Senator STOTT DESPOJA (3:40 PM) —I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The government's proposal to deregulate the higher education sector, introduce a system of voucher based funding contrary to previous assurances, replace HECS with student loans repayable with a real rate of interest and reduce public expenditure on higher education, excluding thousands of Australians from further education and cutting investment in human capital.

This debate has already commenced with the speakers we have had during the taking note of the answers given to questions today. Today, this debate has come about as a consequence of a leaked document—a cabinet-in-confidence document—the authenticity of which has not been denied by the relevant minister, the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr David Kemp. It is written in the first person and it is clearly an articulation of his views—his narrow so-called vision for the higher education sector in this country.

The cabinet submission contains largely three proposals: the compete deregulation of university fees—that is, allowing universities to set the fees paid by all students; a voucher driven funding system, whereby students are eligible for some government subsidy but must meet the costs of any gap or top-up fee imposed by the university; and a universal loans scheme to replace HECS, which would have a real rate of interest attached. Currently, HECS interest rates are indexed to the CPI. These are some of the most regressive, anti-student, anti-intellectual proposals we have seen introduced or suggested by a minister for education in this country in its history.

The irony is, of course, as has been pointed out in the earlier debate, that many of the ministers in the current government, and indeed a number of backbenchers, have benefited from a system of education that was publicly funded and much more accessible—even Dr David Kemp. He is not even a member of generation HECS; he has benefited from a scholarship, as I understand it, from the University of Melbourne, where he was entitled to pursue a law degree that was taxpayer funded but not contributed to in any individual or private way. Indeed, the former minister for the education portfolio, who did her own burning, slashing and cutting to the education sector, Senator Vanstone, also benefited from a much fairer system of higher education in this country.

The government have consistently battered the higher education sector through cuts to resourcing and to staff numbers, failing to actually meet staff and academic wage claim demands. They have cut regional campuses and increased HECS. They have cut student financial assistance and increased the age rate for independent assistance. The government are already guilty of slashing and burning when it comes to the higher education sector. About $1.8 billion worth of cuts were made in 1996, when the government first got into power.

We have heard a lot of assurances today from government members. Indeed, the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, who is present in the chamber, and the speakers in the previous debate on the government side suggested that the Prime Minister's comments on television this morning were a sufficient guarantee that the Prime Minister has definitely ruled out further deregulation. I say `further' deregulation because this government, as its predecessor did, has stood over while deregulation has taken place, more recently of undergraduate fee paying places. Before that, under the ALP, the postgraduate sector was deregulated.

The Prime Minister has given an assurance not that this will not happen ever but that, presumably, it will not happen within the life of this parliament. So I look forward to hearing again in this place, on record, ministers and members of the government giving us a categorical assurance that there will be no deregulation, no introduction of vouchers and no abolition of HECS. Of course, if it is the abolition of HECS to replace it with a system of publicly funded free education, that would be welcomed by all those who believe that we should have a further investment in higher education—education that is publicly funded and accessible to all.

But we cannot really trust this government when it makes such assurances. Today in question time I noticed Senator Carr asked the former education spokesperson for the coalition when they were in opposition, Senator Hill, about some of the assurances he gave on record as to what his political party would do if they got into office. Their election manifesto in 1996 gave assurances that HECS would not be tampered with, that Austudy would not really be affected, that operating grants would not be cut and that regional universities would be protected. What have we seen? As soon as they got into government, within the same year, we saw massive funding cuts and regional and remote institutions hurt more than any other institutions, so much so that this government had to introduce a rescue package in order to cope with the fallout—to stem the flow, if you like.

I note that, in this cabinet-in-confidence document, Dr David Kemp has recognised that universities are currently in a `difficult financial position'. We know that. Unfortunately, of course, it is a financial position that has been brought about or perpetuated by the government of the day. Dr David Kemp goes on to state:

Already eight institutions appear to be operating at a deficit and some regional campuses are at risk. The current enterprise bargaining round is not giving universities more staffing flexibility . . .

Instead of seeing the government come up with some ways of ensuring that more resources are made available or that teaching quality is improved through funding or meeting the wage claims of academic and general staff, we could see the absolute decimation or the abolition of some regional campuses, or indeed some regional institutions, because we know—research tells us and experience shows us—that a voucher system favours those with wealth and with mobility and we know that, under such a system, as Senator McLucas pointed out in the earlier debate, regional and remote campuses will suffer most.

There has been a lot of talk about policies and records in the chamber today, and I put on record again the Australian Democrats' position in relation to the funding of higher education. We have always believed, since our inception 22 years ago, that education is an investment; it is not a cost. It is part of a caring, enlightened and compassionate society. It has the opportunity to benefit all, including those who want to be involved in the workplace, regardless of what their age or background is, as well as providing an enlightened and intellectual society. That is the premise for education.

