Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of Senator Stott Despoja, I move Democrat amendment (1) on sheet 5353:

(1)    Clause 40, page 30 (lines 7 to 9), omit subclause 40(2), substitute:

        (2)    The Advisory Board consists of not less than 7 members representing a range of professional backgrounds who collectively possess knowledge and expertise in the following fields:

             (a)    tertiary sector management;

             (b)    the research sector;

             (c)    teaching and learning;

             (d)    the evaluation of capital infrastructure;

             (e)    knowledge transfer to industry;

                 such persons to be appointed from time to time to the Advisory Board by the Education Minister in writing.

The Higher Education Endowment Fund Bill as it currently stands gives the Minister for Education, Science and Training enormous freedom to appoint members of the Higher Education Endowment Fund Advisory Board as she sees fit, but there is no mention of the size of the board in this legislation nor of the expertise that would be sought. Although the minister has separately announced that it will consist of a chair and six members with the Secretary of the Department of Education, Science and Training and the Chief Scientist serving in ex-officio roles, this clause as read is very open-ended.

The amendment that the Democrats have put forward today clarifies the size of the advisory board and stipulates that the board should collectively possess knowledge and expertise in certain fields. Our amendment focuses on the part of the Higher Education Endowment Fund Bill 2007 that deals with the Higher Education Endowment Fund Advisory Board, its relationship with the minister for education and the awarding of grants to universities. This amendment is designed to improve the level of transparency and accountability in the government’s delivery of this significant initiative. This amendment deals with clause 40, which sets out membership of the advisory board. Currently the clause is open-ended, as I have said, giving the minister total discretion as to the number of members, when they are appointed, when their appointments are terminated, what their experience is and so on.

We have taken advice from the sector. They say that the advisory board must have a strong mix of experience from research, academia and industry. The National Tertiary Education Union, the Group of Eight universities, the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies and the Australian Academy of the Humanities all raised the extent of ministerial discretion in appointing the board as a matter of concern. So our amendment seeks to specify the kind of knowledge and experience that should be on the board in order to position it to be best suited to the job at hand. We specify collectively so that one individual could potentially cover off more than one of those categories of experience. This still gives the minister significant discretion in appointing members but also gives the higher education sector some certainty that the appropriate skill set will be on the board. It is also consistent with other legislation—for example that dealing with national health and medical research advisory committees—which specifies particular knowledge or experience.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to ask the minister at the table: is the government still of the view that the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Scheme program will be terminated as the education committee of the Senate was advised at the last estimates around? On what date will that be terminated?

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am told that it is a terminating program as set out in the budget papers.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is the government’s intention in the breakdowns for the distribution of funding under this legislation between what might be called capital for teaching purposes and capital for research infrastructure?

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am told that is a matter for consultation between the government and the sector.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the minister at the table: when will the guidelines for the operations of this fund be available?

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is an advisory board and that is a matter for them to consider. When they have advised the government, we will take it from there.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is the government’s expectation of when this advisory board will be appointed?

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Very soon. Indeed, in the next few days.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I ask the minister to repeat that?

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Very soon. Indeed, in the next few days.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is the process by which this board will be appointed?

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to the legislation, by the minister. If you had read the legislation, I think you would have seen that.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I understand that. Given that the minister has indicated that there will be consultation with the sector, what consultation with the sector has there been about the composition of this board?

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A number of peak bodies for the sector—Universities Australia, the University Chancellors’ Council, the National Academies Forum and the Business, Industry and Higher Education Collaboration Council—were asked to provide suggestions. These suggestions are currently under consideration.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, is it the government’s intention to maintain the numbers on the board that Minister Bishop has outlined on a previous occasion, or has the number been varied?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There will be no change.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When will these funds be available for distribution to institutions?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not before 1 July 2008.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is the method of distribution of those funds?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That will be determined after consultation with the sector.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take this opportunity, because at this time of the year time is short, to indicate that the Labor Party is disappointed with the answers the government has given. While we have indicated support for the principle of this legislation, it is quite apparent that the level of ministerial discretion is wide-open. The capacity under this legislation for the minister to vary decisions on advice received from the so-called ‘council of guardians’—some sort of Orwellian group of people that the minister will appoint—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, Orwellian would be more appropriate. We have a situation here where the level of detail in this legislation is grossly inadequate and it is quite apparent, as the previous minister at the table indicated, that the government itself sees the need for amendment to this legislation. In this debate, the government has already foreshadowed that, if it is re-elected, it will be proposing further amendments to this legislation. With that in mind, I indicate to the chamber that the Labor Party too feels that this legislation in its present form is inadequate, is vague and is unclear in a number of important aspects. Also, as the chamber would be aware, the Labor Party has a different approach to the development of a national innovation system and its administrative arrangements. Given that a very large proportion of this funding will end up going towards research funding, it is quite clear that there will be need for revision of the way in which these mechanisms are administered. In that context we say to the Democrats, on all three amendments, that because this bill has been so badly drafted, and notwithstanding that we support the sentiments that have been expressed by Senator Allison, we will be opposing them.

