Page 1963 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 14 May 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
So we have academics and government convened panels talking about the need for increased education funding and a federal Labor government ready to cut funding for the tertiary education sector. As well as the ludicrous notion that the education of Australia benefits when we rob one education sector to fund another, this proposal by federal Labor undermines their commitment to the tertiary education sector.
No-one will argue about the importance of the school funding needs, but it is a shame that it may come from another education sector instead of, for example, from the proposed mining industry superprofits tax or by cutting the diesel fuel rebate, which is such a significant subsidy provided by the federal government. Of interest, I note that the federal shadow minister for education, Christopher Pyne, is reported in the media recently as saying that he thinks the current funding and pricing arrangements have the correct parameters and that he does not propose any changes. I also note that Christopher Pyne has criticised the government for having a re-election plan and not an education plan.
I for one would like to hear more about the federal Liberals’ education plan, if they have one, that takes into account all the issues and is built on the recommendations of respected researchers and academics, all of whom attended a university at some point themselves. I would like to hear some policy discussed that will ensure that our universities are funded better now and into the future.
I did note that Mr Seselja, in a serious discussion today about higher education policy, tertiary education, in the ACT, took the opportunity to have a go at Simon Sheikh for a recent incident at the Australian National University. I suspect it was a bit of nastiness motivated by jealousy, as it seems Mr Seselja has never been invited to a university to give a speech. That may well be because he has no policies to comment on and no background of any interest to anybody who would actually want to invite him to a university—unlike Simon Sheikh, who has been the director of a national organisation, has contributed significantly to the debate on a range of national issues in this country and has done so much that people want to hear what he has got to say in the context of a politics course.
I would also note that, of course, Simon Sheikh has had the good grace to acknowledge that he misjudged it last week. I think in his enthusiasm for getting young people to sign up for politics he has been the first to acknowledge that he probably took that a bit far. But acknowledging when you are wrong is a strength that Simon Sheikh has demonstrated and that perhaps Mr Seselja did not demonstrate in the discussion about the staffing controversies in his office in recent times.
Let me return to tertiary education by noting that in fact it is only the Greens that have been clear about their commitment to higher education. We have long supported the call for real attention to be provided to the importance of our tertiary education sector and have consistently raised the needs of the nation in this area. My federal colleagues are at the forefront of positive action to ensure that students and teachers are respected and supported. My Greens colleagues have stood up in the Senate calling for an increase in public funding by 10 per cent per government-supported university student, as recommended by the Bradley review, to give budget certainty to universities. And
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video