Senator Tierney —No fees at all?

Senator STOTT DESPOJA —No fees at all! That is why the Democrats voted against the introduction of the higher education administration charge, the Higher Education Contribution Scheme and the CPI increase of the Higher Education Contribution Scheme in 1991. The Democrats opposed further deregulation of the postgraduate sector and deregulation of undergraduate fees, even with the caps that this government has imposed. We recognise that it is possible, because governments have to make choices, and gutsy governments have to make choices, to invest in things that lead to an environment that is enlightened and democratic. You invest in areas of human capital so that people have the best opportunities—not only so they can pursue further education or get jobs but also so they can have lifestyles that have quality and health. You do that through a progressive taxation system, because already people are contributing through the taxation system to government revenue. They are contributing to education, but increasingly we have seen over the years a fundamental shift in the costs of education, the financing of education, from the public as a whole—recognising that there is that public benefit—to individuals. That is clearly the intent of Dr David Kemp's proposals before us today.

Senator Tierney interjecting—

Senator STOTT DESPOJA —Yes, I am quite proud and happy to put on record the Australian Democrats' voting record and policy perspectives on these matters. I suspect they are probably reflected among a few backbenchers today—from both sides. At the doorstops and on some of the television coverage this morning I could see backbenchers back-pedalling a mile. I saw Dr Brendan Nelson looking a little perturbed at the prospect of students having to pay $100,000 for a degree.

Senator Tierney —That is rubbish!

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order, Senator Tierney. You are on the speakers list. I would appreciate your remaining silent until it is your turn to speak.

Senator Tierney —I couldn't contain myself, Madam Deputy President.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Remove yourself from the chamber if you cannot contain yourself.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA —Madam Deputy President, he is giving me my best stuff, so I appreciate the interjections.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —They are disorderly, Senator Stott Despoja. Please address the chair and ignore his interjections.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA —They are indeed disorderly, and I will focus on the matters before us. But I will acknowledge the interjection that suggested that $100,000 was rubbish. As I pointed out in question time today, already students are paying exorbitant amounts in fees. Only a few weeks ago we saw Melbourne University introduce a two- year private law degree for $72,000. Under the proposals before us, as I pointed out in question time today, not only is it possible that $72,000 can be paid for a two-year law degree at an institution, but also, if you finance that with a loan which has a fixed interest rate of 7½ per cent and you repay that over, say, 15 years—but who knows how much longer than that students are going to be condemned to debt—then the total cost, excluding bank fees and charges, is over $120,000. That is what these loans will mean. That is what a fixed interest rate means. That is what happens if you are going to abolish the HECS.

It is happening already: students are paying exorbitant amounts, not to mention that this government has increased fees and charges like no other—and that is saying something given the last decade of policy changes to higher education in this country—and hiked them up to a level that does not even make us comparable with Western nations like the United States. We have heard a lot of discussion about the United States in the past 24 hours, but I know that public institutions in America do not have comparable fees, on average, to the kinds of fees that we already have through HECS and up-front undergraduate fees in Australia. In fact, this is very much an attempt by the government to introduce not only parts of the American system—and go further—but also the UK style reforms of vouchers and student loans. I suspect that is where Dr David Kemp is getting some of his so-called inspiration.

These proposals are a hybrid of the worst aspects of both of these systems. They would effectively privatise universities, as in the US, and impose crippling debt on students through student loans, as has occurred in the United Kingdom. In Australia's case, according to these proposals, Australians would be forced to repay the loan at a real rate of interest, and they would introduce increased and substantial funding uncertainty to the sector through vouchers.

Vouchers apparently have been ruled out by the Prime Minister today, yet we know that the cabinet has already seen the proposed reforms and requested that the minister for education investigate them further, contrary to numerous public assurances that the government would not introduce vouchers. These vouchers, of course, are the idea of student centred funding that we have seen closely examined through the West review. Note that the only relevant term of reference that was not included but should have been in the West review was actually looking at how we can fund our higher education system better through public resources. The issue of public funding was not even touched on in that document. Once again, the government has failed to recognise that there is a public good, a public benefit, as a consequence of education in our society.

On fee deregulation, Senator Ellison, representing the minister for education, today has apparently ruled that out, but I do not trust this government, not when it has broken nearly every promise, nearly every assurance, specifically in relation to higher education policy and funding—and not just this minister but also the one who preceded him. I call on the government not only to rule out any move towards a privatised system of funding such as that in the US but also to rule out the UK style reforms of vouchers and student loans.

If these cabinet-in-confidence documents are even a glimpse of what this government has countenanced in relation to higher education reform, we will have an education system that once and for all is an elite system for the rich and blocks out the poor. (Time expired)