Mr PYNE (9:01 PM) —I am the honourable member for Sturt, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Martin Ferguson —How could you forget?

Mr PYNE —No, Stuart is a name that means something to me. My forebear was on John McDouall Stuart's expedition to northern Australia. However, my seat is named after Charles Sturt.

Before I turn to the substance of the Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill 1997 , I would like to deal with the pious amendment that was moved by the member for Bonython (Mr Martyn Evans). The first two clauses of the member for Bonython's amendment read:

"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government:

(1) for reducing funding to Australian universities, resulting in 21,000 fewer student places;

(2) for the failure of its up-front fees policy;

I think it is very important in the initial stage of this debate that some of these furphies from the Labor Party opposition are put to rest. The whole point of the government's reforms in the higher education area has been to try to create opportunity for young people to gain access to universities, young people who have not previously been given the opportunity to do so. Some might ask the question: how could that be so through introducing up-front fees for the 25 per cent of places over and above the Commonwealth funded places? I will explain it to the House. The facts are that for too long many people who could not get their first choice of university course chose to do their second course. In doing so, they denied somebody access to perhaps their first preference because that preference was taken by somebody who had been pushed out of their first preference.

Under the government's changes, everybody will now have the opportunity to take their first preference, except in the medicine course, if they can afford to pay the up-front fee for the 25 per cent of places over and above the Commonwealth funded places. However, if they cannot afford to do that, there are more Commonwealth funded undergraduate or HECS places available than there were under the Labor Party. So nobody is worse off through the government's changes. In fact, there are some people who are much better off: firstly, the people who get their first preference courses for their university education and, secondly, the people who would have lost their opportunity to do their first preference courses because somebody else had taken that HECS-funded place. So there are winners on both sides of the equation.

In 1997, 17,000 new enrollees started at university in Australia. So, in the climate when the Labor Party were claiming that the sky was falling in, like Henny Penny, there were 17,000 new places at universities and undergraduate HECS funded places. This is at the same time—1996-97—that 55,000 new TAFE enrolments were received. Later I will explain why this is important.

This government has maintained funding per capita per student at $11,200 for university undergraduates. This is one of the very important measures of a government's commitment to the university sector and to students. Under the Labor Party, from the Dawkins reforms until we came to government, that funding suffered a steady decline from very significant levels to very low levels. This government, because of its changes, because of its reforms, has been able to increase the funding per student and maintain it at $11,200.

The member for Werriwa (Mr Latham) claims that we have an up-front fees policy, and I think it is very important that we put paid to that suggestion. This is the rhetoric that has run through the universities on a regular basis. We have more Commonwealth funded HECS places than Labor offered. For the Labor Party to claim we have an up-front fees policy and to suggest that everybody is paying up-front fees, I would remind the Labor Party that this government is providing more Commonwealth funded HECS places than it did. The Labor Party introduced HECS—after promising not to do so—when I was at university. I remember it very well. The Labor Party, after promising the student body that it would not introduce the higher education contribution scheme, had no compunction in introducing it. Later I will get to the many changes and backflips that it made along the way.

We have given Australians the same opportunity to go to university and pay for their places at university that the Labor Party offered to overseas students for many years during their 13 years of unhappy government. I think that is very important to remember. The Labor Party were very happy for people from outside Australia to come to this country, pay for places at university and provide support for our economy. However, they were not prepared to allow Australians the same rights and access, which has absolutely no logic at all. I would challenge the member for Barton (Mr McClelland) to explain how it was logical for the Labor Party to provide support for overseas students to come to this country but not Australian students.

In answer to the first two points of the pious amendment, we have introduced new flexibility for universities so that they can gain new streams of revenue. We have introduced new flexibility for the management of universities that vice-chancellors are very happy to accept. They will be able to use this flexibility to try to improve their universities, to increase the number of students and the number of places they offer, and to improve the quality of the education that they offer to young people. The third and fourth paragraph of the member for Bonython's pious amendment read:

(3) for increasing HECS charges and lowering the repayment threshold such that applications for enrolment in undergraduate courses fell by 3.3 per cent in 1997 and a further 3.1 per cent in 1998;

(4) for creating a crisis in science education by doubling the charge for university science courses . . .

This amendment comes from a man whose government increased the higher education contribution scheme twice in the last parliament, introduced HECS in the first place, and introduced full fees for postgraduate courses during its terms in office after an election in which it had promised to do the opposite. Because of its closeness to the Labor Party, the National Union of students, which is supposed to represent students, failed miserably to at any stage oppose or condemn the Labor Party for breaking the promises that it had made to students, hand on heart, before its election.

