase the overall cost to universities. This is an atrociously bad idea—an idea so bad and so shameless it does not warrant any scrutiny; it just demands ridicule. The fundamental idea of HECS is that students borrow money to study in their field of choice and only have to pay it back once they earn reasonable money.

The coalition's plan to deregulate universities is an appalling measure to address the rising cost of higher education. We saw the report from the Parliamentary Budget Office some time ago which talked about the fact that the government's proposal to deregulate would drive up the annual cost to government from the current $1.7 billion of the HECS-HELP student loan system to $11.1 billion a year by 2025-26. This is bad not only for students but also for the budget bottom line and for our country.

In my own home state of Queensland we, sadly, have some of the lowest rates of graduates from university, particularly from regional Queensland. So one has to ask the question: what are the government doing to address those types of issues? Unfortunately, the answer is nothing. In fact, they are making it worse. In deregulating the higher education system they are attempting to charge up to $100,000 for a degree and, worst of all, they are creating a disincentive for people to study. They are crippling the future of our country. I know from talking to Queenslander's about the government's policy that people are worried about the prospect of the cost of higher education increasing. Working-class families find it difficult to commit to providing the support for their sons and daughters to attend university, and the prospect of a ballooning in the cost of education is a total disincentive. I think this is a disgraceful policy approach.

Labor believes that what you need to get into university is hard work and deep thinking, not deep pockets or your parent's bank balance. We believe universities have a responsibility to help students succeed, especially disadvantaged students. I call on the coalition and on education minister Senator Birmingham to stop using university funding as a punching bag, to rule out any further cuts to higher education and to dump the Liberal's frightening plan for $100,000 degrees.

The World Economic Forum Human Capital Index was developed in recognition of the fact that an educated population is a key investment driver of economic growth and the development of advanced industries and advanced countries. Australia currently sits in 13th place in the index, behind New Zealand, Belgium, Austria and Ireland. We cannot afford to slip any further. Australia needs its skilled graduates to power our future. Our university students deserve the best start in life, and only Labor can guarantee that start.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today is the day that the federal budget will be delivered. I must admit that I am new to this place, but I would have thought that, on the day that the federal budget is due to be delivered, it might have merited the attention of opposition senators in question time. Yet the questions that they chose to ask today in Senate question time were on the following topics: firstly, the Indigenous Land Corporation's annual report—something that has been asked about previously and about which nothing new was learnt from; secondly, their conspiracy theories about higher education reform; thirdly, submarines; fourthly, the Cabinet Secretary—again an issue well ventilated in Senate question time in which nothing new was gained; and, finally, mental health funding. There was not one question on the budget, not one question on tax, not one question on the deficit and not one question on debt.

While I am shocked and surprised on one level that no attention was devoted to economic matters by the opposition senators today, on the other hand I do understand that it is a little bit of an embarrassing topic for those opposite. I do understand that, on the day that the shadow Treasurer called a $19½ billion black hole in his costings a 'rounding error', Labor senators might not want to draw attention to budget matters. I understand, given their record in government, where they inherited $29 billion of net assets and in six years turned that into $153 billion of net debt, and with deficits as far as the eye could see for the forward estimates, that they might not want to talk about the budget and about economic management. I understand, given their plans for this election to increase taxes by more than $100 billion, that they may not wish to talk about the budget and matters of economic management.

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

Senator Paterson, just resume your seat.

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order on the question of relevance. I understand that the question that we are taking note of is in relation to higher education. I have not heard one mention at all of higher education from the senator in his address so far.

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

Thank you, Senator Urquhart. You are correct, but I am sure Senator Paterson is—Senator Conroy, you have a point of order?

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

On the point of order: it is a very correct point of order you have taken, but I would ask the chair to be lenient to the new senator. It is his first budget. It is a budget which he has criticised in the past, over the last few years. He does not want to talk about it. But I would ask you to be lenient on our new Senate colleague.

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

It was my intention to be lenient, in any case, with all senators. But I was just about to say that I am sure Senator Paterson is coming to the question before the chair.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank senators for their helpful advice and assistance in this matter. I have to say that I am very glad that the topic of higher education has been raised. I am looking forward to discussing it today, particularly in the context of the opposition's capacity to estimate expenses and revenue in the future. We know that the errors that we have exposed today in their budget for the upcoming election of $19½ billion is not the only area in which they have made predictions which have not turned out to be correct. For example, opposition leader, Bill Shorten, says that he has a plan to provide free education for 100,000 STEM graduates. On the day that policy was announced, he initially stated that the cost would be $45 million over the estimates—a laughable costing, which he himself had to quickly correct. He subsequently stated that it might be $350 million, but the Department of Education and Training estimated the costing to be $2.25 billion.

