Senator CARR (3:06 PM) —I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Special Minister of State (Senator Ellison) and the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill), to questions without notice asked today, relating to higher education fees.

Today Senator Ellison said it all. He exposed the real Howard government policy, that is, `no fee, no degree'. We now have it all spelled out to us: $100,000 per degree is the basis of their new approach to funding higher education in this country. We are told that the Prime Minister and many other members of this government are seeking to walk away from their US style education system and their plans to deregulate university fees. The same approach has been taken as when Dr Kemp said in the past that he would not introduce vouchers—just as Senator Newman claims she has no secret claim to dismantle social security and just as the Prime Minister said he would never ever introduce a GST. The truth is out there for anyone to see. The truth is very simple: this government live by an ideological obsession with the privatisation and deregulation of this industry and the undermining of the capacity of ordinary Australians to enjoy the fruits of a higher education.

We see here a government which, when it says that there will be no introduction of an American style system, really means that there will be an introduction of a Kemp style, market driven Australian higher education system. Today we heard from Senator Hill that he would not even seek to rule out the possibility that there would be an introduction of student loans at commercial rates. We have a government which is seeking to introduce a hire—h-i-r-e—education system.

The government has based its policy on what it regards as core and non-core policies. We have seen senior Liberals explain to journalists `that Dr Kemp's policy is the skeleton of Fightback rattling in the closet, despite the fact that it was pronounced dead and buried by the coalition back in 1993'. We have really seen the exposure of Dr Kemp, who stands naked as a result of his right wing ideological obsessions which are seeking now to be cloaked in some sort of virtue predicated on an assumption that their system is in crisis—a crisis created by this government, a crisis which results from the profound cuts to education that have been made by this government in recent times.

I would have thought that Senator Vanstone would have been saying a great deal more. I am sure she would be distraught to see the difficulties faced by her nemesis, Dr Kemp. I recall that it was Dr Kemp who rose to prominence as a result of his knifing of Senator Vanstone. Right now, Senator Vanstone is probably sending suggestions to the Prime Minister on the types of champagne that might be delivered to Dr Kemp, just as the Prime Minister delivered Senator Vanstone a bottle of champagne shortly before he dumped her. I would say that this is clearly—

Senator Tierney —On a point of order, Madam Deputy President: I fail to see what this has to do with the answer under discussion. Would you redirect the senator back to the issues, please.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —This is a wide-ranging discussion. I call Senator Carr.

Senator CARR —It is quite clear to me that Senator Vanstone may well be the person we should thank for exposing this government's hypocrisy and its pattern of deceit with regard to higher education. Senator Vanstone knows only too well what the practices of this government are in reality: they say one thing, they do another. There is no way that anyone can believe for a moment the assurances given by this government, given their pattern of deceit in so many areas.

We have experienced the claims made by this government that they are not undertaking certain policies, when it has been quite apparent on at least two occasions this year, as a result of the documentation that the public has before it, that this government have been considering actions to move towards the deregulation of the university sector, the introduction of oppressive fees and the remov al of any commitment they may have made in previous times. We have before us in written form the fact that this government have sought to introduce a new system of higher education which quite directly benefits those in this community who are already very wealthy and privileged and who will enjoy further advantage as a result of policies which are quite apparently directed at making sure that those who enjoy the fruits of power and privilege in this community will continue to do so.