Senator STOTT DESPOJA (4:04 PM) —The Australian Democrats will be supporting the Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill 1998 for many of the reasons mentioned by Senator Carr. Funding has to be made available to these institutions and we would not seek to frustrate that process in any way. We acknowledge that universities have faced great periods of funding uncertainty over the last few years, particularly under this government. Therefore, we seek to assure them that their funding, or as much as is being allowed by this government, is going to be safely passed by this parliament.

The Democrats support the second reading amendment moved by the opposition. We also condemn the government for eroding the vitally important higher education system through slashing funding for universities and through additional fees and charges. But I cannot let that go without acknowledging the role of the Australian Labor Party—the opposition and former government—in deregulating the postgraduate market and beginning the process of reintroducing tertiary fees in the form of the Higher Education Contribution Scheme and before that the higher education administration charge and also for playing a role in tightening the eligibility criteria for income support for students in the form of Austudy.

We cannot support the ALP's second reading amendment without at least acknowledging the role of the Australian Labor Party certainly in expanding the sector but not necessarily in matching that great expansion with the appropriate infrastructure funding for teaching, capital works and funding per full time student unit.

I also refer, as did Senator Carr, to last night's excellence in teaching awards. It was certainly a lovely occasion, simply because we were able to acknowledge and celebrate in one room excellence in academia. It was wonderful to see people in Parliament House from a range of tertiary education institutions and representing those institutions with enormous pride. There were student representatives at that function as well as the President of the National Union of Students, members of staff, vice-chancellors and deputy chancellors.

It was a wonderful occasion. I must say it was quite nice to see a minister celebrating academic efforts and excellence and I hope that this is something that is set to continue. I understand that the excellence in teaching awards is a bit of a replacement for an idea that was mooted by the former Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Senator Vanstone, when she came up with the dob-in-a-don idea, the notion that instead of using carrots we should use sticks, so that we could punish or expose those members of academia who were not doing their best in academic circles. I think it is much more appropriate to actually reward those who are achieving excellence, setting a higher standard, as opposed to simply seeking to punish those who were not considered to be meeting the appropriate standard.

Seeing Dr David Kemp up on stage last night presenting awards for innovation and for compassion, and for visionary ideas, whether in science and technology, humanities, arts or health, was quite a nice sight. But I do not forget that this government, and certainly Minister Kemp, are responsible for overseeing massive change—radical, regressive change—to a sector that has lost a lot of its funding over the last couple of years of this government.

The Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998, as it was called, varies the maximum amounts of grants that can be made to higher education institutions under a range of grant categories. The major implication of this funding bill is the implementation of this government's cuts to the higher education sector for the current three-year period announced in the 1996-97 budget. Last year that funding was reduced by one per cent. This year the amount was reduced by a further three per cent, and there will be a further one per cent cut to university operating grants in 1999 and the year 2000. The funding levels are determined in this bill for superannuation, teaching hospitals and open learning.

The bill also provides for expenditure on the international marketing and promotion of education and training services provided by Australian institutions, and allows the minister to determine the maximum amount payable by the Commonwealth for the international promotion of Australian education and training services. In 1998, this amount is to be $1.016 million, increasing to $2.468 million in 1999 and to $3.883 million in 2000. A further amendment recognises the recent name change of the James Cook University.

This bill is particularly timely, coming within a month of the UNESCO World Conference on Higher Education. That conference was attended by more than 3,000 delegates, including 115 education ministers and legislators, scholars, students and officials from around 180 countries. The UNESCO Director-General called for a major increase in the availability of higher education and lifelong learning. He called for a `radical transformation of the higher education landscape', and the conference backed a world declaration on higher education for the 21st Century which endorsed the right of access to higher education based exclusively on personal merit, in keeping with Article 26.1 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights—not entry to university based on bank balance, but on brains.

In Australia, the commitment of the Commonwealth to public funding of higher education has never been so weak. This bill reflects the total abrogation of this government of its responsibility to ensure a quality, accessible and accountable public higher education system. In his second reading speech addressing this bill, the Minister, David Kemp, said that this government was proud of the number of overenrolments in our universities. While I support increased access and the opportunity for many more students, regardless of age or background, to enter and participate in higher education, I was stunned to hear this reference by the minister. But the minister was actually referring not to increased access but to the increased number of students who are funded only at a level of over $2,500 each. Even this paltry amount is only paid to universities at the end of the year. This is not an achievement; this is a travesty. And the government is boasting about overenrolments—I guess they are cheaper for the government.

