ADJOURNMENT

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (20:14): Tonight I discuss the heart of Australia's future: whether our higher education system is identifying and supporting excellence or whether elites have captured education to reward size, history and established reputation. How many Australians know that some of the highest rated higher education institutions in our country, in terms of student satisfaction, are not the sandstone Group of Eight universities or any public universities?

They're smaller, independent universities, one of which, Alphacrucis University College, records student satisfaction rates of 90 per cent for overall educational experience when the national average sits in the mid-70s. The national regulator recognises Alphacrucis as delivering superior quality education and granted it unlimited self-accrediting authority, in part because students studying a postgraduate teaching degree at Alphacrucis graduated with a job 100 per cent of the time.

Until recently, I didn't know that tertiary education institutions with this level of success existed. Australians need to know there are exemplary institutions leading our country, yet we've never heard of them. We need to reassess how our tertiary institutions are supported, because, if we don't, we're reinforcing the status quo, and that's not working.

Our universities have governance issues, financial issues, confidence issues and efficiency issues, yet there are higher education providers achieving excellent outcomes for students without the hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars in funding that our public universities receive, including grants and commercial activity. If institutions like Alphacrucis do not become well known, students who might have thrived in such a place will miss the opportunity.

Students will be less satisfied with their education than they might otherwise have been. Students might be less likely to graduate into employment and less likely to leave their mark and their legacy on our society. Philanthropic foundations need to know that outside of the G8 there's great teaching and research, and it's worthy of support.

Foundations need to be looking for opportunities to fund teaching and research institutions like Alphacrucis, because that's where our future may well be. Government has set lofty aspirational targets for tertiary attainment through the Australian Universities Accord and has already acknowledged that public universities alone cannot achieve these targets. The system needs provider diversity and rewards for excellence.

Our tertiary funding must move to a level playing field. We must allocate funds on actual performance, not past reputation. The government makes much noise of diversity, yet where's the funding for real diversity in higher education?

The G8 sandstone universities would benefit from increased competition. We must do all that we can to remove barriers from lesser known institutions to enable them to compete. Part of that is to raise their profile, and part of that is to shift funds from the sandstone G8s to institutions already delivering.

One Nation is committed to greater scrutiny of tertiary institution funding and wants to know why funding favours established universities over new entries. I'm focusing on Alphacrucis, yet the issue is larger than one university college. It's about whether Australia rewards performance or prestige.

These are not the same thing. Reward is about working for today's students. Prestige is about what's been done for students in days past.

It's about whether new institutions with fresh ideas are given the opportunity to compete or whether the system remains tilted towards those who have always held advantage. Alphacrucis University College is a test case, an institution achieving outstanding student satisfaction, national recognition for quality and a growing reputation for excellence, yet most Australians have never heard of it.

If we're serious about innovation, competition and value for taxpayers, then institutions should be judged on what they actually deliver, not on how old they are, how large they are or how well connected they are. Australia's future depends upon identifying excellence wherever it's found and giving it the opportunity to flourish. The Australian people deserve a higher education system that rewards achievement, encourages competition and invests in results.

That's beneficial for students, for taxpayers and for Australia's future. Tonight I address media misrepresentation of One Nation's policy to review some drugs on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the PBS. The New England Times newspaper flagrantly lied to readers in a story just published last Saturday, giving the false impression that One Nation will be removing medications from the PBS.

Author RK Crosby's hit piece was titled 'Concern brewing as buried Hanson policy threatens affordable medicines'. Only last week, I included the PBS in a list of social welfare institutions that One Nation would defend in government—not tolerate or be afraid to touch but defend. This pathetic piece of journalism shows the lack of research the New England Times conducted for its story.

I understand that, like many regional newspapers, the New England Times is short of staff. This leads them to accept a hit piece that Better Access Australia most likely prepared. It's quoted extensively, and its mission statement is to transfer as much taxpayer money as it can into big pharma's pockets.

One phone call would have cleared this up. The story stems from a two-line election policy promise in 2025 which said One Nation will review all medications fast-tracked during COVID to ensure safety and efficacy have been proven. It's perfectly sensible and responsible.

In fact, most of the drugs that were given emergency use authorisation, officially known as the provisional use pathway, have already been withdrawn or had their use reduced to insignificance. Only three remain of interest to One Nation, and these are the drugs we will review: Paxlovid; remdesivir, or 'Run—death is near'; and molnupiravir. With each of these, there are alternatives which anecdotally carry a lower cost and better safety and efficacy outcomes.

No Australian will be left without medication—not one Australian. This is actually a small promise that the pharmaceutical lobby has deliberately taken out of context. During COVID, big pharma benefited to the tune of billions of dollars and is terrified of any scrutiny.

To open their story, RK Crosby offered a vignette suggesting One Nation will remove asthma medication from the PBS—an outright lie; a fabrication, pure and simple. One Nation threatening affordable medicines is an outright lie. One Nation will not change PBS charges nor change the amounts government pays under the existing arrangements.

Contracts signed will be honoured. If we start tearing up legally-binding contracts, confidence in government will never recover. We're not going to tear up contracts.

Negotiate? Yes. Tear up?

No. For clarity, no PBS contracts are in our sights. The COVID vaccines will be looked at in our terms of reference for a royal commission, although these were not supplied through the PBS.

Perhaps the pharmaceutical industry didn't want to mention their COVID products and instead chose to lie about our PBS policy. For the record, here's the philosophy behind our policy. As I said last week in the Senate, One Nation supports the PBS for the same reason we support Medicare.

Society benefits when our sick are healed quickly and returned to looking after themselves. For those with permanent conditions, the basic laws of humanity require society to care for those people with love and respect. The financial cost of medication and related devices should not detract from this care.

Last week, Minister Butler made similar comments. On this, we're in alignment. Over the last 40 years, the PBS has balanced prices paid to pharmaceutical companies against product benefits.

Sometimes negotiation has delayed drugs, and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee displayed a sensible balance, making our PBS the envy of the world. We will defend the process of negotiating drug prices to ensure no compromise on the principles that have informed the PBS for 40 years. I'll discuss two more policies.

One Nation will introduce legislation in the next parliament for the right to try. This means that, if a person is being treated for an illness the outcome of which could be death and all existing measures have failed, the patient has a right to request from their doctor, or a doctor has a right to suggest, a drug not listed for that condition. It may be an alternative therapy or an unlisted drug.

To put this simply, the patient has nothing to lose and everything to gain. This may expand the market for existing pharmaceutical products—who knows? That's the point.

It's a free clinical trial that a patient has voluntarily entered into, reducing drug prices and saving lives. The other policy is to introduce an eight-year wait for new arrivals to access the PBS, unless you're a citizen or a permanent resident. Under One Nation, there'll be an eight-year wait for citizenship and for permanent residence.

This will not be backdated. You can't be unmade as citizen. This will not deny medical care for new arrivals, who will pay for that care themselves.

Anyone on prescription medication can vote One Nation without fear of losing access to or paying more for their medication. I trust that's clear.