Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I also thank the minister for outlining the proposal by the government, in skeletal detail, and I will now ask some specific questions about what on earth is going on here. The government has just come into the chamber and told us that there is going to be a new arrangement in relation to higher education providers and the provisions that deal with them—that there is now going to be some kind of insertion of new rules, new requirements, into these provisions, regarding how up-front, full fee paying courses are dealt with. We need to go over it again and clarify exactly what is happening here.

When is this new arrangement going to operate from? When will we see the detail of this arrangement? Will it be legislated for—that is, will there be legislation before us in the chamber? Will it be through delegated legislation or guidelines, or will the changes simply be inserted into the agreements with the funding providers, or in negotiations with universities? Does this not represent an extraordinary new way of intruding into academic autonomy, or is this simply the government rationalising it on the grounds that ‘we give public money therefore they have to be responsible for certain actions’? And, if so, what are the mechanisms for appeal or debate?

I understand that Senator Brandis, the minister, has explained that this is subject to ministerial approval. So it will be at the minister’s discretion to decide what courses unis do and do not provide that have full-cost fees. If a provider may be directed to act in a certain way, I want to know what mechanisms or opportunities for appeal there are for universities to question that. The idea is that universities, when they do provide a full fee paying course, have to provide that information—publish, I think the minister said—and then it will be approved by the minister, if they are altering the course in ‘a substantial way’. I think that was the terminology that the minister used. What is ‘substantial’? Does it mean that it is 75 per cent full-fee paying and 25 per cent Commonwealth supported places, or is it 99 per cent and one per cent? Is it 100 per cent and zero?

This is policymaking on the run. We are talking about one of the biggest potential changes to the higher education sector. We have exposed in here today and previously in Senate estimates that there is nothing, zip, to stop the government allowing full fee paying places in one course because of the nature of the cluster arrangements. This has been discussed here by Senator Carr, Senator Fielding and others in this place and is now questioned by Senator Joyce and others. There is nothing to stop universities providing a full fee paying only course except this last-minute, hey presto, rabbit-out-of-a-hat ministerial guarantee that will be built into the reporting requirements of the university sector and will rely on them telling the government, with the government having the power—excuse me, the minister; let’s talk about ministerial discretion here—the minister being able to approve or not approve it and universities having to give reasons for why they want to constitute a course in a particular way. And we know nothing about how this is going to be done, when it is going to be done or what consultation has taken place.

It is absolutely extraordinary. I am actually surprised. There is not much that surprises me in higher education legislation, but today I am actually surprised. So, through you, Chair, I ask Minister Brandis as the representative of the minister for education to explain exactly when we are going to see this stuff. Now I understand why I was denied the opportunity to send this bill to a committee: its lack of specificity. I wish I could have Senator Joyce’s faith in the intent of the government—and I understand he is genuinely concerned about this issue, hence his getting this information on the record—but government intent is not good enough for me. When a government tells me that it will not allow $100,000 degree courses—and I am well aware now of universities that charge more than 200 grand—you bet intent is not good enough. I want nice enshrined legislative detail in front of me, not something that has been cooked up at the last moment in an ad hoc, ill-conceived, hasty manner in order to ensure that the schedule stays as printed.