Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Hansard source

The Labor Party supports this amendment. We need much greater transparency in decision-making by our regulator, TEQSA. In particular, we need to strengthen, not undermine, the research quality and the auditing of that research quality across institutions. TEQSA told the inquiry that it would be absolutely essential to take into account measures beyond the Excellence in Research for Australia methodology. Given TEQSA would be the organisation required to make judgements about that research and its national standing, they told us that it requires using approaches, metrics, indicators—both quantitative and qualitative—that sit outside the ERA processes. So this is, indeed, a grave concern when it comes to the kind of legislation that's being put forward today. We, along with the Greens and, I hope, the crossbench, are asking for transparency about the factors that TEQSA is looking at when making these decisions. It means that we need to see Australian institutions have the highest standards for Australian research, and it's difficult to see how those high standards will be maintained if the metrics that the regulator have available to them don't give the full picture. Australia will only be able to trade on its international reputation for good research that's supported by strong regulation for so long, until the metrics that we put forward are no longer trusted by institutions here in Australia, the Australian public and, indeed, internationally. This will affect the global standing of our research and, I would expect, in time, the quality of Australian research as well.

The failure of the government to acknowledge and understand these issues and ensure that TEQSA has the broadest array of information available to it, I have to say, is quite telling, particularly in the context of the other parts of this legislation that indicate which institutions are allowed to call themselves a university. Because, as we know, this Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill also allows colleges and institutes of higher education—higher education colleges—to now call themselves universities. In the Australian tradition, as is the tradition in many other countries, places are only called universities if they do both research and teaching. You can't be a university unless you do both teaching and research. So this bill is not only failing to put forward the sufficient standards around the assessment of research, such as quality and depth et cetera; it is also, at the same time, confusing the field around what a university looks like. Perhaps they think that the Australian public will be able to distinguish between an institute of higher education and a university, as we've done in the past, and they'll see an institute of higher education in the same way as they see a university college. But I don't think that that is the judgement that the Australian population will make. I think we are in danger, culturally, of adopting far more American norms around this, which, as yet, have not been part of our tradition here in Australia.

I have to say that it appears to me that the government, in putting this legislation forward—which, indeed, Labor has said that it supports, because there are some necessary things that need to happen—have gone in their own direction. The Coaldrake review, for example, said:

Along with teaching, the undertaking of research is, and should remain, a defining feature of what it means to be a university in Australia; a threshold benchmark of quality and quantity of research should be included in the Higher Education Provider Category Standards.

It should have its own distinctive provider category standards.

This threshold benchmark for research quality should be augmented over time.

The issue is: I don't think what this legislation provides for today gives TEQSA access to the adequate array of information to do that properly. The recommendation of Coaldrake, in fact, said that the Higher Education Standards Panel, in amending The Higher Education Standards Framework, put forward quite different benchmarks to those that are being pursued today.

The department claims that no university would be adversely affected, and that some would be affected. When you look at the assessment of this by the Department of Education, Skills and Employment, they say:

Analysis of 2018 ERA data suggests that all public Australian universities would meet the proposed initial research quality benchmark requiring research at or above world-class standard that leads to the creation of new knowledge and original creative endeavour in at least three, or at least 30 per cent, of the broad fields of education they deliver …

I won't repeat the whole quote, but the department highlighted that it was 'arguable that some of Australia's smaller private universities' might not meet those standards 'if assessed on ERA ratings alone'. The department then goes on to say:

No university has indicated any concern or risk that they would not satisfy the benchmark. This is a testament to the already high quality of research in Australia.

The department is saying that no-one's got a problem meeting these thresholds, yet small institutions might struggle to meet that threshold. What does it say about the standards of quality for research that TEQSA will be prepared to support as a result of using those ERA ratings? The Labor Party and I don't believe that those ERA ratings are enough to make quality judgements about the quality of research going on in our institutions. We're concerned that the standards are so low that universities will meet them, given the time lag involved in this implementation and given the government has not spelt out any additional resources that would be available to TEQSA to put in higher quality assessments. It raises questions, for me and for the Labor Party, about the extent to which this government can, and should, be confident that the standards are sufficiently rigorous.

Before we vote on this amendment, I have a few questions to ask along these themes. I ask the minister: will extra resources be made available to TEQSA as part of the implementation of the responsibilities in this legislation?