Senator CARR (12:03 PM) —I move:

At the end of the motion, add "but the Senate:

(a) notes that the quality of Australian education institutions is of prime importance to our future, both economically and culturally; and

(b) condemns the Government for damaging the quality of Australian education by:

(i) punitive cuts to universities;

(ii) a lack of commitment to equity issues; and

(iii) mismanagement of the education export industry".

This bill sets the maximum amounts for operating and other grants to the higher education institutions by varying the amounts already legislated under the Higher Education Funding Act 1998 for 1999-2000 and inserts an amount for 2001. It sets the maximum funding level for expenditure on international marketing and promotion of Australian education and training services by Australian Education International for the 2001 funding year. It seeks to amend HEFA to make provision for funding 60 medical places at James Cook University for 2001, and it seeks to provide funding for science lectureships of $14.7 million and research infrastructure of $73.6 million. These are initiatives which were announced in the budget.

The debate on this bill could not have been more timely. I have no doubt that the minister welcomes the opportunity to canvass these issues this particular week. Last week, Dr Kemp's true agenda was made public. Stripped of its rhetoric, doubletalk and all the spin doctoring that one has come to expect from Dr Kemp, a pattern of deceit has emerged from the propaganda machine that he has developed. Dr Kemp's submission was revealed last week, bare for all to see, and what an ugly sight it was.

Having starved universities of funds since the savage $840 million cuts in 1996—and of course all the additional cuts, which I will deal with later on—Dr Kemp's ideological plan is to deregulate the system and to turn higher education in this country into a commercially-driven market free-for-all. Dr Kemp has been obliged to admit in that submission that he and his policies have led to a crisis in higher education—a crisis very much of his own creation. What he has been obliged to admit, but what he will not say publicly, is that `demand for higher education in Queensland, New South Wales, Western Australia and Victoria is unlikely to be met'. That is a direct quote from the submission. The submission also states that there is `no capacity to reduce huge regional disparities in . . . participation', and that people from `affluent capital city suburbs are five times more likely to go to university' than people from the least affluent areas. It states that `universities are currently in a difficult financial position.'

His own cabinet submission admits that `already, eight institutions appear to be operating at a deficit and some regional campuses are at risk'. He indicates that there are `higher student-staff ratios and less frequent lecture and tutorial contact'. He says that universities have outdated technology and, as a result, universities are `progressively less capable of delivering what government wants, industry needs and the community expects'. As a result of this, Dr Kemp, in his own words, tells us that `there is a perception of declining quality'.

I expect, when the government have read this submission again and refreshed their memories of what their minister was saying, that they will be only too happy to vote for our second reading amendment. I expect every member of the government to rush over here and support that amendment because they know the truth of it. The truth of it is demonstrated by the fact that the government minister, Dr Kemp, has revealed the truth in his own cabinet submission.

Senator Abetz —We'll join you over there.

Senator CARR —I see Senator Abetz is here yet again. I would have thought that Senator Abetz would have learned something from his recent performances in this chamber and have been obliged to keep himself a little under control. I expect Senator Abetz to join with the opposition and support us in our second reading amendment.

What we see is a dismal list of woes. We note from Dr Kemp's own documents that there is a perception of declining quality. There is no clearer indication of the truth of this than that he presents this information to his colleagues, presumably in secret—he had no expectation that such opinions would be revealed. What he seeks to do after creating a crisis is to exploit that crisis, and he then suggests that the solution is deregulation of fees. He seeks to propose a university tuition subsidy which follows the student—by any other name, a voucher. He seeks that there be no guaranteed minimum amount of funding for institutions. He also seeks to have another bash at universities, which are struggling thanks to his own starvation policies, and he seeks to propose a student loan scheme with a real rate of interest.

