Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (16:30): 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— Senator McKenzie: I'm glad you brought that up! Senator KIM CARR: I recall, Senator: John Dawkins introduced some changes which you vigorously opposed. Do you remember those? I think you are on the public record, down at Deakin saying that you strenuously stood on a platform opposing any fees whatsoever. I look forward to hearing you explain how you now support it. Perhaps you are like the Minister for Education, who, when he has been caught out on this, has said, 'I simply told people what they wanted to hear.' He was in training to be the education minister of the Commonwealth of Australia! As a student, he just told them what they wanted to hear—did not believe a word of it, he says now. We have a situation where the government is seeking to delay these bills until next year. They will keep on being on the table. They will say, 'Oh, yes, we're sticking to our guns here; we're determined to fight on, but we'll have to deal with it another time.' And of course they know that come next March, under the current law, there is a need for a reconciliation between what is in the budget and what is in the legislation. They are withholding the money from universities at this time, despite the fact that the parliament has now rejected those changes three times. They are saying, 'We'll get them through later on.' We will find that by next March, under law, they are required to make a reconciliation and that universities will be able to pursue their legal rights at law. It is not good enough for the government to simply announce that they are going to slash the budget where there is a clear piece of legislation indicating the way in which money is to be expended. They expend money on the authority granted by the parliament. They do not have the discretion simply to rewrite the legislation without parliamentary approval. The government knows this. They know it is bad policy, and they know it is flawed policy, so they need to find a new narrative to explain their funding cuts, their breach of promise to the electorate, their undermining of their commitments to the Australian people. They need to explain how they have stripped out of Australia the basic principle of a fair go. They have to explain what they have done to undermine the research program upon which our prosperity—new industries, new technologies, new opportunities—is so heavily reliant. They have to explain all of that. So they will simply be trying to run some sort of argument that the reality of their dog-eat-dog policies, their survival-of-the-fittest vision, has hit this tremendous brick wall. And that is what the Senate inquiry will be able to highlight to them—just how much of a brick wall they have hit. They simply will not be able to conceal the fact that the moral imperative of higher education cannot be escaped. It is morally wrong to vastly increase the cost of a degree, to shift the burden of paying that cost on to students, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. It is morally wrong to claim that you are only asking for 50 per cent in payments when in reality we know that under the charges that have already been proposed by a number of universities, particularly the University of Western Australia, the figure is between 60 and 70 per cent; it is morally wrong to undermine economic and social opportunities particularly for women; and it is morally wrong for governments to undermine the position of rural and regional families and communities—and it is morally wrong for National Party to be so supine in their approach to participating in this government. The government cannot salvage this plan through any attempt to verbal crossbenchers about what their position has been. How many times have we been told that the crossbenchers will say one thing publicly but privately they are saying something else? Why is it necessary for people to put their views to the minister in writing? That has happened because the minister was not able to get people to the various meetings that he thought they should attend, and that happened simply because they had been told so often what the position is—and, if anything is the case, there might be people on the cross benches to the left of the Labor Party on these questions. The government fails to appreciate that these proposals it is advancing are so deeply resented by the Australian people simply because they are not in the national interest. Education is not just about private returns. Yes you receive a private benefit—of course you do—but that is nothing to be squeamish about. Fundamentally, though, the reason the government invests the majority of the money in our universities is the public good. For the basic social and economic infrastructure of our society we need an educated people—not just an educated workforce but an educated people. We need a commitment to ensure that our learning institutions, our universities, are able to pursue important issues in the development of new knowledge and to develop public understandings and civic responsibilities. We also need to ensure we have enough nurses, enough doctors, enough scientists and enough engineers. We have to ensure we have enough vets—even the National Party should understand how important it is to at least have enough vets in this country. They have to understand that, in a market system, if you are not going to earn a lot of money you are not likely to want to go into a program as an act of charity. The government has to ensure we have enough physicists. We have to be able to ensure that the country can progress as a civilised nation. Mr Pyne does not get that. However, I am absolutely confident that the Australian people do. They grasp just how important education is. The public understand how important it is not just to the individual but to society and to the economy. That is why you have this tremendous resentment being developed not just by students but by families across the nation. That is why people have an expectation of the social right that the quality of our education will not be dependent upon the income of mum or dad. The capacity to participate in our society should not ever be a product solely of your postcode. That is why the public is so deeply hostile to what this government is doing—they know that we will all be judged on the measures that this parliament takes. That is why I am looking forward to the next election. I think this will be a central issue. The prospect of full public engagement in the discussion about what sort of society we want to be and what sort of role universities play in that will be an important issue for determining the result of the next election. We want to ensure that access to higher education should depend on individual ability and choice but it should not be dependent on wealth or family background. We believe those principles are worth defending. We want to ensure that there is equality of opportunity in this society. The government's program of deregulation, of price hikes, of raising fees and of pampering to the privileged is disingenuous. They have tried to dress this up as something that it is not and have been found out. We understand in this country how important the education system is and in many respects that is why, up until relatively recent times, education has enjoyed broadly bipartisan commitments. What we do notice—I guess it is a pattern we saw with Minister Vanstone, as we see with Mr Pyne—is that when the Liberals get in they do feel the need to change things. (Time expired)