Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Well, we wouldn’t give her that elevation. We have had Minister Bishop denying funding reports on an international report on primary education, saying that they are the wrong statistics at the wrong time, without looking at the fact that, during the period this government has been in office, higher education investment has declined no matter what sector you look at and no matter what period of time you concentrate on. Statistics are used by this government to disguise their neglect of the sector. They roll together figures for expenditure on both public education and private education to hide the fact that sometimes we are talking about money specifically being withdrawn from public education. Private education is necessary, of course, but private is private and public is public; they are two different things and they are funded quite differently by this government.

Australian public funding of tertiary education is at 48 per cent of their funds, down from nearly 65 per cent in 1995 and compared to the OECD average of 76.4 per cent. So, when the OECD average for public funding of tertiary education is over 75 per cent, here in Australia it languishes at 48 per cent. While spending on tertiary education has risen in real terms against the base figure for 1995, it has declined considerably in per-student terms due to the large rise in student numbers. It has declined by around $1,500 per student. ABS figures show that since 2001 spending has risen by six per cent but student numbers have gone up by 12 per cent.

I have already stated the effects of this: larger class sizes, less one on one with lecturers and tutors, more reliance on classes being delivered online through the internet, and, of course, increased fees payable by students one way or another. Student fees and charges have risen from 13 per cent of tertiary revenue in 1996 to 24 per cent of tertiary revenue in 2004 and they are rising annually. Aussie students now face mounting HECS debts after completing studies or higher full course fees to get their degrees. Our universities have been forced to rely more and more on HECS fee increases and full-fee-paying students, whether domestic or overseas—predominantly, I would have thought, overseas. It is not a desirable or long sustainable situation as more overseas countries such as China increase their own provision of tertiary education.

As said previously, this Higher Education Endowment Fund will be supported by Labor, although it could be seen as too little, too late. There are obvious faults with the way in which it is proposed to be managed, with government ministers having too many unfettered powers and with many of the regulations being determined as non-disallowable instruments. There is too little transparency and accountability. It is very welcome, provided, too, that it is not used to replace existing programs. Again, I refer to the submission from the Group of Eight, in which they said:

There are a variety of existing Commonwealth Schemes that directly or indirectly support investment in university capital and research infrastructure.

They said that, for reasons outlined in their submission:

… it is critical that the HEEF never be seen as a substitute for these important schemes which each serve specific purposes.

Labor believes that the income derived from this fund should be available as an addition to any existing program and that it should be available to those projects that genuinely advance our national interests and not just for any short-term political interests of the government of the day.