Of course, the government claims that all that is off the agenda: `No, sorry. Sorry, we didn't mean any of that. Having been caught red-handed, we don't really mean it any more.' This is despite the fact that this is the second time that such propositions have been before the cabinet this year. So how could anyone possibly believe the denials that this government issues on a regular basis? From what we have before us, it is clear that this government's interest in education—particularly the sorts of policies that Dr Kemp has been pursuing—is predicated on assumptions which will see a return to policies of the 1950s. He sees this as a modernising process: his idea of modernisation is to return to the fifties. We will see a situation where fewer and fewer people of modest backgrounds will be able to attend university, and universities will be places for the wealthy and the privileged. He seeks to establish a new set of arrangements which return to a system of administration in universities for the privileged few. The big eight universities will do very well; the rest of the universities will be reduced in status and some may not be able to continue at all.

We see that those who thought that John Howard's code of ministerial conduct was meant to mean something can now see for themselves that it means very little indeed. We were told that governments were supposed to be frank and honest. But we have noticed that there can be no frankness and no honesty from this government when we see the propositions revealed in that cabinet submission, which demonstrate that what they are saying in private and what they are saying in public are two different things altogether. So when Dr Kemp says that there will be no vouchers—yet he uses the terms that are used in that cabinet submission—you can clearly see that this is a situation in which, to quote the Bard, `a rose by any other name would smell as sweet'. I would say that a `universal subsidy which follows the student' smells just as bad as a voucher.

That is the government's policy, despite the claims that are made when they are caught. That has been the government's secret policy since their election. I have absolutely no doubt that they will pursue that policy because it is predicated on an ideological obsession—an ideological obsession that Dr Kemp and the Prime Minister happen to have. They happen to believe that, if you have a position of privilege and power, you should be able to exploit the resources available in this country to entrench that privilege and power. We see that Dr Kemp and the Prime Minister are chained together by what I regard as a bond of mutual deceit and dishonesty. The true intent of the government has been revealed to the public. Of course, the government has sought to rule out these various scams once they are revealed, but the truth remains that this government developed a cabinet submission on the direction of cabinet itself. As it was with the GST and as we have seen with Senator Newman and her changes to the social security system, when governments claim they are not doing things, you cannot for a moment believe them under this regime.

What we see before us is that the government have presented a whole series of problems but would appear to have no solutions for them. That is what we are expected to take on face value—that the government acknowledge that there is a crisis but they do not have any solution to that crisis. We see, however, one final thing remaining of that original package, one final thing remaining in terms of their public admissions: that is, they plan to introduce sweeping industrial relations reforms to the higher education sector to do over the workers in universities in order to balance the books. So what we have noticed is a re-run; the proposal is a re-run of the waterfront dispute, but this time with the universities instead of the docks. This is a plan to make workers in universities pay and pay and then pay some more for the government's policy disaster. They seek to predicate this on the fundamental premise of coercion—which, of course, we were told was illegal under their Workplace Relations Act. They are seeking legal advice to get around their own act—and that is revealed in clause 32 of the cabinet submission. We are looking forward to seeing that legal advice, because I am sure it will be contested in the courts as the government seeks to pursue this policy, this ideological obsession.

In the past the government have said that their concerns are demonstrated by their merit based equity scholarship scheme—which the government are now seeking to remove. After cutting six per cent from the universities' operating grants, increasing HECS charges by up to 125 per cent, lowering the repayments threshold to around $21,000, abolishing the Commonwealth-industry places scheme and slashing half a billion dollars from student assistance, any reasonable person would say that the Commonwealth education ministers might not be able to sustain a case that they are interested in equity. Any reasonable person would suggest that enough damage has already been inflicted in this portfolio. Any reasonable person would also suggest that it is time for Dr Kemp to go. They would suggest that his slashing of a further $39 million by the abolition of the merit based equity scholarship scheme is totally unjustified.

I would suggest that this government is predicating its education policies on a premise that it can in fact proceed to produce fewer opportunities for young Australians. The opportunities that remain will of course go to those with the greatest capacity to pay. That is what they mean by user pays: if you have got enough money, you take advantage of opportunities that are presented.

The merit based scholarship scheme was only a tiny token offered by the government in its 1996 cuts to the higher education budgets. This minor concession to the needs of students who were locked out of the university as a result of its changes to HECS is now being withdrawn as well. This government constantly talks about increased moneys available for higher education. Yet again we have the pea and thimble trick being presented by this minister. We have seen student income support cut by $500 million. We have seen HECS payments charges increased by $313 million. We have seen the lowering of the repayment threshold to many thousands of dollars below average weekly earnings, taking a further $817 million from students and graduates. When Senator Vanstone announced the merit based equity scholarship scheme, she told us:

The facts are that if you come from a socio-economically disadvantaged background or a rural or geographically remote area, your chances of going to university are less than if you come from a high status background and live in an urban area . . .

