Mr MOSSFIELD (8:27 PM) —I rise to speak on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2003 and to support the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Jagajaga. This bill amends the Higher Education Funding Act 1988 and the Australian Research Council Act 2001 to set new grant levels that will reflect indexation increases and make other technical amendments. As members will be aware and as the Bills Digest points out, the major source of Commonwealth funds for higher education are part 2.2 of the Higher Education Funding Act, HEFA, which provides grants to universities, and the Australian Research Council Act, ARCA, which funds research grant assistance. Both acts are amended annually to adjust for movement in prices, and that is what this bill seeks to do.

However, I wish to address my remarks to the amendment that has been moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, but before doing so I want to comment on some of the remarks that the member for Moncrieff made in his contribution, which I was able to listen to. He was critical of the fact that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Jagajaga, indicated in her speech that the cost of education and the repayments of HECS would have an impact on how low-income people or people on medium incomes would plan their future lives in relation to marriage, families and home ownership. I would support the concept put forward by the member for Jagajaga that, quite clearly, for people of modest means the repayment of HECS would impact on how they planned their future lives. It is a valid point to make. However, people who come from, say, wealthy backgrounds may not experience the same sorts of difficulties. Maybe this is where the member for Moncrieff has got a little bit confused. The member also blamed the brain drain on the high marginal taxes that we experience here. However, he overlooks the fact that these taxes have not been altered anyhow by the current government, which has been in power for some seven years.

I will now comment on the amendment. The Minister for Education, Science and Training would be aware of concerns expressed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Western Sydney, Janice Reid, regarding the new higher education package. I intend to go over some of these concerns. The university has established that it will lose some $30 million over four years under the new plan. The Prime Minister has promised that it will not lose anything—there is a transitional fund, you see. The trouble is that the transitional fund is only $12.6 million and that has to be spread around the other 37 universities as well. So I really do not know where the money is coming from to help cover the dramatic funding collapse at UWS.

The Daily Telegraph carried a fairly disturbing article on Tuesday, 5 August, entitled `Uni on course to fight for its funds out west'. In that article, the staggering claim was made that the government is in possession of a report that says that UWS is `overfunded compared to similar universities'. To say that the University of Western Sydney is overfunded is a piece of fiction so brazen that it would belong in an Anne McCaffrey fantasy novel.

It also appears that this government's report is targeting the Vice-Chancellor, Janice Reid, in a rather personal way. The report, it appears, implies that UWS is well-off because Janice Reid is paid a large salary package and is among the so-called highest paid vice-chancellors in the country. The truth, of course, is something quite different. Professor Reid receives a package the same as those of a number of other vice-chancellors at similar universities and far less than those of vice-chancellors at some of the older sandstone universities. Of course, this is Western Sydney, so nobody out there is allowed to earn very much money. It would upset the natural order of the universe or something. It is fine for people in the eastern suburbs to earn more than Janice Reid, but if somebody from Western Sydney earns that amount, it must be stopped!

Janice Reid's package is not the real issue, of course. The personal attack by this government on her for speaking out against the education package which will damage her university—an attack that is implicit in this report—is a distraction from the main issue and is beneath contempt. The issue is the funding in total for the University of Western Sydney, which has suffered horrendously over the past seven years at the hands of this government. UWS has endured a cut of $270 million, the third largest cut in funding of any university in Australia—behind Melbourne and Monash—since the Howard government came to power in 1996. Without 50 or 150 years of building up investments in property and savings or the research base that can attract funding, UWS has been disproportionately hit by these funding deductions. An extra $30 million now will make it $300 million that this government has ripped out of UWS—an unconscionable amount.

One point that I would like to make is that UWS is situated in one of the fastest growing regions of Australia, so the demand for university places is going to increase year by year. As our population grows, and with young families moving into our community, there will be a natural need for more university places. But, unfortunately, as the Senate estimates process has revealed, there will actually be 510 fewer places at UWS in 2005 than there are now if current government policies are allowed to continue. The proposed higher education package includes extra money for regional universities. However, UWS is not classified as a regional university, even though it is situated in and serves one of the fastest growing regions in Australia. The University of Western Sydney has as its mission statement:

In fact, the words `region' or `regional' appear eight times in the statement of missions, goals and values of UWS. The statement finishes with a list of core values. The final one, placed there for emphasis, reads `relevance and responsibility to our communities'.

I challenge the minister to come into this place and explain to this House and to the 1.7 million people who live in Western Sydney why their university, the one established specifically for their region, is not considered a regional university. UWS strongly argues that its Hawkesbury campus, at the very least, deserves to be considered under the current government criteria for additional funding. UWS will be seeking a boost in research funding as part of the review of research policy by the government. The trouble is that it is starting very much behind the eight ball. The university has lost half of its postgraduate research student places as a result of the last round of changes, resulting in important social, economic and environmental research being curtailed.

