Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Hansard source

Before moving the amendment standing in my name, I would like to make some preparatory remarks and then perhaps ask a question of the minister. I listened with great interest to the debate last week about this bill. Much of the debate that had to do with workplace relations and the HEWRRs was in fact largely irrelevant. You will be aware, Madam Temporary Chairman, that the government and indeed the opposition—the parliament of this country—revoked the legislation which provided the architecture for the HEWRRs arrangements. If there was any doubt left at all, on 29 July this year regulations were made by the Minister for Education, Ms Gillard, that in fact formally remove HEWRRs from the operation of this bill. So, even though the HEWRRs took up much of the time of government senators, they are irrelevant insofar as this discussion has to do with anything at all.

One thing that all senators agreed on was that universities were not well administered in the eighties and nineties. Indeed, university governing councils were often regarded as somewhat dysfunctional. The national governance protocols were not only supported by universities but developed in consultation with them. That is an important point to remember. The national governance protocols were not developed in antagonism with universities; they were developed in cooperation with the higher education system. Up until the change of government in November last year there was only mild criticism of them at best. There may have been some criticism and it is fair to say, as both government senators and Senator Milne on behalf of the Australian Greens mentioned, that there were some compliance costs. But there are always compliance costs when it comes to any arrangements relating to accountability, so that was not unusual, and the criticism was mild at best.

The opposition believes that to remove the national governance protocols because of at best vague concerns flagged by both government and Greens senators is ridiculous and that it is the wrong way to go. There is nearly $9 billion worth of public expenditure here and the opposition believes that it should be accounted for, that the way this money is spent in terms of university administration is very, very important and that it should be subjected to transparent arrangements. We do not make any apologies for that at all.

These are protocols that were developed in consultation with universities on the back of—let’s face it—often dysfunctional university councils in the seventies, eighties and nineties. The opposition still believes that those protocols were a great benchmark for university administration, and we do not apologise for there being a sanction if those protocols were not adhered to. In fact, the opposition believes that they are important benchmarks for the continued operation of our universities.

I noted the question last week from Senator Xenophon, which I think was in question time last Thursday, about the Audit Office and the Ombudsman. Accountability is something that all governments and all institutions receiving public money should be subjected to. Again, we make no apology for that. I also listened, earnestly and with great interest, to the Prime Minister’s speech last week to the National Press Club about education. The Prime Minister spoke, I think it is fair to say, passionately about education and the idea that schools should be accountable for outcomes. If schools do not perform, it is possible in the final analysis that they will be merged or perhaps even closed down.

I think the Prime Minister and the government are serious about reforming education. But you cannot at one level say it is important to have accountability in secondary education and somehow say it is not appropriate to have appropriate accountability at the tertiary level. It is absolutely vital and the opposition again asks the government: why is it necessary to remove this regime of accountability, which was, again, made in consultation with universities?

I accept the criticism of the government and of Senator Milne on behalf of the Greens that some vice-chancellors do not want this regime. That is probably right. I suspect that some of them do not want this accountability regime—that is probably fair. But you know what? That is bad luck. This is $9 billion worth of public money. It is not owned by any vice-chancellor. This is the taxpayers’ money, administered by the parliament. We vote this money for public expenditure, and universities should be accountable to the minister first and through the minister to this parliament for how that money is spent. The opposition makes no apologies about that at all. The fact that some vice-chancellors might think, ‘Ah, gee, this somehow inhibits my creativity, and what a terrible thing that would be,’ is not something that the opposition is concerned with. We want good university administration and make no apologies for the fact that in the final analysis there can be sanctions.

I have a question. We will see how we go. I understand the government’s position, so I will not press this too deliberately, Senator Evans and Senator Ludwig. How will the government guarantee that good governance practices are pursued by universities if the government will no longer be able to enforce any standards? In other words, what will the sanctions be for noncompliance with quality standards?