Mr MOSSFIELD (5:55 PM) —I will continue my speech on the Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 with some interesting facts that emerge when we study higher education funding under this government. I have learned through examining a number of Bills Digests that in the year 2001 the real level of the Commonwealth's contribution to operating grants will be about the same as it was in 1983; in terms of operating grants for planned equivalent full-time student units the Commonwealth contribution will have declined by 37 per cent between 1983 and the year 2001; and Commonwealth grants, net of HECS, should drop below 50 per cent of university revenue in the current triennium. This will be similar to the proportion that existed before the Commonwealth assumed responsibility for the funding of tertiary education in 1974. We would agree, Madam Deputy Speaker Crosio, that this is a massive step backwards. The Prime Minister, as we all know, wants us to return to the golden era and live in the 1950s. Dr Kemp it seems is a little more modern; he only wants us to live in the 1970s. Unfortunately, we have to live in the 21st century and this slash and burn attitude to education funding is not, and cannot be, the way to go.

Last year the government moved to an accrual system of accounting for its budget. This change allowed the department and the minister to do some very dodgy things with the education budget. Do you realise that there is now no differentiation in the budget between higher and vocational education? We cannot tell from the budget how much is being spent on each. As a result of this combination of higher and vocational education into one output group the budget no longer contains any useful data on the sector as a whole.

There are many problems with our tertiary education system. Student to staff ratios have increased by 33 per cent over the last 10 years. The dropout rate has increased, and the issues of equity and access have never been fully addressed. What is the minister's answer to all of this? His answer seems to be to cut funding and make the students pay. This, of course, will have no chance of addressing the problems and will in fact create more.

Another concern about the changes to the funding arrangements of higher education institutions is the roll-in of capital grants into operating grants. There is now no delineation between the two; they have been lumped in together. Universities, faced with increased running costs and trying to provide for the students' needs, are increasingly using that capital grant component as general operating funding. It has been stated in previous Bills Digests that recurrent funding pressures have resulted in some infrastructure neglect. This would be an understatement. Universities are letting their infrastructure responsibilities slide as a direct result of this government's policies.

I would like to speak about another problem within the system that directly affects the funding issue, and that is the issue known as `credentialism'. Once upon a time you could get a job with only a primary school education. Then you needed to at least have finished third year at high school, your intermediate certificate. Of course, you know as well as I do that should somebody front up for a job interview with just the school certificate there is little chance that they would get a position. The higher school certificate, year 12, used to be enough. Not any more. Now, sadly, just a degree is increasingly becoming worth less and less. Postgraduate work of some kind is becoming necessary for those seeking a professional career. Postgraduate work, of course, attracts higher fees for students and less government funding. Society is changing rapidly and credentialism—the need for more and more bits of paper to prove you can do the job—is becoming a major concern, particularly for those from lower socioeconomic areas who cannot afford the increased costs of obtaining the required certificates and diplomas.

The minister proudly points to increased revenue streams from outside sources to fund the tertiary system. By 2002, HECS receipts will have increased by 113 per cent since the government came to power in 1996; that is, from $500 million in 1996 to an estimated $1.135 million in 2002. This increase has given the government the excuse to cut its own contribution, the publicly funded component, by some 12 per cent; that is, from $5,218 million in 1996 to $4,589 million in 2002—a paltry amount by comparison. No skiting about alternative revenue streams on behalf of the minister can hide the fact that the government has cut its own contribution. More and more we are moving to the bad old days where you can get a look in only if you have the cash to do so. If this situation continues and the minister has his way, universities will once again be a place for only the privileged few. The minister is abrogating his responsibility for one of the basic tenets of our democracy; that is, a properly funded public education system.

Universities are crying out for funding. They are struggling to maintain services. Indeed many services are being cut as a result of this change in funding arrangements, while departments are disappearing from some campuses. Clearly the increased revenue streams are not leading to a stronger system, as the minister would have us believe. Why? Because, as the government find another revenue stream—usually by upping the fees paid by students—they are correspondingly cutting their own contribution. Think how strong the system would be if the Commonwealth maintained its share of the funding alongside other increases in revenue. Since the Liberals came to government in 1996, every single university has suffered cuts in Commonwealth funding. None of the 38 universities in Australia has escaped the knife.

In my own region of Western Sydney the University of Western Sydney has lost $39 million in grants from the Commonwealth. This is the sixth highest cut of all the universities in Australia. As you would know, the University of Western Sydney is a relatively new institution. It does not boast the long history or tradition of the sandstone universities, such as the universities of Sydney and Melbourne. I am sure that one day it will boast a long and proud tradition, but at present it is fairly new. Because it is new, it is suffering from these cuts more than most. The university does not have the investments or the bank balances that the older sandstone universities can claim. It does not have the reserves that could be drawn upon in times of reduced funding that the sandstone universities have and therefore suffers more than these universities when the cuts are made.

What cannot continue in this sector is the increasing reliance on the student to foot the bill for higher education. University fees and charges will have almost doubled to $2 billion in the period between 1996, when this government came to power, and 2002—an amazing increase where the students have to find the money to support themselves. At the same time the Commonwealth will decrease the amount spent on students from $10,204 per student in 1996 to a mere $8,949 in 2002. This represents a fall of 12.4 per cent. When the Labor Party came to power in the early seventies Australia had barely 270,000 students in tertiary education and spent 1.4 per cent of GDP. Under John Howard and Dr Kemp there are now almost 800,000 students in tertiary study, yet the percentage of GDP has dropped to less than 0.8 per cent. As Simon Marginson of the Australian stated on 9 May this year:

There are more students, all paying more money. However, couple that with government cuts and you have not a stronger system but a weaker one where the quality is suffering, where subjects and whole departments are disappearing and where class sizes are becoming unmanageable. It is simply not good enough.

For the first time in the history of this country, investment in research and development has fallen. This has happened both at a Commonwealth level—falling from 0.77 per cent of GDP when this administration took the treasury bench to a paltry 0.64 per cent of GDP last year—and in the private sector with the reduction of the tax concession. This government is simply not investing in our future. It is trying to make the short-term dollar on the stock market merry-go-round without any apparent thought for the decades to come. That is why the Labor Party and the shadow minister, Michael Lee, will be putting in place a number of initiatives to boost the investment the Commonwealth makes in this vital area.

When we come to power after the next election Labor will be doubling the number of research fellowships available to Australian academics. We will be creating a new system of elite fellowships to slow the brain drain overseas and even, hopefully, to attract some of our scientists back to the country. Labor will also be introducing a new system of education priority zones where funding can be better targeted to disadvantaged areas. We will be abolishing the despicable enrolment benchmark adjustment scheme that has cost our government schools enormous amounts of money.

In short, Labor will be doing their best to reverse the losses this sector has suffered since the Howard government came to office. We must reverse the losses or face irreparable damage to our education system and our nation's future. The government—in fact all governments—have a responsibility to provide a decent and strong public education system from primary school through to tertiary level. This government's attitude of forcing students to pay higher and higher fees while at the same time cutting their own contribution is a clear demonstration of their total lack of respect for the Australian people and their institutions.