Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I might just indicate to Senator Faruqi that the Labor Party will support her second reading amendment and the Greens amendments to the bill. We participated together in the inquiry into this bill, so we're familiar with the terms of engagement. As Senator Chandler indicated, many of the matters that are before us involve technical, non-controversial matters. But, more substantially, there are questions as to the government's claims about this bill, particularly those in regard to the raising of standards in universities, which do require closer examination. This is in the context of this government's approach to universities, which, I say, involves a consistent and systematic hostility, and therefore it's appropriate that we view the claims about the raising of standards with some scepticism. It's claimed that this bill applies to the findings of the Review of the Higher Education Provider Category Standards undertaken by Professor Peter Coaldrake, which reported back in 2019. It's also claimed that the bill will simplify the processes that universities need to follow. It is doubtful whether the bill as it stands will do any of these things.

To understand why, it is necessary to consider how this bill, the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill 2020, works alongside the related bill concerning university funding which passed the parliament last year. It passed in this chamber by one vote, as a result of some of the shifty arrangements entered into with the crossbenchers. Consequent to the bill becoming law, it led to a substantial cut in funding of about $1 billion a year. The link between the funding of student places and the funding of research was also severed. The government provided stopgap funding for one year to provide support for some research projects. Now we have before us a bill that purports to raise university standards, including the setting of revised research requirements, in a context where universities are being asked to do more with less. So we have a bill that appears to confuse the aims of simplification with the aims of enhancing research performance. This confusion, given the continued under-resourcing of the regulator, TEQSA, and the government's long-held goal of encouraging new private entrants to the scheme, puts the international reputation of Australian universities at risk. This is in the context of the government having a persistent war against our researchers, in the name of national security, under the auspices of a government funded company, funded by a foreign government and claiming to be in the interests of defending national sovereignty—namely, ASPI.

The reputation our universities have in teaching, in research, in civic engagement, which is critical to the definition of what a university actually is, needs to be remembered at all times. The bill's changes to nomenclature do not, in fact, conform with the changes that are actually recommended in the review which is said to underpin this bill—that is, the Coaldrake review. So it does raise the question of whether the government's real motive is its declared aim of raising standards or whether the real purpose of the bill, together with the funding changes, is to increase the role of private providers in higher education. Coaldrake's review recommended the existing term of 'higher education provider' be replaced by 'institutes of higher education'. It did not support the use of the term 'university college', which this bill introduced to describe higher performing non-university providers. Is there any wonder that this term creates confusion? Is it reasonable to suggest that maybe that's deliberate? It allows new entrants to the scheme to be represented as universities but without the title of 'university' and without the implications of the terms for standards in both teaching and research. This is why, in the Senate inquiry into the bill, the peak body, Universities Australia, and the National Tertiary Education Union both opposed the use of the term 'university college'. They preferred Professor Coaldrake's term, 'institute of higher education', and Labor senators made exactly the same point in their minority report on the bill inquiry.

In the bill before us, however, the government chose to ignore the arguments of the sector and Professor Coaldrake. The bill introduces the term for the new category of 'university college', which the government claims is consistent with Professor Coaldrake's findings. The government appears to be uncertain about what 'new and improved standards' actually means. There is no generally recognised methodology for determining research quality. The Excellence in Research for Australia metric, which is administered by the Australian Research Council, underlies much of what Professor Coaldrake calculated to be the best way forward. Remember: I was responsible for the introduction of ERA, so it's only natural that I would defend it. But there is a very strong reason why we should defend excellence in research in Australia. The problem is that both TEQSA and the department of education have stated that other metrics might be applied when new entrants have an insufficient quality of research output to meet ERA standards. In other words, they're prepared to reduce the criteria if the new entrants can't measure up. Professor Coaldrake recommended:

… a threshold benchmark of quality and quantity of research should be included in the Higher Education Provider Category Standards.