Our universities in many cases are at a breaking point, faced with overcrowding, as well as continual underfunding. I note that Dr Kemp states in his second reading speech that funding per EFTSU is an increase on 1996 levels. But what Dr Kemp fails to register is that the 1996 EFTSU levels were shamefully low. In 1996 the EFTSU funding, expressed in 1994 terms, was $12,379. However if you compare this with the EFTSU of $12,580 in 1982, you begin to see that the sector has suffered chronic underfunding under the current and the previous governments.

Not only has this government managed to cram the most students into the system with the least amount of funding, they have also charged HECS liable and upfront fee paying students the highest tuition fees in our history. Of course, they have decided, as the previous speaker noted, to ignore the proliferation of illegal fees—more politely referred to as `ancillary fees'. I congratulate the National Union of Students for their work in conjunction with the National Tertiary Education Union on this issue. It is certainly recommended reading for anyone who cares about real access to higher education. It can be viewed in the NUS ancillary fee survey that was released last week.

Ancillary fees were a problem identified, yet largely ignored, under a previous government, the Labor Hawke-Keating government. When free accessible tertiary education was effectively repealed by the Hawke government, with the introduction of the administration charge and HECS, these payments were meant to cover the tuition costs of university students. The current government promised to look at this issue prior to the 1996 election, but this was another broken promise—like so many of their promises to the higher education sector. I presume Senator Robert Hill at that time made that promise to investigate the matter of ancillary fees. These ancillary, or illegal, fees are still spreading because neither the Hawke-Keating government nor the Howard government has met the increased demand for education and the expansion of our higher education system with a commensurate or adequate level of funding.

Students have always been expected to pay the costs of some photocopying, stationery and textbooks, things that they individually benefit from or keep for their professional development and their careers. As the frequency of ancillary or illegal fees increases, more students are finding it increasingly difficult to meet these additional costs. Ancillary or illegal fees must be paid up-front and often without much notice. The NUS survey found that the most disturbing findings were that institutions were charging for services that should reasonably be considered part and parcel of that student's tuition fee.

While gone are the days where a faculty could afford to provide from within its own budget photocopies of texts for students—we have to acknowledge the funding constraints on faculties and departments—it now appears that a student is financially disadvantaged if they do not have access to their own computer and printer and their own private Internet access. Fifty-nine per cent of institutions charge students for access to the Internet via the university from home, four per cent already charge for email access on campus—and I understand that this figure is likely to increase dramatically—and 65 per cent reported charging students for the use of computer printers on campus.

Noting that many lecturers demand that students submit their work in a typed or word processed form, this clearly constitutes a barrier for those students who are less wealthy and who do not have access to a computer or a printer at home. Add to this the scarcity of computer pools on campus, particularly as funding cuts begin to bite harder, and you are applying enormous financial pressure, as well as pressure time-wise, on these students. This can only adversely affect the academic performance of those students without access to money.

Appealing an assessment on a piece of work is already fraught with emotional and professional stresses. A lack of funding to institutions has added a financial penalty to this process. It is an unacceptable situation when a student has to consider the financial implications of a simple request for a reassessment. Reassessment should reasonably be expected to be a standard practice and not an added extra with extra fees attached. Yet the NUS report documents instances where students are charged $23 to get a piece of work reassessed.

One of the most disturbing aspects of this survey was the finding that students were actually being charged for access to assignment questions. This is clearly a breach of the policy, in spirit as well as in letter. It is disingenuous for the minister to claim, as he did last week, that the issue of ancillary fees is not worthy of address, while he and his Senate colleagues are pursuing an agenda of voluntary student unionism.

