Mr HUTCHINSON (Lyons) (13:15): It is just all too hard for the Labor Party. How is it that you can take $6.6 billion out of the higher education sector and then, when a solution is offered that not only allows it to thrive and proper but also is something that is being demanded by the sector, oppose the solution? The hypocrisy of the Labor Party is writ large. It is so disappointing to see the standard of our public debate in respect of good public policy. I heard the member for Newcastle talking about equality of opportunity. The reforms in the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014 will, more than anything, deliver for those kids who come from low socioeconomic backgrounds more opportunity than they have ever had—unless we want to go back to the 1970s when Gough Whitlam, in his wisdom, brought free education to the people. The difficulty with Gough Whitlam's reforms was that those students from privileged backgrounds who were finding themselves a way to go to university—remember, a lot fewer people went to university in those days—were the same people who had always been going to university. And who was paying for it? The tradespeople and the people working on the shop floor were the ones who were paying the fees of people going into higher education. We know that people who go on to higher education earn 75 per cent more over their lifetimes, roughly a million dollars more, than people who do not. Do not talk to me about fairness. Just what does it say? Once the sector is reformed, more students will have the opportunity to go on to higher education, and the regional universities will be the big winners. I spoke passionately on the original bill because I believe that this is not just good reform but necessary reform, and that is confirmed by the sector. One aspect that I want to talk about is the exports. Seventy per cent of the Australian economy is services—whether it be tourism, health services, aged-care services, finances, legal services or education—yet only 17 per cent of our exports are in the services sector. This is the opportunity. The students who come in from overseas who are attracted to universities and higher education institutions in this country do so for one reason. Yes, the beaches are good; and certainly the University of Tasmania is located in one of the most beautiful places on earth. But they come here because the quality of the education they get for the price they pay is great value. They get high-quality education when they come to this country. But guess what? If we sit on our laurels, if we dine out on our reputation, we are going to be overtaken at a million miles an hour by countries to the north—whether it be India, Singapore, Hong Kong, China or Japan—because those are the countries where those students who subsidise and cross-subsidise all of the students in Australia to go university will go, and they will be jeopardised. This is why the sector is calling out for change. This is part of the reason we have been able to deliver the free trade agreements: for the first time we are going to see the opportunity to attract more students out of Japan, China and South Korea to study in Australia. We are not an island in this sense. Our higher education institutions are competing globally. All they are asking for is a chance to compete. We must reform this sector. Only last week the Hon. John Dawkins AO—I do not know the man but I believe he was a member of the Labor Party—came out in support of the plan. And there was another one; I think it might have been the Chancellor of the Australian National University, Mr Gareth Evans. I think he was also a member of the Labor Party. They are supporting the plan. Another one is Maxine McKew, also a member of the Labor Party. She has come out in support. Even the shadow Assistant Treasurer has written it down in black and white. He also supports reform in the higher education sector. It is overdue, it is necessary and it allows the higher education sector to compete. Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): I am not going to protect the member for Lyons from the abuse from the left-hand side of the chamber, because the member for Lyons has a reputation for giving it himself. It is a free-for-all, and I expect that there will be a robust exchange in the parliament. Mr HUTCHINSON: I touched on the article by Andrew Trounson before, titled 'Get over Gough', and I will not go back there. But I look at the way the minister has negotiated this. He consulted broadly—long before the budget that was apparently so unfair. There is nothing more unfair than stealing from my kids, I can tell you; but the minister has consulted with the sector. He engaged with the sector and they could not sustain more cuts. So we have come up with a package that is supported by the sector and that is all about getting more students in Australia into university. I truly appeal to the crossbenchers because we are going to get no help from those on the other side. They are all complaint and no solution. But I do appeal to the crossbench senators. I appeal to my Tasmanian colleague, Senator Lambie. I noted comments that were made this morning, and I just say: former Senator Brian Harradine was not on our side of politics, Mr Deputy Speaker Broadbent, but you would have known him. What would Senator Brian Harradine have done in this situation? I ask Senator Lambie to contemplate. There was a man who delivered more for our state in the time that he was a member representing the state of Tasmania. He certainly would not have taken his bat and ball and gone home. He would have been in the minister's office, and he would have been talking to the relevant ministers about what he could get for our state. I strongly encourage her to take a leaf out of that book. What about the scare campaign on fees? I have never seen anything like it. We will start with the Queensland University of Technology, with not a $100,000 degree in sight. You cannot find one. One of the best business law degrees— Ms Butler interjecting— Mr HUTCHINSON: The