Fewer research places equals less research funding. Over the past few years we have seen a contraction of higher education funding, resulting in understaffing and a decaying campus fabric. There is an urgent need in Western Sydney to increase access and participation for all sections of the community and to provide students with educational opportunities, regardless of circumstances. This has not been achieved under this government, and in Janice Reid's words:

New universities such as UWS have the potential to create a new educational culture in the regions they service. They certainly provide higher education opportunities for students from diverse backgrounds, many of whom come from families who have never had a family member educated at a university previously. This is a very important point. It has been reinforced by the statement by the Leader of the Opposition. As Simon Crean pointed out, some two-thirds of students attending UWS are the first in their families to go to university. Think about that. There have been universities in Australia for over 150 years, and the overwhelming majority of the current crop of students at UWS are the first ones in their families to be able to access these institutions and gain the benefits from the opportunities that higher education provides. Without UWS—the university created by the Labor Party to serve the Greater Western Sydney region—many of these families would still not have any of their members attending a university. The impact on our community, in both the short term and the longer term, simply cannot be understated or underestimated.

New universities assist in regional development as well as provide valuable research for the social and economic issues of the region. For the first time, the children of Western Sydney are in a position to capitalise on the education opportunities that a university can provide. But unfortunately this government is presiding over cuts in funding and falling numbers of student places. This is a disgrace.

On the very contentious issue of fees, the UWS vice-chancellor has argued strongly against fee increases for students because it is unfair to raise the financial burden on students and their families. Janice Reid makes the point that some universities will embrace higher HECS charges and the new fee-charging arrangements while others, such as the University of Western Sydney, will find that such fee increases are contrary to the access and equity needs of the regions they service. The mission and social charter of UWS does not sit well with the prospect of increasing the debt burden for students, particularly when students come from families of modest means who are unable to underwrite the additional costs of university education.

Janice Reid argues that well-established universities have substantially greater capacity to fund innovative research and capital development because, as I pointed out earlier, they have a resource base built up over decades of growth and government support, as well as substantial endowments and investments. The combination of the reserves they already have and the new increases will strengthen their position. Mind you, that will be on the backs of students who are forced to pay; nevertheless, it will strengthen the position of these universities.

At UWS the opposite will happen. It does not have the reserves that the older, more established universities have, and it is not in a position to increase the fees it charges its students. UWS also faces the increased costs associated with running a multi-campus university. Western Sydney is a geographically diverse region, and UWS has major campuses at Campbelltown, Bankstown, Parramatta, Penrith, Hawkesbury and Blacktown, in my electorate. In the Daily Telegraph article last week regarding the so-called overfunding of UWS and the government's justification for funding cuts, John Phillips, the Chancellor of UWS, said:

When will the government wake up to the unique needs of this university and stop treating UWS like it has been treated? Without substantial support from the government for new universities like UWS, there will be a growing divide between the haves and the have-nots in the tertiary education sector. UWS has already been ill-treated by this government and now these changes proposed by this new education package will only serve to further squeeze our university.

It is not only UWS that has suffered under the Nelson plan. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 9 July entitled `Universities feel pain as fees take the high road' outlines this problem. It says:

While I am greatly concerned about the University of Western Sydney, the problem does not quite rest there; many other universities will suffer under this government's program of funding cuts. We have seen over the past 30 years that economic theories when put into practice never work the way they are supposed to—reality always gets in the way. Besides, education cannot be and should not be merely a product of economic policy.

The minister must know what the ramifications of this policy will be on the University of Western Sydney and on others. Why, then, is he being deliberately destructive—unless he has something against these universities or maybe the students that go to them? UWS is too important to the 1.7 million people of Western Sydney—and counting—to be treated so badly. Whilst the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee has by and large embraced the package, the vice-chancellor of our great university has said that these changes will hurt our university.

UWS is in a fairly unique position: it serves a region yet it is not a regional university—at least not in the eyes of the government. I believe it has a social importance far greater than many other universities and that it is extremely underestimated by this government. As I have said, two-thirds of the students attending the university are the first in the history of their families to do so. This is a huge social impact on the future of our communities. I cannot think of another university that comes close to having a similar social impact. Yet with all of this we are facing funding cuts, falling numbers and a government that is an architect of both.

Once again, there is a clear distinction between the government and the opposition on our approach to this policy area and, as with Medicare, the differences could not be starker. On the one hand, you have a government offering increased debt, falling funding and fewer places. On the other hand, Labor is offering increased funding and 20,000 more places. With the launch of Aim Higher: Learning, Training and Better Jobs for More Australians, Labor has outlined its commitment to this vital sector of our community.

The Leader of the Opposition, and Labor, recognise the importance of the University of Western Sydney. Aim Higher: Learning, Training and Better Jobs for More Australians is a $2.3 billion, fully costed and fully funded plan to rebuild, reform and expand our universities and TAFEs to ensure better quality education for all Australians. Government is all about priorities and Labor's priority is education, not tax breaks for foreign executives or diesel rebates for huge multinational mining companies. Our priority is unashamedly the future educational prospects of our children.

Before I conclude, I raise another concern. This is highlighted in an article that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald today. It is headed `Nelson hid university fee risks, say officials'. The article starts by saying:

It goes on to say:

Investment in education is vital to the future of our country. We cannot afford to downsize our future. This is why Labor have stepped up to the plate and has the policies to address our future education needs. It starts with early childhood learning and it never stops. Labor believe in lifelong learning, which is the key to a versatile and flexible work force at the cutting edge of the new millennium. Our fully costed and fully funded policy is a down payment on the future. It starts to repair the damage of seven years of neglect that this government has overseen. We want all Australians to aim higher; we want universities and TAFEs to aim higher; and, above all, we want our government to aim higher.