Let us put to one side the nonsense in this pious amendment that the Labor Party actually cares about students. It only cares about whether students vote and who they vote for; it does not care at all about benefits or disad vantages to students. There is no evidence to suggest that applications have fallen because of HECS. It is important to understand that applications are not the same as enrolments. While the Labor Party is happy to sprout so-called facts about applications, it forgets to talk about enrolments.

In 1997, while applications fell by 3.4 per cent, enrolments increased by 4.9 per cent. HECS seems to have little to do with students' choices about whether they start higher education. The proof of the pudding is in the eating: enrolments in arts, which is the cheapest HECS course, fell by four per cent; enrolments in science, which is the middle HECS category, fell by two per cent; while enrolments in law, which is the most expensive HECS category for undergraduate courses, rose by 0.6 per cent.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you are an intelligent person, and you would realise that, if what the Labor Party is saying were true, there would have been an increase in the applications for arts because of the cheapness of the category. There would also have been an increase in the applications for science, and there would have been a decrease in the applications for law, because it is the most expensive category. In fact, quite the opposite has happened, and that gives the lie to the suggestion of the Labor Party that HECS is influencing students' decisions about undergraduate courses.

We have to understand why applications are changing. It would be good for the Labor Party to catch up with some of these changes as we are going into the 21st century. I know that the member for Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson) is an unreconstructed leftie from the 1970s, a trade union leader in a suit, but it is 1998. The member for Batman has to realise that, because he is in a safe seat, he is going to be a member of parliament well into the next century. Therefore, he should try to catch up with some of the changes in our economy and understand why things are happening.

For example, students these days are much more discerning about the courses they choose to take. Universities are now part of the market for higher education and so they need to offer courses and match students to courses that students want, as opposed to the courses that universities want to offer. Because of the government's excellent changes in vocational education and training, which I know have been endorsed privately by the member for Batman, there has been a massive increase in the number of people in TAFE—55,000 in 1996-97. Some 220,000 new apprenticeships are starting this year and next year and, because of that, fewer people need to start at university who might want to choose other options. They are taking up those other options.

Mr Martin Ferguson —What about the last year and the fall off?

Mr PYNE —It is no coincidence that applications fell the most in New South Wales where, coincidentally, there was the largest increase in new jobs in the last quarter. I am not absolutely certain of the figure, but I think that 90,000 new jobs were created in New South Wales alone in the last quarter of last year. This means that students have a lot more options than they had before, which means that they are less inclined to go on to tertiary education if they think that that is not what is good for them in terms of their careers.

Turning to science enrolments, science applications have fallen by 1.9 per cent in 1998, while overall applications have fallen by 3.5 per cent. Where is the crisis in science applications? Science applications have actually fallen by less that the 3.5 per cent that applications have fallen by across the board. In 1997, science enrolments—remembering the difference between applications and enrolments—actually rose by five per cent. I defy the member for Barton to produce the evidence of a crisis in science applications.

The other important thing for the member for Batman to remember as part of his pledge to try to up-grade and modernise his thinking for the next century, is that a lot of people who would previously have studied physical science are now moving into computer science streams at university. As a consequence, the share of enrolments in computer studies at schools has increased to four per cent from 0.4 per cent, and that has been mirrored at universities. In 1997, enrolments in mathematics and physical sciences fell by 5.1 per cent and 1.9 per cent respectively, but computer science enrolments increased by 14 per cent.

There is also considerable variation in the pattern of science applications. In Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania, applications for science courses increased—6.1 per cent in Queensland, 0.6 per cent in South Australia and 1.2 per cent in Tasmania—so I defy the Labor Party to produce evidence of a pattern across Australia of a massive collapse in science applications. It simply is not true. The member for Bonython's pious amendment is aptly named, but it is also disingenuous, unctuous and sanctimonious, and it should be exposed for the tripe that it is.

The accomplishments of a nation's higher education system are measured by many factors. It is essential that Australia's tertiary institutions not only continue to maintain world-class standards but continue to set higher standards to remain competitive in the world market. The introduction of fee paying students, both overseas and Australian, will lend itself to continuing our competitiveness in the international higher education market. The regulated fee paying student system means that Australian universities have a strong financial incentive to deliver a high quality product to Australian and overseas students. This will also have spin-off benefits for non-fee paying students.

