Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of Senator Stott Despoja, I move Democrat amendment (1) on sheet 5353:

(1)    Clause 40, page 30 (lines 7 to 9), omit subclause 40(2), substitute:

        (2)    The Advisory Board consists of not less than 7 members representing a range of professional backgrounds who collectively possess knowledge and expertise in the following fields:

             (a)    tertiary sector management;

             (b)    the research sector;

             (c)    teaching and learning;

             (d)    the evaluation of capital infrastructure;

             (e)    knowledge transfer to industry;

                 such persons to be appointed from time to time to the Advisory Board by the Education Minister in writing.

The Higher Education Endowment Fund Bill as it currently stands gives the Minister for Education, Science and Training enormous freedom to appoint members of the Higher Education Endowment Fund Advisory Board as she sees fit, but there is no mention of the size of the board in this legislation nor of the expertise that would be sought. Although the minister has separately announced that it will consist of a chair and six members with the Secretary of the Department of Education, Science and Training and the Chief Scientist serving in ex-officio roles, this clause as read is very open-ended.

The amendment that the Democrats have put forward today clarifies the size of the advisory board and stipulates that the board should collectively possess knowledge and expertise in certain fields. Our amendment focuses on the part of the Higher Education Endowment Fund Bill 2007 that deals with the Higher Education Endowment Fund Advisory Board, its relationship with the minister for education and the awarding of grants to universities. This amendment is designed to improve the level of transparency and accountability in the government’s delivery of this significant initiative. This amendment deals with clause 40, which sets out membership of the advisory board. Currently the clause is open-ended, as I have said, giving the minister total discretion as to the number of members, when they are appointed, when their appointments are terminated, what their experience is and so on.

We have taken advice from the sector. They say that the advisory board must have a strong mix of experience from research, academia and industry. The National Tertiary Education Union, the Group of Eight universities, the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies and the Australian Academy of the Humanities all raised the extent of ministerial discretion in appointing the board as a matter of concern. So our amendment seeks to specify the kind of knowledge and experience that should be on the board in order to position it to be best suited to the job at hand. We specify collectively so that one individual could potentially cover off more than one of those categories of experience. This still gives the minister significant discretion in appointing members but also gives the higher education sector some certainty that the appropriate skill set will be on the board. It is also consistent with other legislation—for example that dealing with national health and medical research advisory committees—which specifies particular knowledge or experience.