Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

I think the notion of $100,000 university degrees is one of those very rare phenomena where the sighting of the existence of the phenomenon is in direct and inverse proportion to the actual evidence of the existence of the phenomenon—and there are a few instances where that has occurred. But I know that is definitely the case here because the proposition in this MPI from members opposite is that deregulating the tertiary education sector would force universities into a position where they would charge $100,000 for degrees. We have heard 15 full minutes from members opposite of weird, wild and colourful spin. The only thing missing is one single solitary example of a $100,000 degree that they can stand up and put on Hansard. Where is it? Let the record show that there is silence! One single example—

Ms Rishworth interjecting—

That is interesting! Let's look at that head-on. In its official publication outlining its degrees, UWA is offering future students the opportunity to obtain a three-year undergraduate degree, from one of the world's top universities, for less than $50,000.

Ms Rishworth interjecting—

Is that right? You cannot become a doctor or a lawyer by only doing a single undergraduate degree? I know that your maths is average, but let me put this to you—if you do a Bachelor of Economics and a Bachelor of Law at the University of Western Australia, how many degrees are you doing? One plus one is two. If you do a Bachelor of Law at Curtin University, when you have the ability to do that as an undergraduate, how many degrees are you doing at Curtin University? That would be one. I had taken it to mean, when you had advertised quite unfairly that there would be university degrees that would cost $100,000, that you were not adding up four or five or six university degrees. It is absolutely ridiculous. You fail at the first hurdle. There is not a single example of a $100,000 degree. There are posters everywhere, up and down the corridors—not a single example. The only other phenomenon that I can think—

An opposition member interjecting—

Is that at QUT? The Bachelor of Laws at QUT, in all their scenarios, is either under or just over $50,000. This is the officially released costings of the university. Do you know what the best modelling to determine what a university fee is going to be? That is the modelling that the university provides to the students who will be paying the fee. You would think it is pretty reputable modelling. I certainly think it is more reputable than silence.

The ridiculous thing here is that university after university has come out and said that the notion of $100,000 degrees is simply absurd. QUT said:

… at a minimum, we must maintain our current university funding levels, and directly link any increase in fees to educational improvements for students.

In the 15 per cent reduction scenario, which I believe was the one they favoured, the lowest total fee for a course over three years is the Bachelor of Nursing, at $29,200, and the highest three-year course is the Bachelor of Business, at $39,100. They publish what the fees will be. The University of Western Australia have undergraduate fees at about $50,000—from a Go8 and top 100 world university.

The Group of Eight modelling of likely fees in a deregulated system has business at $59,000, humanities at $42,000, social studies at $42,000, psychology at $59,000, IT at $44,000, visual performing arts at $44,000, performing arts at $36,000, mathematics at $38,000, foreign languages at $29,000 and science at $38,000. One needs only imperfect math to see that they all fall well short—indeed, mostly by 50 per cent—of the $100,000 mark.

I can only think of a few other phenomena where there is such an inverse proportionality between the sighting of the existence of the phenomenon and the actual evidence for it—this is the Big Foot of political debate, the Elvis sighting of political debate. I understand that Kalamazoo, Michigan, is where the greatest cluster of Elvis sightings has occurred. It is a great and sad thing, because it would have been Elvis's 80th birthday on 8 January this year, but the sad and real truth is that Elvis does not exist, and yet this myth of sightings of the great man lives on, even though the evidence is zero. There is absolutely no difference whatsoever. You have got as much chance, Members opposite, of producing the king here as of demonstrating that there will be a $100,000 degree.

See this speech in context