The recommendation resulted in the draft criteria being recommended by the Higher Education Standards Panel. From 1 January 2030, to be registered as an Australian university, a higher education provider must conduct research that leads to the creation of new knowledge and original creative endeavour in at least three, or at least 50 per cent, of the broad fields in which it delivers courses of study, whichever is greater, or in all broad fields of education in which it has authority to self-accredit, in the case of a university with a specialised focus. The benchmark standards for research are research that is 'world standard', measured using best practice indicators, or research of national standing in fields specific to Australia, in the case of research that is not easily captured by existing standard indicators. The adoption of such criteria, even if it is out by 2030, will have significant consequences.

The Group of Eight noted in their submission to the Senate inquiry that, among the institutions currently registered as Australian universities:

The University of Sydney, in its submission on the legislation, made the comment that the standards would mean:

… that some current universities will potentially fail to meet the new threshold due to the lack of research capacity (partly as a result of the impact of COVID-19) or reinforce the fundamental structural flaw in research funding outlined above.

The department of education, in its submission, stated:

Analysis of 2018 ERA data suggests that all public Australian universities would meet the proposed initial research quality benchmark …

They've already got the answers. However, the department did concede that it's arguable that some of Australia's smaller, private universities may struggle to meet these standards if assessed on ERA ratings alone. It seems to me that the standards under this bill are so low that the universities will meet them because of the time lag involved, given that the government has not announced any additional resources that will be available. For me, two questions come forward as a result of proper examination of the detail of this bill: Firstly, is the government confident that the standards that are being proposed are, in fact, sufficiently rigorous? Secondly, what is the point of standards if they are so low?

The government needs to be aware of the consequences of the failure to maintain quality in higher education, particularly in terms of research. The history of higher education regulation in this country offers numerous examples of the price of failure. The failure in ministerial discretion, delegated powers, inadequate assessment of new entrants to the system and the misuse of title all arose in relation to the University of Greenwich scandal in the early 2000s. Greenwich University was an institution that was established out at Norfolk Island. It had a chancellor who was a convicted embezzler and a vice-chancellor who had bought some titles to the Russian throne. It was allowed to use the term 'university' because the then minister for regional affairs, former senator Ian Macdonald, directed the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly to approve it. Greenwich University established its own degrees. It had a teaching staff who awarded their own PhDs. And, of course, then they could administer other people's qualifications. It was fundamentally a threat to Australia's international reputation as a quality higher education provider. That was only one of several examples of regulatory failure over the last 20 years, and this bill does not do enough to ensure that such scandals will not be repeated.

Given the history of regulatory failure, it is a matter of profound concern that the threshold standards are not set out in the primary legislation. The minister has stated that to do so would be an impediment to innovation—an impediment to innovation! It's an extraordinary concept, isn't it? It's an impediment to crooks! This is a perplexing remark at best, since we're given no examples of what he means. Incorporating standards into primary legislation would not prevent changes being made to them, but it would allow a higher level of parliamentary scrutiny and oversight than is possible in delegated legislation.

The minister has advised that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee had a long period of consultation and has undertaken a review of standards. That shows just how important the standards and their impact on the sector should be. It is a reason for including a requirement for a regular review of the standards in primary legislation. The lowering of standards will undermine Australia's ability to develop research excellence. It will weaken our international research collaborations and make this country less attractive to international students. The application of provider category standards is not an abstract or obscure policy matter; it is not just a technical question. And, in fact, if we repeat the failures of regulatory disasters like Greenwich University or repeat the previous farcical international policies we've seen—new entrants cannot be allowed to dilute the quality or the reputation of Australia's higher education system.

The government's decision to remove research funding from the allocation of Commonwealth supported places has made the problem even more acute. And so, despite the government's stopgap measure providing extra money for one year, the long-term funding crisis of our research system in this country remains. The spreading of limited research funding too thinly across the system endangers our international reputation. ERA remains the best means of judging performance against those standards.

The Australian Research Council should do its job properly. I am deeply disturbed that, at the moment, it is not. It should ensure that the ARC focuses on ensuring that it is able to build the research capability of this nation and protect the reputation of our researchers and their place within Australia's international research contribution. (Time expired)