Senator NETTLE (10:09 AM) —The Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2003 seeks to amend both the Higher Education Funding Act 1988, to implement indexation arrangements for university funding, and the Australian Research Council Act 2001. In my brief comments today I propose to focus on the first part of the bill relating to indexation as it goes to the heart of the problems that the Greens have with the government's approach to higher education.

This bill is portrayed by the government as a simple administrative measure to implement ongoing indexation for university funding under the Higher Education Funding Act and to roll out funding for the government's higher education package. But it is more than that. This bill represents the first legislative proof of the failure of this government to hear the message coming loud and clear from the universities, vice-chancellors, students, unions and the community that the higher education sector needs a substantial increase in funding to meet the growing needs and responsibilities of the coming years. This bill does not do that.

The indexation arrangements in this bill fail to address the fundamental demand from the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee and others that core funding to universities must be indexed in such a way as to truly reflect the cost of providing higher education services. The current indexation arrangements, based on the higher education cost adjustment factor, have consistently underresourced the sector by delivering funding increases in the order of just over two per cent whilst real costs continue at around four to five per cent. This means that universities are forced to fund wage increases, amongst other expenditures, from other revenue streams— in turn putting pressure on other projects— and, each triennium, to tighten the straightjacket of underfunding that constricts the sector. This structural underfunding has cost universities in the region of at least $400 million per triennium.

The Greens have welcomed the recommendation from the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee to devise an indexation arrangement similar to that employed in the schools sector. The indexation arrangement, the average government school running costs, or AGSRC, is derived from total expenditure on government schools less capital expenditure on buildings and grounds, redundancy payments and Commonwealth specific purpose payments. In this way the AGSRC index reflects the actual costs of providing the service as they rise. This kind of index is transferable to the higher education sector; there are no serious impediments for doing so. The reason this has not been done is that the government, if they transferred such an indexation scheme, would have to invest more in the higher education sector in this country.

This brings me back to the real significance of this bill. The bill fails to address this funding straightjacket problem and, in doing so, sends a clear message to those concerned about the future of higher education. The message is that the changes announced in the budget—changes that will see student HECS fees rise by 30 per cent, which is a massive increase in full fee paying places, and commercial rates of interest payable on some student loans—are only the thin end of the wedge. The failure to appropriately index core funding will mean that the same problems of scarcity will continue to face universities even after they have raised fees and brought in more full fee paying students. So where will cash strapped vice-chancellors turn to when the money runs out? The government has made clear what the procedure is: take it from students and from their families. This is the central methodology of the minister's plan for the future of higher education. Since it came to office, the government has bled the universities dry, stripping around $5 billion from the sector over that time. Now, seven years on, the government has come to the universities with the proverbial `offer you can't refuse' which, in a nutshell, comprises universities taking on the dirty work of raising student fees and cutting places in exchange for the government allowing them access to the soft funding option of hitting up students and selling degrees for cash.

This is the path that we are headed down. This bill, whilst delivering vital funds for the continuing operation of universities, is also the first step on that path. The destination is a deregulated market in the higher education sector, where private providers vie with public universities for scarce government funds; where universities are increasingly reliant on private funds, both from the student body and corporate interests, to deliver education services; and where the vision of a comprehensive, accessible and high-quality public education system servicing the education needs of a community is all but lost. Some may argue that this is in some sense inevitable, given the pressures in the federal budget, and that such a comprehensive vision is simply unaffordable.

Putting aside the strong evidence for an ideological motive to deregulate, the argument that we simply cannot afford such an investment is of course really an argument about priorities. But the government is not interested in having an honest debate about these financial priorities, instead assuming that we are all as acquisitive and short-sighted as the economic rationalists in Treasury. But I wonder if voters were given the simple option of having the diesel fuel rebate or a free education system which one they would choose. I wonder if the choice were between the first home owners grant or a free university system which one they would select. Or indeed, had the Treasurer asked Australians whether they would rather have $4 a week or a free university system, I wonder whether that $4 a week would look all that worth it. These are the priority choices that the government has made. It does not say much for its commitment to equity and accessibility to higher education.

But, again, it is not really that the money is not there in the first place, because clearly it is. It is more to do with the ideological commitment to small government, privatisation and user pays that is driving the university funding decision making. The Greens reject this simplistic and mean dogma, instead choosing to recognise the importance of community capital and to invest accordingly. This view is reflected in the second reading amendment which I now move:

At the end of the motion, add “but the Senate:

(a) condemns the Government for:

(i) under-funding the university system in Australia for the past 7 years and as a result:

(A) leaving students and parents to pay one of the highest proportions of fees for their education in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,

(B) discouraging older and poorer students for seeking a place at university,

(C) allowing completion rates of Aboriginal students to suffer through lack of appropriate financial and structural support,

(D) presiding over a haemorrhaging of talent from Australian universities to overseas research and teach-ing positions due to lack of opportunity and suitable remuneration at home, and

(E) undermining staff morale and effectiveness as a con-sequence of massively increased workloads, and reduced administrative sup-port, and

(ii) attacking the freedom of academics and general staff to be represented by their union; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) repeal the $4 a week average income tax cuts announced in the budget in order to reinvest that money in the public higher education system enabling the abolition of student fees, both upfront and the higher education contribution scheme, and

(ii) invest the currently promised $1.4 billion, together with savings made from a restoration of fair company tax rates, in the sector to achieve:

(A) the financing of real indexation for core funding that reflects the actual cost of providing higher education services, thereby ensuring the sustainability of the sector into the future,

(B) increasing the core funding of universities by 20 per cent per equivalent full-time student unit to reflect the need for infrastructure and staffing investment to meet current and future demand, and

(C) a guarantee that students accessing tertiary education receive adequate financial support from the Federal Government to cover their living costs so they can focus on their education”.

The measures in the second reading amendment are about genuinely investing in higher education and are the sorts of measures that the public are looking for from government, measures that show faith in ourselves for the future and a willingness to back that belief for the good of everyone. The Greens have developed and continue to develop our vision for higher education, which stands as a clear alternative to the government's recipe for elitism. We suggest that the minister take note of these proposals because they have community backing from the 70 per cent of Australians who are happy to pay more tax if they can access better services in return. (Quorum formed)