Funding cuts are hurting institutions around the country. We have only to look at departmental cuts and closures, the removal of subjects and curriculum, general and academic staffing cuts, and other changes to know that. At Monash the Peninsula campus has escaped the threat of closure but has been substantially depleted. The downsizing of this campus puts it in grave danger. The arts faculty has been cut and there is talk of bussing the students from that campus to other campuses. This is not a measure of a healthy higher education sector and it is not an isolated example. The University of Tasmania has been hit by cuts to its arts faculty, as has the Northern Territory University. I suspect that Senator Crossin, with her considerable experience in the tertiary education sector, when she speaks will probably enlarge on some of the funding cuts to that institution. Well she may.

Staff numbers have also been slashed and the government still refuses to honour its pledge to address the ongoing staff wage claim. I also acknowledge that this staff wage claim was not appropriately addressed under the former Labor government. According to Don DeBats' and Alan Ward's book, Degrees of Difference:

Security of tenure in Australian universities is no longer a meaningful notion in Australia.

Yet this government continues to peddle the myth that our universities are prospering. The Australian Democrats reject this myth, as do students and staff coping with the funding cuts.

Again, I refer to the rewards for innovation and expertise at last night's function. I put on record congratulations to all those winners. There were students and staff who went home with awards last night. If that is the vision that we have for higher education in this country, that we continue to reward innovation and excellence, it is going to be increasingly hard, almost impossible, to do with a government that continues to slash and burn when it comes to this sector.

Senator Carr mentioned the idea of tampering with the Higher Education Funding Act. I note that a press release was circulated in the last few weeks by Chris Pyne, the Liberal member for Sturt in South Australia. He effectively said he was putting student organisations on notice that he was prepared to support a government agenda of tampering with the Higher Education Funding Act that currently sees institutions compensated for loss of income as a consequence of state interference. If states are looking into voluntary student unionism, they will find it is a misnomer. Under voluntary student unionism, currently they are able to receive some degree of compensation to ensure that those vital services that we associate with campus life can continue. That may mean subsidised food, catering, sporting facilities or access to the student newspaper. It may involve student representation as one of the many arms of student services provided through student organisations and their fees.

I give very clear notice that the Australian Democrats, who helped initiate the reintroduction of those amendments to the Higher Education Funding Act in 1992 and 1993 when Karen Sowado was a member of this chamber, are still very much strong supporters of universal membership of student organisations. We see campus life as a holistic experience that encompasses not only the opportunity to take home a degree and pursue academic studies but also to enjoy all the other aspects of campus life—not just research and analysis and taking home a degree but also ensuring that there is a campus environment that stimulates lifelong learning as well as other opportunities for participation and involvement.

The Democrats continue to believe—unlike this government and I believe to a degree the former government—that education is an investment in our society and its future. It is not a cost. We do not support the increasing fees and charges for education, be they ancillary or legal fees, the changes to a three-tier system for HECS, the introduction of up-front full cost undergraduate fees or continued deregulation of the postgraduate sector. We continue to oppose those fees and charges.

We have said many times in this place—unlike the Labor, Liberal or National parties—that fees are a psychological and financial disincentive to enter into and pursue higher education. For that reason, we will continue to oppose not only HECS and the premise behind it, but any additional fees and charges that this, or any other government seeks to impose on students. Not only that, we believe in a livable income for students. We believe in financial support, in the form of Austudy and Abstudy as well as a common youth allowance. This is another lost opportunity by this government to ensure that students—especially those from lower income households and disadvantaged backgrounds—had an opportunity to pursue education and training in a way that did not add to the financial and other pressures on their family members.

We believe that education is a vital part of achieving an enlightened and democratic society, not only in providing economic benefits to this nation—as it inevitably does—but also in ensuring that people have better employment opportunities and prospects, whether it is through the attainment of a degree or a diploma or through other apprenticeships and traineeships. We believe very strongly that the abolition of fees opened up our tertiary institutions to those groups who had previously been locked out or disadvantaged. That is why we condemn both the old parties for imposing fees and charges.

We will be supporting the second reading amendment, but with the qualification of our acknowledgment that the former government was also responsible for beginning the process of fee charging and running down our higher education sector when it came to inadequate funding per full-time student unit. We will be supporting this legislation, but we condemn the government for continually starving this sector in a way that will not lead to a more enlightened, democratic and educated society.