Mr BEAZLEY —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Do you recollect Dr Kemp's judgment in the submission that you instructed him to prepare that `higher student staff ratios, less frequent lecture and tutorial contact, the persistence of outdated technology and gaps in key areas of professional preparation', including practical skills development, are `fuelling a perception of declining quality' in our higher education system? What do you intend to do about it?

Mr HOWARD (Prime Minister) —I recollect a number of things and one of the things that I recollect most vividly, in answer to the Leader of the Opposition, is the decision that the government took this morning in cabinet. That decision, as I already outlined to the House—but I will take the opportunity of doing so again—is to maintain the existing arrangements. That means, in particular, a clear rejection of vouchers for post-secondary education, a clear rejection of the deregulation of university fees and any introduction of HECS for TAFE courses, the maintenance of the current level of tuition subsidies and HECS exemption arrangements, the retention of the current processes for agreeing to the number of government funded places and the retention of the prohibition on charging fees for HECS liable places.

They are the arrangements that underpin the existing system and that guarantee the realisation of the aspiration of middle Australia for their children to be educated in universities. That has been, and remains, the commitment of this government. We are a government that believes in affordable tertiary education for Australian children. We are also a government that believes in giving parental choice in relation to secondary education—

Mr Beazley —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order and it goes to relevance. I took a quote which presents a situation of declining quality—

Mr SPEAKER —I am familiar with the quote.

Mr Beazley —major problems, higher student staff ratios, less frequent lecture and tutorial contact, et cetera.

Mr SPEAKER —I noted the question.

Mr Beazley —I asked the Prime Minister what he intended to do about it. Thus far, we have heard nothing, and he has gone off into a deviation about secondary education.

Mr SPEAKER —There is no way that I can rule the Prime Minister as being anything other than relevant to the question and responding to the question of what he intends to do about higher education standards. I invite him to continue.

Mr HOWARD —This is a government that remains very committed in the provision of quality education to Australian children at all levels: primary, secondary and tertiary. That is why we committed ourselves to such strong support for literacy and numeracy. One of the issues that has been identified in this debate—by the vice-chancellors, the minister and all those who have carefully followed the debate—is the problem of salary arrangements within universities. The Leader of the Opposition has obviously read the transcript of my interview with Neil Mitchell. He will be aware that I made the observation in that interview that I thought, judging by community standards and given the sorts of responsibilities that academics had, there was an argument to say that many academic staff in Australia were not as well remunerated as they might have been. I have said that before—and I do not in any way walk away from saying it—but I would say to the universities and the vice-chancellors that there is a quid pro quo in that. If you want greater salary justice, you have to reform your industrial relations system. You cannot, on the one hand, say, `We want greater salary justice for academics; we want our professors and senior lecturers—

Mr Tanner interjecting—

Mr SPEAKER —The member for Melbourne is warned.

Mr HOWARD —to be paid according to the responsibility they carry,' but still continue to embrace Neanderthal industrial relations practices, to allow yourselves to become the victims of pattern bargaining, to maintain some outdated notions and to reject Australian workplace arrangements—in other words, to hang on to an old-fashioned industrial relations system that you expect the federal Treasury to underwrite. The essence of what the minister has announced today is, `Yes, we are prepared to give financial help to the universities in relation to their salary problem but only if they are prepared to put their industrial relations house in order.' The ball is in their court. If they fix the industrial relations, we will make the additional money that Dr Kemp indicated available.

Mr McMullan —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask that the Prime Minister table the document from which he quoted in the course of that answer.

Mr Howard —It is clearly marked `In confidence'.

Mr SPEAKER —The Prime Minister was quoting from a confidential document.