Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share 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—