These measures are aimed at bringing higher education within the reach of ordinary Australians. They are a practical demonstration of the Government's real commitment to fairness and equity in higher education.

What a joke. What a complete joke. One thousand scholarships were offered in 1997, building to a pool of 4,000 in 1999. The scheme has scarcely begun and we now see it being axed. This followed the so-called sounding out of the effectiveness of the scheme which was carried out by DETYA in what can only be described as another bodgie survey. They involved university equity officers being asked via email for their views on the scheme, in such a way that it could be easily assumed that the government was seeking to improve and enhance the scheme rather than axe it.

This is the whole problem when you are dealing with this government. You have to be very careful in appreciating what the intention of the government really is, because it is usually not the intention that they say. There were 19 equity officers who responded to the suggestion that by providing a grant at the time of the study rather than a HECS exemption the scheme could be improved and financially disadvantaged students could be retained in the universities. Instead of using this amount of money in the ways suggested by the survey, the government has used the findings to abolish the scheme. This is a further demonstration of the government's lack of any real commitment to equity. Opportunity and access are the casualties along the Howard government's road to user pays in education.

Let me turn to Australian Education International. I am sure that this will be a matter that I will have to pursue in the committee stage of the bill. It is a matter of great con cern to me. This bill provides funding to the end of 2001 for Australian Education International, whose job is to promote Australian education world wide. It was originally set up in 1994 under the name of the Australian International Education Foundation. The AEI is fully funded by government and it represents all sections of the industry—schools, ELICOS, TAFE, and private training providers in the higher education institutions. The government's management—and I say there is very strong evidence of mismanagement—of our education export industry has been the focus of a good deal of attention in recent times and I can assure this government it will be the focus of a great deal more attention in the times ahead.

We have seen this government being obliged to move back onto the back foot because it is quite clearly unable to react effectively to the developments that are occurring within this industry. It should be anticipating them. It should not be forced to respond to the opposition in the way it is. It should be ahead of the game. Given the resources that are available to government, one could expect it to at least have some knowledge of the developments in this industry and be able to move ahead to anticipate actions rather than being forced by the opposition to take up various inquiries. Take the Greenwich University, for instance. The government has apparently had ample warning of the plans to establish this institution of very doubtful provenance. What it was obliged to do was to establish an inquiry into the bona fides of the institution, its management and its courses. It was not until these issues were pursued by the opposition that such action was taken.

The AEI, which has been spending a great deal of time promoting Australian education, has not taken sufficient care to protect our reputation in that promotion effort. It has not been paying sufficient attention to protecting our reputation for quality and integrity, which are the fundamental ingredients in the success of this industry. It is appropriate that we ask the government to give some thought to the way in which it is sorting out the issues that have been presented, particularly in view of the impact of the advances in the technologi cal delivery of education. We have seen what has happened with Greenwich. At the end of the review process we will see new criteria established. I trust that these will be rigorous criteria; that they will be criteria from which we can genuinely measure the quality of educational institutions such as Greenwich.

I would ask the government: what avenues are open to the government to fix up the problems—problems of its own creation, brought about as a result of the incompetence of the minister for territories in not being able to respond to the blindly obvious problems that presented themselves and in signing off on a proposition to grant the authority to establish a university effectively under Australian law through the territory of Norfolk Island in such away as to allow that institution to exploit the reputation of this country?

I might take the opportunity in the committee stage to discuss the review of the ESOS Act, particularly the question of the massive abuses that are appearing with regard to international students by a number of bogus colleges and shysters that are currently operating in this country. This review, which the government has again sought as a means of silencing the opposition, does not address the fact that this government has enormous powers available to clean up the industry but has not used those powers. This is a bill which the opposition is, of course, obliged to support. We ask, however, that it be amended in the terms of the amendment that I have circulated. (Time expired)