Press Conference - Parliament House

E&OE TRANSCRIPT
Joint Press Conference, Parliament House, Canberra.
Monday 16 March 2015

SUBJECT: Higher Education Reforms.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for taking the time to come this afternoon. I'm here with Belinda Robinson from Universities Australia. I have two announcements to make before question time, which might interest you.

The first of those is that the Government will be splitting the higher education reform bill in the Senate so that the reform, the deregulation, that I have consistently said is the core of the Government's agenda - I think I have sometimes described it as the gravamen of the Government's agenda - will be able to stand and fall on its own merit, separate from the reduction in the Commonwealth Grant Scheme by 20 per cent. So the 20 per cent Commonwealth grant scheme cut will be hived off and put in a separate bill - so two debates can be held. One on the Government's deregulation agenda, which we see as having extraordinary benefits for students and universities, and we'll have a separate debate around the Government's reduction of the Commonwealth Grant Scheme to gain savings.

The second thing I'm announcing is that the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Scheme will be continued to be funded for a further 12 months beyond 30 June this year.

We are doing that, and our first announcement, primarily because we want to clear away any distractions or hurdles that stand in the path of the crossbenchers openly considering the Government's deregulation agenda.

The crossbenchers have indicated over the last few days, and the last few weeks, that the cut to the Commonwealth Grant Scheme, the tying of the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Scheme to those savings, are impediments to their support for the Government's deregulation agenda.

To the Prime Minister and I the most important thing is that we free up universities to be able to be their best - that we have the highest quality higher education system in the world with some of the best universities in the world. That we expand the Commonwealth Grant Scheme to non-university higher education providers so that we have more competition, and so that students who choose a non-university setting for their higher education, are treated the same way as every other student.

We want to expand the pathways programs, the demand-driven system to the pathways programs to give, particularly low SES and first generation university goers, the same opportunity to go to university as everyone else in the community, which have proven to be a great success.

And we want to get away - get rid of the penalties or the premiums if you use FEE HELP in private institutions or VET FEE HELP in TAFEs and private colleges.

That's going to help literally over 200,000 students - 130,000 in non-university placings and 80,000 in new students who are coming to university because of the expansion of the system by this Government.

That, to us, is much more important than the reductions and, therefore, we are clearing away those hurdles and we hope the crossbenchers will see that in the light that it's meant, and support these reforms this week.

Belinda Robinson obviously represents Universities Australia. Universities Australia have been lobbying the Government for 12 months around the 20 per cent reduction in the Commonwealth Grant Scheme and the National Collaborative Infrastructure Scheme. So this is unadulteratedly good news for the sector, and Belinda would like to say a few remarks before I take questions.

BELINDA ROBINSON: Thank you, Minister. I think everyone in this room is very well aware of the position that Universities Australia has had on behalf of the sector around the Government's reforms of higher education.

We were very pleased with this bill, to see that the indexation rate for student loans was reduced to zero. That was consistent with our view. We were also pleased to see the provision of a structural adjustment program in the revised bill.

The two outstanding issues, though, that we have been extremely concerned about, and I think we have reiterated on many, many occasions, has been the level of the cut to per student funding. Because, of course, in a deregulated fee environment, the greater the cut, the more universities need to increase their fees by simply to tread water or offset that cut.

And so in the interests of maintaining affordability not just for taxpayers but for students, we have been advocating very hard and long for a reduction to that 20 per cent cut. So we are very pleased today to hear that the Government has finally listened to that point and has removed the 20 per cent cut or split the bill so there will be no 20 per cent cut.

Also, of course, the National Research Infrastructure Program, the absolute backbone of research capability in this country. We have been extremely concerned about the ongoing funding for that program. There is a process going on at the moment to seek long-term funding solutions for that program.

We, of course, were very supportive of the provision of $150 million to keep that program alive while that review takes place. And so we are very pleased to hear this morning that that program will be funded for another year while the review into research infrastructure takes place.

And so from the sector's perspective, the announcement this morning means that all of the qualifications that we have had in not opposing fee deregulation have been met.

And we just reiterate the point that if this bill goes down, if this bill is voted against, that is no solution. Voting down the bill is not going to be the answer to what we all know and what has been recognised by all crossbenchers in various forms and even reported this morning - that there is an issue about long-term sustainable funding for universities and research.

And if we vote this down now that these conditions have been met, it will be a very difficult task I think for everyone to be working together to identify what the alternatives might be in the absence of those alternatives having been put forward.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Thanks Belinda. Phil?

QUESTION: The 20 per cent cut, if you can remind us, what were the words of the Budget in the forward estimates? And if you do struggle with that down the track, can you do it by the means, say, through appropriation? Or [indistinct.]

