Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I did not have an opportunity to contribute in the second reading stage, but my remarks will be confined to the substance of these amendments. Since the second reading stage, I have had an opportunity to have a briefing from the government and I have had extensive discussions with my colleague Senator Mason. I found both quite useful.

To summarise my position, I think it is fair to say that the existing national governance protocols have not been unduly onerous, they have not been punitive in their approach, but there is some criticism of them that they can be unduly restrictive. It would be fair to say that the government’s hyperbole, if I can put it in those terms, about the protocols as being a ‘born-to-rule mentality of the opposition’ is unfortunate. It is fair to say from the submissions made by vice-chancellors, by the Group of Eight, in the past, that these protocols have been on the whole beneficial. But my fundamental problem with these protocols, with the legislation as it currently stands, is this: it gives the minister enormous discretion, enormous power, to change those protocols at any time and to impose significant penalties. That to me is the nub of this issue—that there is a potential for ministerial intervention in our higher education sector and a potential for the minister to alter those protocols in a way that could be seen as punitive to make unreasonable demands of our tertiary sector. That is why I support the bill and I cannot in good conscience support Senator Mason’s amendments.

But I think that to say, as I think some in the government have said, that these protocols have been a bad thing is unfair. It is the potential for the protocols to be altered and the potential for punitive action to be taken that concerns me. I think it is also fair to say that through the AUQA there are significant sanctions and sufficient powers for the minister to deal with the issues of quality assurance and educational standards in a qualitative sense in terms of the education standards of our tertiary institutions.

One example that was put to me, which could affect my home state, is the issue of governance protocols relating to the University of South Australia, which has a number of campuses and also two regional campuses. It may be that the Whyalla campus of the University of South Australia wants to have a separate council to engage with the community. Under these protocols, as I read them, that might not be possible. I think that you need to have some flexibility there.

The other issue that I want to put to the minister—because I think it is important to get clarity on this and this is the one sticking point that I have with this legislation—is: what happens if this bill is passed and the protocols are appealed? I understand it is the position of the government that the universities will develop their own governance protocols, if you like, by way of a code or a self-regulatory model. But in the meantime, until that is done, to what extent are there protocols in place? Are we left with a hiatus or will these protocols still be in place in a substantial sense? That is my concern, because I do not think we should have a vacuum in terms of protocols.