Those opposite cannot be trusted on higher education, in the same way that they cannot be trusted with the budget. You cannot deliver a world-class, high quality higher education system if you cannot deliver the funding that is necessary to make it work. Only the coalition has demonstrated that it has the capacity to manage the economy and the budget in a way which ensures that all of the important activities of government, including funding the higher education system, can be comfortably done. We cannot rely on people who predict that their revenue from cigarette taxes will be $37 billion when in fact it will be $19½ billion less to deliver anything for the higher education sector, to deliver anything for universities. It was, in fact, their changes—their incomplete reforms when in government—which uncapped the number of places that universities were allowed to admit in each course, which has caused a skyrocketing and a massive increase in costs for universities.

I am a relatively recent product of the university education system, and I am very grateful for the time I spent at university. I think it is appropriate that whilst I was there I was required to make a financial contribution to my education, because I am the primary beneficiary of the education that I received. Andrew Norton, the pre-eminent higher education policy expert in Australia, who is at the Grattan Institute, has estimated that students who attend university are, on average, $1 million better off over their lifetimes than students who do not. It is entirely appropriate that we contribute to the cost of that education.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise also to take note of the answers to the question asked by Senator Dodson. I also congratulate Senator Dodson on his arrival here in the chamber. I, too, think he will make a wonderful contribution. But the answer was less than enlightening. Just like so many other things and ideas that come from the Prime Minister, it seems that the ideas boom was just another thought bubble and there really is nothing behind the idea of innovation and creativity that so far has propelled so much soaring rhetoric from the Prime Minister. We have heard very little detail about how this ideas boom is to be accomplished. An ideas boom, we should note, is actually more than just going to cocktail parties run by start-up incubators and meeting with tech entrepreneurs who come out from the United States.

Growing Australian ideas in Australia will, in fact, mean investing in our people and our institutions. It probably means that we will need to invest money in higher education. But that is not the answer we heard today, when the government were asked about how they intended to proceed with higher education policy. The Prime Minister remains completely committed to the former Prime Minister's plans to gut higher education. The government's goal, quite obviously, remains deregulation, and a $20 billion cut to university funding over 10 years. It seems the government's goal in this budget is the lowering of the repayment threshold for HECS, which will mean that people on very modest incomes start to stare down the impact of that $100,000 debt they have incurred simply by seeking to educate themselves. The government has not walked away from the unlegislated budget measures that outline this plan: taking $20 billion out of the public university system and transferring a very large proportion of that money to the private sector. This is not the kind of higher education policy we would have expected to hear from a government that speaks so often about innovation and the importance of innovation and education in driving the economy of Australia forward. So this government really ought to be investing in students. I do not really know who the Prime Minister thinks will come up with the innovative plans and ideas, but he seems to be prepared to write off the majority of Australians who cannot afford $100,000 degrees. I do not know where the Prime Minister expects this new generation of entrepreneurs to learn, but he seems prepared to slash funds from the very institutions that are best placed to teach students the STEM skills they need to craft world-breaking concepts.

Having an educated and highly skilled workforce benefits everyone. The way to greater profitability for Australian firms is for them to be more productive. You do not achieve that by cutting penalty rates, and you do not achieve that by slashing conditions. You do that by having a smart, educated workforce that works out better ways to do business.

In his question, Senator Dodson made reference to a report from Universities Australia that demonstrates that having an educated workforce does not just benefit those who receive the education, it benefits everyone. In 2014-15 the economic boost from new graduates entering Australia's workforce created 25,000 new jobs for Australians without university degrees. For every 1,000 new graduates entering the workforce, 120 new jobs are created for people without a degree. The impact of new graduates joining Australia's workforce lifted wages for workers without a university degree by $12.60 a week, or $655 a year. And without the entry of new university graduates into the Australian economy, the growth rate in jobs for people without a university degree would have been zero over the last eight years.

In the face of this evidence and in the face of this analysis, it is a nonsense to describe, as government members so frequently do, the provision of higher education as a benefit for the individual without acknowledging its social benefit. There is a reason that public institutions are funded by governments to deliver a high-quality workforce—because it benefits all Australians. It is to the government's very great shame that this will not be recognised in this evening's budget. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.