Senate debates

Wednesday, 4 March 2015

Matters of Public Importance

Higher Education

4:53 pm

Photo of Christopher BackChristopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The cat is out of the bag. There is a secret plan, all right. It is the Carr plan.

Why are we in the dilemma we are in? It is simply because the Labor Party in government lifted the cap on enrolments and, typically of their inability when it comes to competitive policy, they failed to lift the cap on fees. What does Senator Carr want to do? He wants to reimpose the cap. That is what this is all about.

Senator Lazarus made mention of the excellence of Australian universities and I agree with him. Let me then ask him the question: why is it that every vice-chancellor in this country, with the exception of two, is begging the Senate—the crossbenchers, the Greens and the Labor Party—to allow and introduce this legislation? I will tell you why not: because Senator Carr wants to see a reimposition of the cap.

He speaks of $100,000 degrees. Senator Lazarus, let me tell you: the under vice-chancellor of UWA, one of the top 100 universities in the world, has said that his three-year degrees will be $16,000 a year. The last time I was at university, three time 16 was $48,000—not $100,000. And an agriculture degree would be four times 16—that is $64,000, not $100,000. These are absolute twistings of the truth, as Senator Carr and Senator Lines and others know.

The director of the Australian Technology Network said: 'Do not be fooled by $100,000 degrees.' The Australian Catholic University says it does not anticipate a general and massive rise. What Senator Carr does not understand is that, in the world of competition, if someone wants to charge $100,000 for a degree that someone asked charges $64,000 for, do you know what happens? Their lecture theatres are empty. Isn't that amazing for the Labor Party! Senator Whish-Wilson understands that if you want to charge 100 grand and someone else is charging 64 grand, the 64 grand will win out so long as the quality is good.

And that brings me to the point: why are Senator Carr, Senator Lines, Senator Bilyk and others wanting to cut this country down to the lowest common denominator? We are in an internationally-competitive higher education world. If we are mediocre we will lose students—Australian students and international students. The largest non-resources income-earning sector for our country will be decimated. I ask the question: why is it that the father of the Labor higher education reforms, John Dawkins, from my home state, favours fee deregulation? Mr Gareth Evans favours fee deregulation. The opposition shadow Assistant Treasurer, Andrew Leigh, favours fee deregulation. What doesn't Senator Carr get?

He gets it, all right. He wants to trash what Ms Gillard, in her capacity as minister, put into place and that was lifting the cap on enrolments. Heaven forbid—heaven forbid! The Council of Private Higher Education Providers, what did they say to us in the Senate hearing? Fees might come—listen for it, listen!—down. Not up—they will come down. Why? Because for the first time ever they will be allowed to participate in Commonwealth supported places.

So what is it that Labor is wanting to do, Senator Lazarus? What Labor is wanting to do is cut out the possibility of 80,000 students participating in pre-university degree courses—the people who do not have a chance yet; the lower socioeconomic students who will benefit from the Commonwealth scholarships that will come into play. Will they go to the Western suburbs of Perth? No, they will not. They will go to the low socioeconomic students. The rural and regional students of the universities I have worked in will be significantly benefited by these deregulated fees we want to bring in. I say to the Labor Party, and to the crossbenchers particularly: if you want to see Australia's universities become mediocre; if you want to see a lack of opportunity for low socio-economic students; if you want to see 80,000 students denied the opportunity of eventually getting a university education; if you want to trash the reputation of vice-chancellors like Paul Johnson from UWA and the other universities—the Group of Eight and Universities Australia—just go down the path you are going down. I say to you: you are damning higher education in this country and you are damning this opportunity for students who will now not get to university. (Time expired)

Comments

No comments