Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007 is designed to deal with the implementation of the government’s rather contentious research quality framework for universities, to regulate the recognition of universities and courses offered by higher education institutions and to change the eligibility requirements for higher education loan programs. Whilst I am not opposed to the bill, I have very serious concerns about it. I feel very comfortable in supporting the amendment moved by the shadow minister as it highlights those areas of concern that I and fellow members on this side of the House have with this legislation.

The shadow minister makes the point very clearly in his amendment that any initiative in this area must be robust, rigorous and support an open and transparent process of peer review. Unfortunately, we on this side of the House have come to expect legislation that does not achieve those points. Robust and rigorous this legislation is not. The day I come into this House and speak on a piece of legislation that the Howard government introduces that is actually transparent, I will be very surprised, as will other members on this side of the House. Transparency and accountability are two things that the arrogant Howard government seeks to avoid at all times.

The shadow minister also deals with the RQF and how it is likely to constitute a disincentive to undertake long-term basic research as proposed by the government. We on this side of the House once again support RQF, but we feel that the way the government has formulated this is not the way to go and it will not achieve what we would like to see. We would like to see an RQF that will actually encourage research and ensure that the quality of the research that is undertaken is up to standard.

The government’s record in education is appalling. Australia’s investment in education has decreased by 70 per cent under the Howard government, whilst at the same time investments by other OECD countries have increased by 40 per cent—that is, Australia down 70 per cent; other OECD countries up 40 per cent. These figures are from the OECD publication, Education at a glance. We in this House know the importance of education. We know the importance of higher education, and we all recognise that Australia’s future lies in having an educated and a highly skilled workforce. Australia’s future lies in leading the way in research; it lies in the fact that we must have quality research. This legislation really lets us down in that area and will do nothing whatsoever to improve the situation.

I feel that we have to look very carefully at any legislation that is put before the parliament by this government. Unfortunately, today is the first anniversary of the Howard government’s Work Choices legislation, and I cannot help but reflect on the fact that the Howard government has tied funding for universities to the fact that their staff must sign AWAs. It is a government of zealots and ideologists, and it is the Australian people who suffer.

Now I will concentrate a little more on the legislation I am debating tonight. In relation to the Higher Education Support Act 2003, the bill increases the overall appropriation by $40.8 million, which we on this side will not be opposing but which we feel could be better dealt with. There should be a better research quality framework.

The bill does a number of things, which include: revising the maximum funding amounts provided under the act I have just mentioned to provide funding to support the implementation of the research quality framework; amending the HESA to reflect the changes to the National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes; and regulating the recognition of new universities, the operation of overseas universities in Australia and the accreditation of courses offered by higher education institutions. The protocols were first approved by the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs in 2000.

The bill introduces a number of measures relating to the administration of the Higher Education Loan Program, HELP, and arrangements for Commonwealth supported students. The legislation also amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003, HESA, the Higher Education Funding Act 1988, HEFA, and the Higher Education Support (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2003, TCA, to limit the time for students to claim an entitlement to Commonwealth support. It also makes a number of minor amendments.

The government, as always, is seeking to rush this legislation through this parliament. The reason it is rushing this legislation through the parliament is to ensure that RQF funding commences during 2007. On many occasions we have seen that the government sits on its hands and does nothing and then at the last minute it has to force legislation through this parliament. The bill provides around $41 million for two programs to assist universities and other higher education providers with the implementation of the research quality framework.

Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, you would be aware that we on this side of the House find that the government’s research quality framework approach is quite contentious and not one that we are at all comfortable with, but we do support the concept of research quality assurance. I think there is nothing more important than ensuring that research is undertaken in Australia. Ensuring that our universities are adequately funded to undertake research, with the ability for students to follow their speciality and research in their areas of interest, is extremely important for our nation, because it will set Australia up for the future. Unfortunately, the Howard government has let us down a little in that area. It is also very important, along with this research, that we know that the quality of the research is of the highest standard. Therefore, we support the concept of research quality assurance but not in the way the government has set it out here in its rather hastily thrown together and contentious RQF approach.

The Labor Party has quite a different approach and believes in a much more transparent and accountable approach, as opposed to the approach put forward by the government. In addition to research quality assurance, the higher education legislation amendment gives effect to the revised National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Process, which was agreed to by the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs in July 2006. However, concern has been expressed by the Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee that this should not be done until the guidelines that govern the protocols have been agreed to. It has been anticipated that there will be a meeting in April 2007, and those guidelines will be drawn up. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate if the government were to wait until those guidelines had been developed before pushing this legislation through the parliament? But, no: in typical Howard government style, it is pushing it through.

In relation to the issue of Commonwealth assistance for FEE-HELP and OS-HELP, which is a loan scheme to assist undergraduate students to undertake some of their course of study overseas, some concern has been raised by the Group of Eight universities in particular about the requirement that Commonwealth supported students must reside in Australia while undertaking their studies. This would exclude students from studying overseas via distance education or on an exchange from accessing FEE-HELP. I do not believe that is very satisfactory.

By allowing international higher education providers and specialised higher education providers to establish themselves as universities or colleges, these changes may lead to further liberalisation of the university sector. Reflecting on that, that liberalisation could have the opposite effect: instead of ensuring a standard of research and of universities at a level we would like, it could lead to a diminution of the quality of standards.

I do not oppose this legislation, I think it will pass through the parliament, but I am much more comfortable with the amendment being moved by the shadow minister which gets to the crux of matter. It looks at the research quality framework and puts it in the right context. It looks at the fact that the university sector has assessed that an RQF would reduce research links with industry and lessen collegiate efforts among researchers and academics from different universities in its current form—activities that are beneficial to Australia as a whole. Essential aspects and details of the scheme are included in this amendment. The shadow minister highlights this but the government is yet to work it out, so the implementation of this legislation by 2008 is in doubt. I would argue very strongly that the government will not be able to deliver on it. Many members on the other side of this House probably share my concerns.

As the shadow minister highlighted, the costs and other resources involved in the assessment and reporting process mean that the government’s proposed RQF risks preventing breakthrough research. The final point the shadow minister made was that the RQF and measures process set out in the bill should not be proceeded with; it should be replaced by a model that is fairer and more equitable. In other words, this legislation is flawed and there are many problems with it. Therefore I encourage the House to support the amendment moved by the shadow minister as opposed to the legislation that is before the House tonight.

See this speech in context