Believe it or not, the pros and cons of embryonic stem-cell research were not the only subjects of debate in this latest session of Parliament which opened on Monday, August 19^th. Higher education funding got a look in from 6:13 p.m. through 10:25 p.m., with a 90 minute break for tea. The proceedings can be found in the House Hansard, pp 4827-47. It wasn't so much a debate as a series of admonitions by the Opposition and a summary reply by the Minister for Education, Science and Training, Brendan Nelson.

Who spoke?        Labor: Jill Hall, Christian Zahra, Tania Plibersek, Sharryn Jackson, Jennie George,
                                 Martin Ferguson, Sharon Grierson
                           Independent: Peter Andren
                           Liberal: Brendan Nelson

The ostensive reason for the debate was the presentation on June 27^th of a set of eight amendments by the shadow leader of the Labor opposition, Jennie Macklin (Hansard p4827) to the "Higher Education Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2002". The first is the most interesting: "[T]he House: (1) condemns the Government for: (a) its shameful neglect of public universities of Australia, its undermining of the future development of regional universities and the increasing financial burden it is placing on students and their families."
    Dr. Nelson concluded the matter with the observation, "I thank all honourable members who spoke to the Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill 2002 and the Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2002 for their important contributions. Naturally, the government did not agree with quite a few of the contributions made on the other side of the House...
    "The government’s overall position in relation to Australian higher education is that universities are in quite a sound financial position. However, it is important that, as Australians, we consider not so much and not only the role of Australian universities in the year 2002-03 but what sort of role they will play and the contribution they will make to Australia’s economic and social development over the next 20 to 30 years."

 The question was then put as to whether or not the bill be considered without the amendments. 75 Ayes, 62 Noes.

But just what did Labor have to contribute.

Jill Hall (Shortland): Unfortunately for Australia and Australian students, the Howard government has pursued a policy of neglect-- a policy that has seen $3 billion slashed from the cumulative operating budgets of universities since 1996.
    The other issue that concerns me greatly is the proposal to create elite universities. Once again, this is a government that is pursuing its 1950s philosophy that the best people -- or should I say those with money -- deserve to go to the best universities. It would be fair to assume that the elite universities would charge elite -- or should I say exorbitant -- fees and at the end of the day entry to these universities would only be available to those who attended the elite category 1 private schools on which this government is lavishing funds.

Ms Hall, goes on to advocate the government ensure "universities like Newcastle [in her electorate] thrive and that the Central Coast campus of the university eventually becomes a university in its own right." So we now we have not only dragged class warfare into the discussion we have the spectre raised of a 39^th public university. With this sort of Opposition the Government doesn't require friends.

Tania Plibersek (Sydney):  Since 1996 this government has ripped $3 billion out of Commonwealth funding in cumulative terms from the tertiary education sector, and student contributions have increased by 60 per cent. They are quite stark figures when we consider that it has always been our mission to increase access to university education, not decrease it by pulling the funding out of it and making it more and more once again the preserve of the wealthy.

However, if you were looking for an advocate to make the case you could look further and fare worse then the former President of the ACTU and rookie Member of the House, Jennie George, although the most fundamental issues, such as what universities should be, and do remained undisturbed.

Jennie George (Throsby): It seems amazing to me, and I think rightly to the nation, that at a time when there is a global recognition of the need to invest in a nation's skills and knowledge this government has consistently bucked that international trend and that outlook by cutting government investment in tertiary education. The university sector throughout Australia is struggling with the cumulative effects of the $3 billion cut in Commonwealth grants since the Howard government was elected. There is a growing policy position out there in the community and a growing consensus that the directions we now see in higher education are totally unsustainable. And yet that growing consensus appears not to have reached into the minds of the minister and many on the government benches.
    Here in Canberra, a Senate inquiry into higher education which reported last year had this to say, "Many of the problems and pressures that universities are experiencing are symptoms of the Government’s inadequate funding and the perilous state of many universities' finances. The crude funding cuts to universities ... have continued to the point where they are now causing long term damage to the fabric of the higher education sector. Put simply, the Australian university sector is starved of its lifeblood, and that is public funding."
    Dr Nelson is certainly the expert at undertaking a constant system of reviews. I am not sure when the last booklet was released; there are probably about six in the series. We do not need these endless reviews. They have become a smokescreen to hide the real core of the problem, which it seems that everyone in the community other than the minister himself understands, and that is that the system is starved of the public investment and public funding that it so desperately needs.

Ms George goes on to point out:

Back in 1990, the government contribution to funding was just under 70 per cent of the total contribution. By the year 2000, the government contribution was less than 50 per cent, with students now making up 30 per cent of the overall funding contribution in the university sector.
    A recent study of OECD nations highlights the fact that today Australia is ranked fourth among the nations most reliant on private funding, primarily through student fees.
    Recent modelling by the University of Canberra suggests that the average age at which the HECS debt will be repaid by graduates will be 33 years and eight months for men and 39 years and three months for women. Legislators need to bear in mind the consequential impacts that the HECS system is having currently on working class families and their children -- those with the least ability and capacity to pay -- and the further negative consequences that must surely come with any proposition to further deregulate the fee system in tertiary education.
    I urge the minister to take heed of the calls from university staff, students, the vice-chancellors and the Australian community; they understand there is an urgent need to increase our public investment in our universities. It is not too late for the minister to understand that his proposals do not have the support of the sector or the community. We want to see a vibrant and dynamic tertiary system, one that is truly open to all, regardless of parental means -- one that is truly open and genuinely encompassing of people from all socioeconomic backgrounds.

While there is an indication that Ms George can transcend the doctrinaire approach to higher education exhibited by a number of her Labor colleagues, whether she will continue to do so if and when she joins the shadow ministry remains to be seen. And were that to be the case, if she could significantly influence Labor policy to the lasting benefit of the nation is a moot point.

The additional individuals who took part in the debate added little to what's been excerpted above. In short the matter of reducing the position of so-called regional universities figured heavily although the matter of how this nation can support 38 public universities equally and expect to derive centres of  research and learning able to achieve the critical mass necessary to achieve internationally recognised excellence was left virgin territory. So for example while Ms George quoted the ANU Vice-Chancellor, Ian Chubb, "poorer students would miss out on university education if fees were deregulated," she might have also pointed to his oft repeated assertion that in Australia's university system it is inappropriate to attempt to have "one size fits all."

The Labor Party has steadfastly turned a blind eye to the devastation perpetrated by the Dawkinsising of our higher education system. Until there is a bipartisan approach to the problem and the derivation of a solution, the Australian university system will continue to decline relative to our OECD cohort. Just throwing money at the system is not a solution. Of course the Coalition Government's policy of decreasing its relative commitment of resources to the universities, markedly decreasing its relative funding for basic research, and showing little inclination to usefully increase incentives for the private sector to fund development as well as applied and strategic research in order to allow us to begin approaching the EU mean of 2.1% of GDP, let alone equal it, beggars belief.