Ms JULIE BISHOP (8:47 PM) —The Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2003 is of fundamental importance to Australia and, by implication, to the members of this House. I think that is beyond dispute by members of the opposition or members on this side. Nonetheless, from the debate within and without this parliament, it is clear that opinions differ sharply on the legislation and on the reforms to Australia's universities that it serves to implement.

I wish to place on the parliamentary record my robust support for this bill and, more generally, for the reform program being introduced by the Minister for Education, Science and Training, the honourable member for Bradfield. I do this as a member who has the privilege of representing in this place a number of universities—the University of Western Australia, Edith Cowan University and Curtin University of Technology—as they all have campuses within my electorate. The main campus of the University of Western Australia is located in Nedlands, Edith Cowan University has a major campus at Churchlands and the Curtin University of Technology has campuses in West Perth and Shenton Park. I am not overlooking Western Australia's fourth university, Murdoch University. Prior to entering parliament, I was a member of the senate of Murdoch University and I remain in close contact with that institution.

I am aware that, just as opinions differ within this place, preferences for reform differ on those campuses amongst students and academics. Yet there is a general consensus that reform is, in and of itself, vital. In less than half a century, this country has experienced an extraordinary increase in the rate of university participation. Just 50 years ago, less than 350 of every 100,000 Australians attended a university. Today that figure has increased more than tenfold to 498,000 Australians. This represents an absolute increase of 75,000 since 1995. The consequence for educational achievement more broadly has been immense. In the 1990s alone, the proportion of the adult population with a bachelor's degree nearly doubled. These massive changes in enrolment, participation and expectations have been transformative.

Along with the great economic, social and intellectual benefits have come genuine strains, both financial and educational. These are undeniable and so are the challenges they present to policy makers. But they are nothing new and they are not irresolvable. Andrew Norton, one of the most profound commentators on Australian higher education and a long-time reform campaigner, in last year's monograph, The Unchained University, said:

yet, he says:

It is to the credit of this minister that he has sought out those reforms and faced down those problems and the vested interests opposed to change. But I would go further, for I see these reforms not only as indicative of the minister's good sense and the appetite for reform of the government, but also, like much of the Liberal reform enacted since 1996, as expressing an appreciation of the changing expectations of Australian citizens.

The American constitutional lawyer and security and intelligence strategist Philip Bobbitt made the case in his magnum opus, The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace, and the Course of History, that the world was witnessing a transformative period in history, from the idea of the nation-state first expressed in 19th century Germany and the United States to the idea of a market state. This transformation was analogous to similar reconstitutions of the state in the preceding centuries. Regardless of whether one accepts Bobbitt's thesis in its entirety there certainly appears to be a revised expectation of governments by citizens expressed in the commitment to maximise opportunity, rather than prescribe outcomes as the nation-state decreed. This is not partisan—it was as characteristic of the reformist activities of the Hawke government as it was of Thatcher and Reagan, and as it has been expressed by Western leaders as varied as George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Gerhard Schroeder and Tony Blair.

In the specific context of Australian higher education, the policy articulated in this bill is also informed by the understanding that not all Australian taxpayers will access a university education but they will all pay for it through their taxes; that the principal benefit of such an education flows directly to those who do achieve that access; and that students remain the best source of finance for their own education—and, might I add, deserve to be treated as valuable paying customers, not anonymous enrolments. As with all policy, we ought to strive to maximise the personal and the broader benefits while restraining the costs which are often borne by third parties—taxpayers. This is not to say that the government does not remain committed to providing substantial subsidies and high overall revenue levels. After all, it is expected that this year the total revenue available to universities in Australia will be $11.3 billion—a real increase of over 31 per cent since this government came to office. Of that total, $6.4 billion represents total higher education funding from the Commonwealth, including HECS. Rather, the funding reforms provided for in this bill will sustain these high levels into the future, thereby meeting our future educational needs.

The bill's provisions were derived from the 2002 review of higher education commissioned by the minister. That review canvassed opinion from across the country and included the views not only of those directly involved with higher education—adminis-trators, students and academics—but also of those indirectly involved, such as the business community and the wider public. The review confirmed suspicions that the present arrangements for university funding were unsustainable and, untreated, had the potential to devalue Australian education. From the review came the government's response in Our Universities: Backing Australia's Future, a package that proposed to increase public investment in the sector by $1.5 billion over each of the next four years. Within 10 years an additional $10 billion would be provided to universities. That proposal now finds legislative form in the bill before the House.

This bill increases the number of Commonwealth subsidised places at universities and increases the funding attached to each of those students. This is linked to management improvements. The bill provides for additional moneys for universities outside the metropolitan centres, encourages excellence in teaching practice as well as greater cross-institutional collaboration, and includes new places for high priority professions such as nursing and teaching, with related concessional fee arrangements.

Greater choice will be introduced into the system and there will still be no up-front fees for Australians to enter undergraduate studies at accredited institutions, except, I might add, the compulsory student union fees imposed by the universities—fees that the government has sought to abolish and the opposition has sought to entrench. New income-contingent loans will be made available by the Commonwealth to meet the needs of fee paying students attending both public and eligible private higher education institutions.

The bill does not consist solely of the initiatives announced in Our Universities: Backing Australia's Future. It also includes funding for the reconstruction of the Australian National University's Mount Stromlo Observatory—a magnificent facility destroyed in the bushfires that swept the Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales in January of this year. Also, the Higher Education Funding Act, the foundation act for the sector, will have its funding amounts amended in line with indexation and the latest HECS liability estimates. The Australian Research Council Act 2001 will also be amended, in this case to facilitate administrative and financial management reforms designed to improve Australian Research Council operations. There are also a number of miscellaneous amendments.

Perhaps the most admirable people in the present system are those prominent Australians who have returned to the classroom after lucrative and continuing careers in the private and public sectors. I would therefore like to use this opportunity to praise those persons doing such good for young Australian minds. Yet these contributors are burdened and warned off by decaying infrastructure, inflexibility, overbureaucratisation and closed-mindedness. It is my hope that the government's reforms will act to diminish those burdens and barriers, and support those persons in their efforts.

I must also mention the response of the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee. The committee said that overall it endorsed strongly the main policy direction and fiscal commitment of the Commonwealth to the higher education sector. Incidentally, the committee urged that legislation be passed in 2003. I have spoken at different times and at length with the four vice-chancellors from the four universities in Western Australia. Again, while the views of each university may differ, all recognise the government's commitment to reform and have praised the efforts of the Minister for Education, Science and Training. In particular I mention the President of the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee, Professor Deryck Schreuder, who is also the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Western Australia. He said:

As I said, reservations were expressed, but Professor Schreuder said:

As Andrew Norton concluded of the present system in 2002, it could all be so much better. That is what these reforms offer.

Debate interrupted.