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: The saving was $1.9 billion over the forward estimates. Of course, the Government is still committed to the saving. It will simply be in a separate bill. And no, the achievement of that can't be done through any other means besides an amendment to the Higher Education Support Act. It can't be done by appropriation...

QUESTION: When do you expect to be putting that separate bill? You said that it's been split in two and it'll just be done as a separate piece of legislation.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, it won't be able to be done in this current session, because there are only two weeks of this current session to be done. I'd anticipate it will be done in the Budget session.

QUESTION: And what's the net cost to the Budget of this core deregulation bill which also includes extending subsidies to...

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: There are a number of spending measures in the deregulation bill. Don't hold me exactly to the figures. I'm sure my office can tell you exactly what they are but, from memory, the expansion of the demand-driven system to the non-university higher education providers is about $421 million. The expansion of the demand-driven system to all pathways programs and higher education - which is an expansion of opportunity, I think - was about $380 million.

There is of course the provision for a new online portal for the consumer to get maximum amount of information, I can't say how much that is, it's subject to a tender arrangement. That would rather blow the Government's negotiating position. I think they're the two main items, of course. NCRIS was $150 million. That will now be funded for another 12 months, which is good news for the 1700 people in the sector. I think that's about it. And of course, there is a $1.9 billion, 20 per cent reduction, which will now be legislated through another means.

QUESTION: Just to clarify, so one bill will go in this week, that's the deregulation bill. The other bill will go in later. We have just heard that universities expect that bill to be defeated - that is, the 20 per cent cut. Is that your expectation?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, the Government will argue for the savings measures, but they are two separate debates, and one of the things about this over the last 12 months has been the distraction that the reduction in Commonwealth Grants Scheme, the linking of NCRIS to the reform package has created a two-pronged debate within the same argument. Now, by clearing away the financial issues around the cut, and NCRIS, the crossbenchers and the Labor Party, for that matter, who have been called upon to vote in favour of reform by John Dawkins and Gareth Evans, Maxine McKew and, as recently as this morning, Peter Beattie in the newspapers, they can reconsider their stance on the issue, because the deregulation of the sector is the major reform. Now, we can all have a debate about that this week, and then we can come back and have a debate about savings later on. There are some crossbenchers that don't want any savings measure. There are others that think we should go further in terms of savings. And there are some that would like to change the percentage, but believe some savings do need to be delivered. Matthew.

QUESTION: Mr Pyne, do you believe - have any of the crossbenchers told you that this separation will actually change how they are going to vote on the issue of fee deregulation, do you think you will have the numbers now on that issue?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, Matthew, negotiation's a pretty inexact science and I am dealing with the crossbenchers individually. There are now eight individual crossbenchers, not more than one is in any - in the same political party. And I have spoken to them all this morning, obviously, or left messages for those that are incapacitated, like Senator Lambie who I understand is in Tasmania still, so that they are aware of the Government's agenda. Will it make them vote for the bill? I certainly hope so. It's a vital reform. Have any of them said this is a - it will change their view? I'm aware that some crossbenchers would like to vote for the bill, but feel that they can't. I hope this will clear away hurdles that might have been there before.

QUESTION: Feel that they can't why?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: For various reasons. You should ask them individually.

QUESTION: [Indistinct]

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: I think you should ask them if you want to.

QUESTION: Well, you just said it. What are you saying?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well I think Dio Wang's made it perfectly clear he supports the reform. He said so last year, he called on Glenn Lazarus and Clive Palmer to support the reform. I think if Clive Palmer gave him the green light he would vote for it. Michelle.

QUESTION: What is the saving on - or what is the cost, I mean, on the - this - dropping the science threat, that you've only dropped it for one year, it was 150 over the budget estimates, is that true?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: It's another 150. So it's $150 million.

QUESTION: Each year?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, it's $150 million for the next 12 months…

QUESTION: Right, okay.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: …so June to June. So, that's the cost. $150 million.

QUESTION: Minister, do you take some responsibility for bungling the consultation? You've spent the past almost 12 months defending having the 20 per cent cut and the NCRIS funding in that legislation, haven't you squibbed this from the start in imposing that on the crossbench and now you're acknowledging that that was a mistake?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: No. No, it was Bismarck that said that creating laws was like making sausages and it's best if the public doesn't see them. Unfortunately in our system with the Senate dominated by eight crossbenchers of all very different persuasions and the Labor Party behaving as political opportunists on a daily basis it means the public sees every single intricacy of Government negotiation with the Senate so, no I don't take any responsibility for anything other than trying to bring about a major reform to universities. Andrew.