The coalition government also recognises that high endeavour deserves recognition and reward. Accordingly, the Committee for University Teaching and Development was established in July 1996. With a $20 million budget over a three-year period, the committee makes recommendations for grants to encourage practical development and improvements in teaching and for the provision of staff development initiatives. In recognition of the outstanding work of educators, this government is committed to enhancing the status of teaching. The Australian Awards for University Teaching recognise excellence in teaching which surpasses the elevated standards that already exist in our higher education system.

Funding arrangements for higher education research through the targeted higher education research program have been increased over the 1997-99 triennium with additional funding totalling $129.3 million, including the $90 million for research infrastructure. The quality of research training is being improved through an additional $9.3 million in support for Australian postgraduate awards.

This government has also overseen improvements to the funding of collaborative research grants. This has now been realigned in the strategic partnerships with the industry research and training scheme and has enjoyed an increase of over $30 million. This collaborative funding arrangement will produce stronger partnerships between industry and universities, providing mutually beneficial opportunities for researchers in both sectors in addition to encouraging and assisting universities to diversify their funding sources.

In considering the amount of resources available to the higher education system, it is essential to look beyond the government's direct contribution and to consider the total level of funding which is available. At present, while the government remains the single largest source of funding, approximately 33c in every university funded dollar comes from non-government sources. All indications suggest that these revenue sources have the potential for significant increases. Indeed, it is estimated that by 1999 total university funding from all sources will increase by approximately $650 million from the 1995 funding amount available to Australian universities.

This government also acknowledges the commercially strategic importance of attracting students from overseas. While the Asian financial crisis is having an expected temporary effect on the exponential growth of fee paying Asian students participating in Australian universities, the Australian tertiary system is still a very competitive alternative to most other countries, including the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada. Furthermore, currency devaluations may work to the advantage of Australian universities, in many cases by widening the cost gap between our education export market and those of other countries vying for a share of the lucrative international education market.

The simple fact remains that Australia's tertiary institutions have an enviable reputation overseas and should therefore continue to capture a very significant share of the education export market. Although there has been a 26 per cent fall in student numbers from South Korea and a seven per cent fall from Thailand, it has been countered to a certain extent by strengthening numbers in enrolments from students from Indonesia, China, Vietnam and India. Possibly as a result of social unrest in their home country, Indonesian students studying in Australia have increased by 11 per cent, Chinese students have increased by nine per cent and, significantly, Vietnamese student numbers are up by 46 per cent and students from India are up by 41 per cent.

This government also recognises that a modern education must place an emphasis on individual skills development. Students and trainees with qualifications which meet the needs of the business community not only are an attractive employment proposition but add to the skills base of Australian industry and research to the benefit of all Australians. This is fundamentally why one of the government's main priorities is to ensure that every young person wanting to pursue education or training after the compulsory years of schooling has the opportunity to do so.

At present, approximately one-quarter of all 16- to 18-year-olds in Australia are not participating in any form of post-compulsory education or training. This is why the coalition government believes that further education and training should be inclusive of, and not exclusive to, any section of the community. Alternatively, the former Labor government supported a tertiary education system which was limited to a privileged number of students and an apprenticeship system which had a minimal impact on both young people and the business sector.

By increasing the number of further education opportunities available to young people, the coalition government is also very mindful of the importance of increasing opportunities for groups that have been previously underrepresented in higher education. This government has introduced merit scholarships to encourage an increase in student participation by people with disabilities, from an indigenous background, from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds, from rural and isolated areas or from non-English speaking backgrounds. In many cases, access to further education can give people from these groups the freedom to pursue their dreams and to live more independently. In this respect, the introduction of merit scholarships by this government has been very significant.

Merit scholarships provide exemptions from the HECS charge to the equivalent of 1,000 full-time students each year. By the year 2000, the scholarships will provide HECS exemptions for the equivalent of 4,000 full-time students every academic year. This is an outstanding achievement of the coalition government.

It all demonstrates this government's resolve to reinvigorate Australia's higher education system so that it continues to remain world class and becomes more accessible to young and old Australians who wish to seek further education. The Labor Party have no credible plan to make the education system more accessible to all Australians, but they are asking the Australian public for absolution for their 13 years of inactivity and lack of imagination when in government. Meanwhile, the coalition government continues to make more opportunities available for more young people. (Time expired)