Senator STOTT DESPOJA (3:40 PM) —The issue to which I hope to refer—namely, higher education—has been referred to not only in other contributions but, indeed, in most of the minister's answers today. I want to make very clear and put on the record the Democrats' response to the proposed reforms for higher education released in last night's budget. When Senator Tierney talks about the cut-price or reduced fees for nursing and teaching places, he fails to acknowledge that those fees merely remain the same. It is the other fees that will increase. While nurses and teachers have received somewhat of a break or an alleviation of their fees and charges, it is still a pretty appalling position to put aspiring students in, given the teacher and nursing shortage that is predicted for this country.

Across the board, we are looking at not the introduction of but the extension of user pays in our higher education system. It is almost the complete privatisation of higher education as we know it. In my question to the minister—to which I did not get a response—I pointed out the fact that we are now overtaking the United States as the third most privatised higher education system in the world at that level. Certainly we have among the highest fees and charges. We know the HECS increase of up to 30 per cent will be a psychological and financial disincentive to students wanting to enter into and participate in higher education. We also know who is going to be hardest hit by that. It is going to be poor kids, Indigenous kids and those from regional backgrounds because in the last 10 years their participation rates in higher education have not improved. And they are not going to improve as a consequence of last night's changes; they are going to get worse.

In my question to Senator Minchin, the Minister representing the Treasurer, I asked whether or not they had reneged on or disregarded the notion in the Crossroads report that acknowledges that for some groups the Higher Education Contribution Scheme has been a barrier. This budget is going to erect more barriers to education. As for the doubling of full fee paying places for undergraduate education, we cannot even fill the places that are currently available. But we know who will be able to access those places. We also know on current trends that quality will be sacrificed—tertiary entrance requirements are going to get lower. If you can afford to pay, yes, there are examples of wealthier students getting in, but their TERs are not necessarily as good as they should be in comparison to the HECS funded places.

I know student groups and academic and general staff groups are going to be very angry. The postgraduate sector is appalled. Yes, I know that the AVCC are on record saying that they support this package—because they are being blackmailed. They have been given back the $1.5 billion that was cut out in 1996-97. This is not new money. How dare people say this is paid for, as though it were some kind of new reinvestment in public education? It is putting back what this government cut in 1996-97. The AVCC seem to be saying that four to five grand for the average student is the price of a small car. I am not sure how many vice-chancellors are paying for small cars these days; I think they get that in their packages. Let us not pretend that this is a little bit onerous for some students; this means law degrees that take three years and that are charged at up to 30 per cent extra will cost $25,065—to be precise—per degree.

That is not an up-front fee place; that is what law will cost at some institutions from 2005. That is an extraordinary fee, considering the number of students in Australia now who are doing law or are aspiring to do law. As Dr Carolyn Allport from the NTEU said last night, increasingly it is like an arts degree. It is a very popular course. Those students who study and graduate from law do not always get a huge income and do not always practise law, but they are providing community benefit as well. That is what this government is missing: the fact that investment in education has a community benefit and we should treat higher education—in fact, education at all levels—as an investment, not a cost. This is not about backing Australia's future; it is about hacking Australia's future. The government can say all it likes in question time today or on record elsewhere that it thinks this is actually some kind of investment in future graduates and our community, but I think everyone out there knows the reality. They know exactly what this means, particularly for the disadvantaged in our higher education system. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.