Senator TIERNEY (4:18 PM) —I also wish to speak on this report and I begin by expressing my dismay at the disgraceful abuse of parliamentary process in referring this piece of legislation to the references committee. This is legislation. We have in this Senate two types of committees: references committees and legislation committees. This abuse of the processes of the Senate to send legislation for inquiry to a references committee is something that the Procedures Committee should look at. This negates the whole purpose of the division between the committees in this place.

Why did they do it? The whole thing was a cynical political ploy because the references committees are controlled by the ALP. So what the ALP did was set up the terms of reference for the inquiry, they called the witnesses and they set up where the inquiries would be held. As a matter of fact, there was such a lack of interest by students in this inquiry process, with so few turning up to actually protest at the inquiry, that they got desperate in Adelaide and held the inquiry in the middle of the student union. They still could not get any students to turn up except a few interested in the processes of government who sat up and listened to a Senate inquiry procedure. There were no protests. When we went to the very first hearing—this was to be their centrepiece, this was to be the big media event—at the University of Western Sydney on the first day of the inquiry, I turned up at 8.30 and the only one standing out the front was the vice-chancellor. There were no protesters. They did turn up at lunchtime. Sixty turned up at lunchtime but 20 of them were members of the AMWU who had their banners up. There were only 40 students out of a student body of 37,000, and this was repeated right around the country.

Before the inquiry started, the opposition parties had made up their minds. They said so. Senator Carr is on record as saying, `We are going to oppose this legislation.' I shared a platform in Sydney at the end of August with Senator Stott Despoja and she said, `The government has got to go back to the drawing board and start again.' This was before we had had one day of hearings. What was the point of having the process if the parties that set this inquiry up had no intention of listening to any evidence or changing their minds having listened to all the evidence and having read the submissions? All those people put all that time in, gave us submissions, turned up to the inquiry and gave their evidence sincerely, but the group that set it up had no intention of listening to them. They had made up their minds and they had done it for cynical political purposes.

They have done this before. At the end of the year 2000 there was yet another inquiry into the university system. They came out with a report called Universities in crisis. Why did they do that? Again it was a political ploy in the lead-up to the 2001 election. They wanted this as a weapon to beat the government over the head with during the 2001 election, and what have we just had—

Senator Ian Campbell —They should do it again, it worked well last time.

Senator TIERNEY —It will probably have a similar effect. Where are their policies? This was the question I asked constantly throughout the inquiry. This inquiry was set up to examine the bill we are debating in the parliament this week. I asked each vice-chancellor what their preference would be in relation to the three paths that lie ahead of us. One path is to leave things as they are. No-one wanted that.

Senator Ian Campbell —That's the Labor way.

Senator TIERNEY —The minister has said, `If we leave everything as it is in the university sector, with no change'—because perhaps this bill will fail—`the whole sector will be on a collision course with mediocrity.' There will not be enough money in the system in the long term as we try to prepare Australia for the information age. There will not be enough money to do it. The second option was the Labor option. It might amaze my colleagues, but the Labor Party has actually come out with a policy. It has a policy on higher education.

Senator Ian Campbell —Was it a discussion paper or a policy?

Senator TIERNEY —No, it is a policy. It is a very detailed policy. It is called `Aim Higher' and it came out on 26 July this year. Senator Campbell cannot remember it.

Senator Ferguson —Nor can most Australians.

Senator TIERNEY —Senator Ferguson cannot remember it either. The reason is that it sank without trace in one day. Everywhere we went around Australia, I revived this policy. I highlighted it. People should realise what is in this Labor policy. The so-called `Aim Higher' policy—

Senator Ian Campbell —Is it on Kimmie's web site?

Senator TIERNEY —It is probably on Kim's web site. What Aim Higher will do is return education to its impoverished condition under 13 years of Labor. It will put it back on the public—

Senator TIERNEY —No, it is not. I am just warming up for that. That is a bit later. It will put back onto the public budget virtually all the funding in higher education. That is what those opposite did under Whitlam. That is what was happening under Hawke. That is what led to a reduction of resources and insufficient resources in the sector.

The third option that I put to the vice-chancellors at the inquiry was this package—a very carefully crafted package. The package has two vital new elements. One is to put $1.6 billion of public money into higher education over the next four years and $10.5 billion over 10 years. That is a significant public investment in higher education. What does the Labor Party have in its policy? What is it proposing in Aim Higher? It says that it is going to fully index. In the way it works its figures, it is all due to full indexation of the grant for universities. But all indexation does is maintain current value. There is no real increase in money at all. You have to be a game person to believe the Labor Party when it says that it will fully index. We are just taking it at its word. The Labor Party got rid of full indexation. The Labor Party has form on this. If those opposite ever get back into power as a Labor government and run into financial trouble, as they always do—they racked up $90 billion worth of debt during the time of the Keating government—

Senator Ian Campbell —They will send it through the roof again—back into the boom and bust cycle.

Senator TIERNEY —Senator Campbell says `back into the boom and bust cycle again'. If they get in, they will want to cut back budgets. Guess which they will cut back? They will cut back the university sector again. They will guarantee the impoverishment of universities because the other thing that they will not allow—and this is the thing that is in these measures—is the flexibility in the university system to increase the money from the private sector. Some universities now do not receive the majority of their money from the public sector. Universities like the University of Melbourne can do that. Senator Stott Despoja would have us go back to a free university system all on the public budget. I worked in the sector. That was a recipe for declining resources and impoverishment of the sector. It will not set us up properly for the information age if we go down that path.