QUESTION: Mr Pyne, putting Bismarck aside I couldn't help but notice that you raised your eyebrows when Belinda Robinson said that the 20 per cent cut would not go ahead. Wasn't that just an accurate reflection of the reality of politics at the moment? And secondly can I ask have you given any thought to retreating on the demand-driven system that we have got with university places to save money, whereby you would reintroduce a cap?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: No, absolutely not. Andrew, there is a very stark choice between Labor and Liberal over higher education. The Coalition is for reform, it's for freedom, it's for letting universities be their best selves, it's for maximising their support and revenue, doing the best quality research possible. The Labor Party is for turning back the clock. It was Chris Bowen and Julia Gillard that described the demand-driven system as one of the great achievements of the Gillard Government. I would describe it as the only achievement of the Gillard Government and they said they would fight for it. Kim Carr wants to turn back the clock. He wants to bring back caps, compacts, and completion payments that will lock out tens of thousands of Australians who would otherwise get to go to university. My estimates from the department are 37,000 less places for low SES young people, costing $520 million.

So the Labor alternative is to cut revenue, cut students, close campuses and threaten institutions, the opposite to what the Government is proposing. So the…will we consider putting caps back on? Absolutely not. Kim Carr's proposals and Bill Shorten's adoption of them represents an existential threat to the university sector and rather than embracing that, will be fighting it.

QUESTION: And your eyebrow raising when Belinda Robinson did say…

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, if I raised my eyebrow, Andrew, I'm surprised - I don't usually raise my eyebrows…

QUESTION: Oh…

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: …am I raising them now? Am I raising them now?

Chris?

QUESTION: Where will you find the $150 million because you said yesterday it could only be found by foreign(*) savings. So, where will you find that money then?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: I found the money in offsets which will be revealed in the Budget.

Yes, Sarbra?

QUESTION: You have said that you've tried to talk with all the crossbenchers this morning, unfortunately you've not been able to speak to Senator Lambie, what about Glenn Lazarus? Have you been able to have a discussion with him about this?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, Glenn's indicated that he will respond to my phone call and that he is prepared to have a meeting. So, that is a great step forward. Yep?

QUESTION: Mr Pyne, if the 20 per cent cut can't get through Parliament, will we not just be back here again in a year's time, again looking at a funding clip for research infrastructure, if you can't get those budget savings? And under this new clip will there be any protection to the Commonwealth if there is an increased HECS bill from rising fees and bad debts?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, the 20 per cent reduction in the Commonwealth Grant Scheme is Government policy, it will form part of a bill in the Budget session. If that fails it's axiomatic that the need to increase fees will disappear. In terms of National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Scheme, well, rather than being negative about it I think that people should be pleased that for a program that Labor defunded, I have found the money to keep it going, while we have, as Belinda pointed out, the review into the funding of research infrastructure. The Government spends $9 billion a year on research across Government, $9 billion. $150 million is not going to break or sustain the university sector, but it is an important program that I support. And rather than Labor, who cut it and defunded it, I'm actually trying to save it and I'm announcing today that I have saved it.

QUESTION: Were you genuinely prepared until just this morning to see those 1700 jobs go?

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, the Senate seemed to be prepared to let them go, yes, because they had indicated they're not going to vote for the bill until now but the Senate...

QUESTION: You're the one who made the threat.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: It's the Senate that makes the decision about whether or not that went through. But, I mean, that's looking back in the mirror, Tori, I'm looking forward. Philip.

QUESTION: [Indistinct] Miss Robinson [indistinct], when these two measures were linked I think you estimated the impact on degrees would be about 30 per cent on average, deregulation plus the 20 per cent cut. Without the 20 per cent cut how much do you think just the impact of the deregulation, alone, would add to the price of the degree [indistinct]?

BELINDA ROBINSON: Well, I think one of the things, Joe, that we've been saying for quite some time is that we need to have a long term, sustainable funding model for universities. Over time we've seen per-student funding come down. There have been upticks along the way but nevertheless it's clear that governments have been quite uncomfortable about justifying to the taxpayer the level of resources that universities need to fund the quality that our students and our communities and employers expect. And so this fee deregulation would at least provide the mechanism by which universities could make their own assessments about what the resources are that are required for their institutions to be able to enable them to run the programs - to implement the programs that they see are the key to them having a competitive advantage in an increasingly competitive market, but also that allow us as a system - the higher education system, to really compete with the world's best and sustain the quality - the Australian quality that we have. What fees individual institutions will charge will be a product of a range of different things including those competitive pressures, the sorts of mission statements that they have and the means by which they are wanting to implement and deliver on those mission statements and the promises that they make to their students. So, I can't answer what that will be but I can say - and is consistent with everything that we have said to date, is that by - because we have opposed the 20 per cent that mean…that does put downward - does help to put downward pressure on price but I can't give you an answer on what those fees will be. That's up to the individual institutions.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Now, we have to go because I've got meetings at one and 1.30 with crossbenchers so thank you all very much for coming.

[ends]