member for Griffith probably knows all about these things. One of the best business law degrees in the country: 5½ years and around $30,000. There is not a $100,000 degree in sight. Then we have the University of Western Australia. Ms Claydon interjecting— Mr HUTCHINSON: I acknowledge the comments made by the member for Newcastle about the quality of her university in her town. It is fantastic to hear that. The University of Western Australia is one of the top 100 in the world—and it is $16,000 a year for a three-year degree. It is not $100,000, is it? No. Opposition members interjecting— Mr HUTCHINSON: The hypocrisy! I cannot use some words in this chamber and I will not, but it is indeed frightening. Opposition members interjecting— Mr HUTCHINSON: No up-front fees. Not one student in Australia going to the university of their choice will pay one cent—not one cent, and this is fantastic. More of my colleagues will talk more about this, but 80,000 more students will have access to higher education institutions in our country as a result of these reforms. Regional universities will be the big winners. Take for example the university in my home state of Tasmania. It is the biggest employer in the state of Tasmania. It is a university that can also compete at the research end. It is capable of attracting research dollars for things like marine and Antarctic studies. I note the member for Lyne made reference to some of the money that the federal government has contributed to those research efforts. Fundamentally—certainly in northern Tasmania, certainly in the campus in Launceston and certainly in the campus in Burnie—the high proportion of students that first engage with this wonderful institution are going through pathway courses, sub bachelor degrees and the like. It is those courses that will, with these reforms, now be able to access the HECS loan scheme, which is a truly a generous scheme. I will give an example of the capacity of the University of Tasmania to be able to keep up. I have mentioned this before. The third-largest course they have at the University of Tasmania is their degree in dementia care. It has been born out of their MOOC, which is an online free course there. They have identified a gap in the market. And, I can tell you, with the free trade agreement we have just signed with China there will be huge opportunity for our capacity now that we are able to own and operate profit-making aged-care facilities, childcare facilities and hospitals in China. As a result of the free trade agreement, there are going to be huge opportunities for increased training of those people who will staff those facilities in China. This is why this is so important. We are talking about multiple campuses. I sort of believe in competition. You have got the University of Tasmania—a fine institution. Yes, it has some challenges. We understand that, and that is the conversation that I have been having with the minister—a conversation I would encourage Senator Lambie to have with the minister—in terms of Burnie and the Launceston campuses and how they could be assisted. Tell me if I am wrong, but you have got a monopoly institution, you have got a captive market and you have got a high-quality provider. Heavens above, if they cannot compete in this environment I will give it away, and I believe they absolutely can. Regional universities can be the big winners, because what you will see is reverse migration. If the University of Melbourne prices themselves out of it, and even if they did have $100,000 degrees, students will be able to judge whether that is good value for money or whether they are better off doing the course at the University of Tasmania or even the University of Newcastle. This is what we will see. You will see this happening, and that is really exciting for regional universities in Australia. There will be more scholarships for students from low-SES backgrounds. I note also the University of Sydney— Ms Butler interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): Member for Griffith! Mr HUTCHINSON: They have been outrageous, Deputy Speaker, but we are up for it. I do not know where the University of Sydney stands in the ranking, but I am pretty sure they would be in the top 10, 15 or 20 in the world. The University of Sydney have already stated that their scholarships—now wait for it, Member for Newcastle; hold onto your seat—will go from 700 places to 9,000 places. Just contemplate that for a minute. That is for kids from low-SES backgrounds—the very ones that you were rightly sticking up for, and the higher proportion that do end up going to the University of Newcastle currently. We might have a complete reversal. You might have all the really wealthy smart kids going up to the University of Newcastle and all those low-SES kids from Newcastle coming down and doing degrees at the University of Sydney. What a result! This is a fantastic thing. It is indeed one of our nation's biggest export earners. The cross-subsidies that we get from international students are absolutely critical. It is the reason that education in this country is very reasonably priced. Our markets do work. I mentioned that there is no lack of competition within the higher education sector in Australia. I will be damned if anyone is going to tell me that if there is not good and high-paid employment opportunities there. If somebody is paying a little bit more for a degree, they will make a judgment and the market will actually make a judgment. There is no shortage of supply of providers within this sector. If there was, some of the arguments that are being made by those on the other side may have some resonance. In summary, these are true reforms. I started by saying that I have been in this place only a short time. I guess we all come into this place believing we can make a difference. This is true reform. This is about the future of our country. This is about enhancing one of our natural competitive advantages and being a leader. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue his remarks at that time.