Senator McKIERNAN —I have a question for Senator Vanstone, the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. The vice-chancellor of the University of Canberra, Don Aitkin, said last week on Canberra radio that he is appalled at your government's attitude, that your pre-election higher education policy is now simply your latest higher education policy and that we will all have to wait until the budget for your next policy. This morning on AM the vice-chancellor of La Trobe University, Michael Osborne, echoed these sentiments, saying:

I'm surprised he [ie the Prime Minister] has stood by as the minister who has been appointed has simply told us that those commitments can now be safely forgotten.

Can you assure Don Aitkin, Michael Osborne and the other vice-chancellors, and those Australians who actually believed your election promises, that this is not the case and that you remain firmly committed to implementing your pre-election policy?

Senator VANSTONE —Let me answer your question by telling you what this chamber has been told before. I have discharged my duty to the higher education sector by being honest with them. I admit that it is probably a bracing change, since the previous minister was not honest. For example, he misled them into believing that he could solve the higher education salaries dispute. He gave a commitment to them that the supplementation would be forthcoming and, as you know, he was unable to deliver.

That misleading of the sector was a very damaging process and in my view not responsibly discharging his responsibilities to the sector. What I have told all the vice-chancellors is this: the government faces a very substantial savings task to bring the budget back into black. That is the budget that Senator McKiernan's government failed to bring back into black; the budget that his government left with a $8 billion hole in it.

I have told the vice-chancellors that it is unreasonable to expect that the higher education sector would make no contribution. I have said to them that the sooner we can have the specialists in higher education—which, of course, the vice-chancellors are undoubtedly a part of—shaping the savings proposal, rather than letting a savings proposal being purely fiscally driven in itself shape higher education, the better.

I am pleased to report that I have had a number of useful discussions—some verbal, some planned and some in writing—with a number of vice-chancellors who will publicly say that they do not want to see the higher education sector make any contribution whatsoever. I understand their commitment to running that position, but I also understand that they appreciate the government does have this savings task and they welcome the opportunity to have a hand in shaping the savings proposal. That is, higher education will shape the savings proposal, not the savings proposal shape higher education.

At this stage I am not aware if the vice-chancellor of La Trobe University has asked to see me or has written to me. I think not, but something could have arrived which has not come across my desk. As for Professor Aitkin, I am seeing him this afternoon and he is not the first at my door.

Senator McKIERNAN —Madam Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for her answer. My question was about your pre-election promises. From her answer, the minister is not now prepared to stand by those pre-election commitments. Does this mean that you share Mr Howard's view that:

The mandate theory of politics . . . has always been absolutely phoney?

Senator VANSTONE —In your supplementary question you are purporting to quote Mr Howard. That is not a quote that I have seen attributed to him and therefore I decline to either join in with it or deny it. I am not at all sure that that is something that was said. If it has been, I will come back to the chamber on that matter.

I repeat what I told Senator McKiernan before. We made our commitments in the policy statements on which we were elected. I understand that people on the other side of the chamber dislike being reminded that we were elected and they were rejected. The next major policy statement will be at budget time. I want to repeat that some vice-chancellors understand that there probably will have to be a contribution from higher education and they do want to shape the savings proposal. They have the interests of higher education at heart and they will not walk away from shaping that savings proposal simply for the opportunity to go out and campaign against any savings contribution coming from that sector.