Mrs HULL (2:54 PM) —My question is to the Minister for Education, Science and Training. Would the minister inform the House of recent responses to the government's proposed reforms in the higher education sector, in particular those that might relate to Charles Sturt University in my electorate of Riverina? Is the minister aware of other statements or policies in this area?

Dr NELSON (Minister for Education, Science and Training) —I thank the member for Riverina for her question and her continuing and outstanding advocacy for Charles Sturt University. The government, as I just said, has announced a major reform package for Australian higher education. It is about the sort of economic and social development this country can expect over the next 10 to 20 years. Reform is necessary to make sure that we are internationally competitive in higher education.

Apart from the $1.5 billion of extra public investment in the first four years, one of the things that was argued to the government by each one of the vice-chancellors of the 38 universities was that they should for the first time be able to set their own HECS charge according to what they think the courses require in terms of a student contribution, that student contribution being paid back, of course, only when the student has finished university and is earning, under this package, in excess of $30,000 a year. The vice-chancellors of Charles Sturt University, the University of Wollongong, the University of Western Sydney, Macquarie University and indeed the University of Tasmania have all said that their HECS charges will essentially not change at all—and, of course, in Tasmania we had TasUni fees to stay as they are.

I was asked whether there were any other policies in this regard. Last Sunday week, in answer to a question in relation to Labor's higher education policy, the Leader of the Opposition told the Sunday program, `It's a work in progress'—which of course was also the title of one of Barry Jones's books. Two weeks ago we had the member for Melbourne, who, when asked where Labor's blueprint was, said, `I don't know.' So there is obviously a major challenge there. We have also had the member for Jagajaga, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, running around as Henny Penny Jenny, telling parents that they are going to have to start saving up for their child's higher education from the time of their birth—and it seems that the Leader of the Opposition has been swallowing some of this nonsense as well. I read with some interest, if not concern, in the Australian of 12 June under the heading `Students united on division':

that is, the University of Western Sydney—

So I asked myself—

Opposition members interjecting—

Dr NELSON —Given the leadership qualities with which the opposition seems to be obsessed, I thought, `How could this be true?' A student doing, for example, arts-law in 2005, under the current arrangements, would be paying $5,300 a year and would leave with an arts-law degree of $26,500. Under these proposals, if the University of Western Sydney decided, which it said it would not, to increase the HECS charge to the maximum possible amount—all of that money going into the university—that student would leave university with a debt of $34,500.

Mr Crean —Oh, that's cheap; oh, that's good!

Dr NELSON —The Leader of the Opposition says that that is cheap and that is good. Precisely—$34,500 to spend your working life as a lawyer, when the chippies and the boilermakers and the mechanics down the road in Penrith are paying for three-quarters of the education of those who go to university under this package.

Did the Leader of the Opposition actually say to this student, `Look, I don't think you've got it right; I have carefully read this package, I've listened to the leadership of Australian universities and I have listened as the Leader of the Opposition to the minister for education and indeed the Prime Minister in the parliament'? No, he did not. An hour later he did a press conference and he said:

It is at least intellectual laziness, and it is at worst an out-and-out lie that is being deceitfully perpetrated upon some of the most vulnerable families in this country to make them believe that in some way higher education will be beyond their means.

Mr Latham —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The SPEAKER —Member for Werriwa, I will deal with the matter. The minister's use of the word `lie' was inappropriate and I ask him to withdraw it.

Dr NELSON —Mr Speaker, I withdraw. But it is obvious that—

The SPEAKER —Order! The minister will resume his seat or he will find himself in much deeper water. There is no conditional withdrawal, Minister.

Dr NELSON —Mr Speaker, I withdraw. But the Leader of the Opposition has been stating things which he knows—

Opposition members interjecting—

The SPEAKER —Order! I am listening to the minister.

Dr NELSON —The Leader of the Opposition has been making statements to Australians which he believes not to be true. The consequences of those statements, he has pointed out himself—

Mr Latham —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You have asked the minister to withdraw unconditionally. He should do so without adding those extra words—

The SPEAKER —The member for Werriwa will resume his seat.

The SPEAKER —I warn the member for Lingiari! Consistent with what has been the practice of previous speakers, I have required the minister to withdraw unconditionally and he has done so. I listened closely to what he was saying. I would have reasonably concluded that he was in fact continuing his answer. I did not, for that reason, take any other action.

Dr NELSON —This issue rises above many of the things that pass for debate here on a day-to-day basis. This is about the attitudes, emotions and concerns of parents, and they deserve to be told the facts by governments and by oppositions. By all means debate the facts, but the Leader of the Opposition himself, in speaking to Laurie Oakes last Sunday on Channel 9, gave the consequence of what he, the member for Jagajaga and others on the other side are deliberately doing. Referring to the University of Western Sydney, he said:

If they are the last, it is because they will have been deceived and given misinformation by people who should know better—and the member for Brand knows what I am talking about.