Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Abetz. I refer to the Prime Minister's pre-election promise that there would be no cuts to education. Can the minister confirm that the Minister for Education said on Sunday that he wanted a reduction in Commonwealth university grants, by 20 per cent—

Senator Cormann interjecting—

and, given that the budget slashed $30 billion—

Senator Wong interjecting—

from schools over the next decade and cut more than $5 billion from higher education, will the minister now admit that the Prime Minister has well and truly broken his promise?

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

Mr President, because of the ongoing interjections by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, I only got a little bit of the question, but the bit of the question that I did get I understand related to our policy in relation to tertiary education. I simply say that putting out another 80,000 places for universities to take up, giving extra opportunities to young Australians to be educated at university, is a hallmark decision of this government.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you're stinking rich.

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

And somebody foolishly interjects and says, 'Stinking rich.' This sort of class warfare is indicative of the Labor Party. I simply ask them this very simple question: do you honestly believe the 'stinking rich', to use that term, are not at university already? Who do you think is going to benefit from the 80,000 extra places? It will be those from the lower socioeconomic groupings in our nation that currently do not get the opportunity to do so. I would have thought the alleged champions of the working class would have embraced this policy as something which would open the door for another 80,000 of our young Australians to access a tertiary education—because we know that, if you go to university and get a degree, there is every likelihood that throughout your life as an earner you will earn $1 million more than somebody without a university degree. We are opening up that opportunity to another 80,000 per annum. I think everybody in Australia should be embracing that approach. (Time expired)

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask the minister: did the Prime Minister say there would be no cuts to education? Has he broken that promise? Despite the Prime Minister's pre-election promise to 'ensure the continuation of the current arrangements of university funding', the government's higher education changes will mean $100,000-degrees and real rates of interest on HECS debts. Doesn't this also constitute a broken promise? Does this not indicate that low-income families will be seriously disadvantaged? (Time expired)

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

There were a lot of questions there. I think a very simple answer to each and every one of them would be 'no'. I would invite Senator Carr to have a look at the comments of, I think, the ANU vice-chancellor, Ian Chubb—and somebody will correct me if I am wrong—who said that the concept of a $100,000 university degree is not a likelihood in any way, shape or form.

Further, I indicate that, on average, there will be an increase in funding for schools of 8.7 per cent in 2014-15, 8.9 per cent in 2015-16, 8.9 per cent in 2016-17 and 6.6 per cent in 2017-18. Schooling is a fundamental part of a child's journey in life. It is an important springboard, and we are increasing— (Time expired)

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I once again refer to the Prime Minister's promise to 'ensure the continuation of the current arrangements of university funding'. Does the Prime Minister's refusal today to rule out blackmailing the Senate by cutting university research funding mean we are now on the path to yet another broken promise?

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

Once again, the answer is no. I also indicate to the honourable senator that we are not engaged in the game of blackmailing anybody. We know that that is a Labor Party tactic. They engage in it each and every day of their lives—between their factions and with their unions. That is part and parcel of their make-up.

Senator Wong interjecting—

I say to the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, who is continually interjecting, that that is not part and parcel of our game plan. Our game plan is to explain to the Australian people how grossly unfair it is to leave a legacy of debt and deficit to the next generation and to not take the important initiatives that are necessary today to ensure that we can overcome what would otherwise be some huge problems we would face in the future. We are seeking to establish a safe and secure Australia. That is what we are on about.