Jim Molan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

What's this?

An honourable senator interjecting—

No. Never. I've never seen so many people present! This bill really brings to light many different aspects of our tertiary education sector, not just its overreliance on foreign students, remembering that the minister reminded the sector only recently that their primary function is to educate Australian students and that anything else is up to them and is their responsibility. We fund the sector at record-high levels. Commonwealth expenditure is estimated to be more than $18 billion in 2020 and $19 billion next year.

Several years ago, a vice-chancellor commented to me that the consequence of so many foreign students is that our universities have lost their Australianness, and that is my personal experience as well. Still developing is a story today alleging that far too much openness is being provided in access to research by our universities. Australian national interests must come first, and universities, it seems to me, are losing popular support in Australia.

Now for the regulator. The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency is empowered to enforce the HES Act and framework so that taxpayers and students know that publicly funded universities are carrying out their core mission of educating students. But surely freedoms are an integral part of quality and standards? The question I would need to ask is: is TEQSA the problem or the solution? One TEQSA chief commissioner some years ago mentioned intellectual freedom at a Senate estimates inquiry. You, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker Bilyk, questioned them on that occasion. But there's not much evidence of commitment to holding universities to their core mission of intellectual freedom and academic freedom.

We've had the French inquiry and now we are into another inquiry. A law requiring intellectual freedom is one thing, but enforcement is everything. I remember the appalling treatment of Geoffrey Blainey in 1984 at the University of Melbourne over the Hawke government's immigration policy, which, it was alleged, could threaten the country's social cohesion unless managed properly. As Janet Albrechtsen said recently, 'He'—Blainey—'was hounded off campus as a racist.' Blainey is not a racist; he is Australia's finest historian.

When I think of Australian universities today, I don't think of them as places of learning where intellectual freedom thrives. If that were the concept that drove our universities, a student guild running stalls for new students wouldn't dream of banning a right-wing Generation Liberty stall on the basis that its brand did not align with the guild's values, regardless of the spin. If intellectual freedom were taken seriously, a vice-chancellor would not put up with this rubbish on their campus; neither would the regulator nor our government. The Queensland University of Technology student guild refused to offer the group Generation Liberty a stall in market week, which is held the week after the university's orientation week. According to the vice-chancellor, Generation Liberty was wrongly advised that its application was declined on the basis of its values. It might have been wrong, but it did occur and, if there were the culture of intellectual freedom, it would not have occurred. Professor Sheil corrected the record. 'Any assertion that I or the university have exercised bias or failed to protect free speech are factually incorrect,' she said. Professor Sheil was backed by the chief commissioner of the higher education regulator, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, who told a Senate estimates committee hearing that after investigating QUT's actions it considered the matter closed.

And, of course, what about support for intellectual freedom in the case of Peter Ridd, an academic who was sacked by James Cook University for challenging the quality of climate science, something which is still going on to this very day? My memory is that each publicly funded university must now include reporting on their approaches to supporting intellectual and academic freedom on campus. This bill before us today is not about removing public funds. It's about cheating, which is an aspect of intellectual freedom that needs to be reinforced. But really: what about regulator? The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency is empowered to enforce the HES Act and the HES framework so taxpayers and students know publicly funded universities are carrying out their core mission to educate their students.

Perhaps the University of Queensland in particular might spend more time looking after their students rather than banning them in the way that Mr Drew Pavlou has been banned or the way that James Cook has appealed the decision against Mr Ridd, now waiting on a decision of that appeal. As one commentator said, even the university is embarrassed. An hour or so after the verdict, Chancellor Peter Varghese, a former secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, stepped into the role of video umpire. Mr Varghese said he was personally concerned about aspects of the finding and the severity of the penalty. In consultation with Vice-Chancellor Peter Hoj, who played no role in the disciplinary process, the chancellor has convened an extraordinary meeting of the University of Queensland Senate next week to discuss the matter.

Frank, robust debate serves the public interest. On contentious issues, robust argument is inevitable and helpful at arriving at the truth. Judge Vasta said last year:

In the search for truth, it is an unfortunate consequence that some people may feel denigrated, offended, hurt or upset. It may not always be possible to act collegiately when diametrically opposed views clash in the search for truth.

This bill gives effect to the advice of the Higher Education Standards Panel that legislation is required to deter third-party academic cheating services. The panel found that the array of state, territory and Commonwealth laws relevant to cheating offences makes it difficult to pursue legal solutions against providers of cheating services. The panel's advice was that additional legislative backing is needed to more effectively deal with such risks. The panel advocated modelling this on New Zealand's approach outlined in section 292E of the New Zealand Education Act 1989. The panel recommended that legislation be aimed at those who provided cheating services and not at students who might use such services. Students who cheat remain subject to their institution's own academic integrity policies, processes and sanctions.

An exposure draft of the bill was publicly released on 7 April 2019 for comment. Forty-six submissions were received in response and generally supported the need for the legislation but raised concerns about some aspects of the bill. The bill, of course, was revised to take account of these issues. I commend the bill to the Senate.