We take the view that this legislation has a number of deep flaws, and tinkering with it at this point would not be appropriate and would not be able to remedy the problems that have been identified. The processes of allocation of research support are not transparent and, under these Democrat amendments, that situation will not necessarily be improved. There are acute problems remaining with the core issues indicated at this point with regard to the criteria for making recommendations for funding to institutions. They are not adequately specified in this legislation and we have yet to see the guidelines. We are told only that there will be further consultation, which in this government’s sorry record with regard to research policy could mean with anybody, and it gives me no satisfaction and no confidence that this government will proceed properly. Rather than provide a bandaid solution at this point in the cycle, we will not be supporting the amendments of the Democrats.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister said that decisions will be made very shortly. I understand that he means that to be in the next few days or so. Can the minister indicate whether expertise has been sourced from the fields identified in the amendment, namely tertiary sector management, the research sector, teaching and learning, the evaluation of capital infrastructure and knowledge transfer to industry? Can the minister assure the committee that board members will, individually or collectively, cover each of those fields?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Allison, I am advised that broadly the answer to your question is yes.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Then I wonder why the government would not support the amendment. If that is the case, then surely the amendment is supportable unless there is a problem with the number of members. I ask for a clarification of that. This amendment calls for there to be not fewer than seven members. Is it the case that there are only six?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There will be seven members.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I noticed one of the submissions before the Senate inquiry into the operations of this particular legislation concerned actuarial advice suggesting that the funds will not necessarily be available in the time lines that have been indicated. I wonder if you could check with the officers present. In the light of that actuarial advice tendered to the Senate committee, is it the department’s view that funding will be available in the time lines previously indicated? Is it the department’s view that the returns on funds will meet the stated claims or has there been any variation within the department as to what dividends will be available for distribution?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer to your first question, Senator Carr, is yes. In relation to your second question, you asked whether the department is of the view. Departments do not have views; governments do. But the government is of the view that the time lines will be within the current estimates.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Finally, Minister, I raised with you twice recently the question of the failure to return estimates hearings answers. Is it possible now to establish when estimates answers were actually sent to the minister’s office from the department, or are they still with the department?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have no further information for you beyond what I indicated in the chamber the day before yesterday.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point I put to you, though, is that there are officers here now who can answer this question. You told the chamber yesterday that the reason for the failure to return answers to this chamber was that the work was still being undertaken and that the answers had not been concluded. My question to you, Minister, is: the officers are now here, so can you advise this chamber when questions were sent to the minister’s office in response to the last budget round of estimates from this division of this department?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not think it is appropriate for Senator Carr to seek in the committee stage of debate on a bill to circumvent the procedure in standing order 74. There are officers from the department here; that is so. I do not know what knowledge those officers might have of these questions. I am not personally aware of what the questions were. I undertook, in the appropriate manner, inquiries of the nature that I conveyed to Senator Carr yesterday and I am not in a position to advise him of any further information. I would not be in a position, even if I were to ask the officers, to give you that information without a clearance from the minister, as you well understand. Senator Carr, I do not think your question is appropriate in these proceedings and I have nothing to add to what I have already advised you. Did I say the day before yesterday? Perhaps it was yesterday.

Question negatived.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Democrat amendment (2) on sheet 5353:

(2)    Clause 41, page 30 (lines 22 to 30), omit the clause, substitute:

41  Functions of the Advisory Board

        (1)    The Advisory Board has the functions of:

             (a)    assessing and ranking applications submitted under the Higher Education Endowment Fund for a grant of financial assistance, according to guidelines issued by the Education Minister;

             (b)    making grant recommendations to the Education Minister; and

             (c)    other matters referred to it by the Education Minister that relate to:

                   (i)    making grants of financial assistance to eligible higher education institutions in relation to capital expenditure; or

                  (ii)    making grants of financial assistance to eligible higher education institutions in relation to research facilities.

        (2)    A guideline made under subsection (1)(a) must specify the considerations by which grants of financial assistance will be made to higher education institutions, including but not limited to criteria providing for merit and eligibility.

        (3)    A guideline made under subsection (1)(a) is a legislative instrument to which section 42 (disallowance) of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 applies.

        (4)    The Minister must cause a copy of a grant recommendation made in accordance with paragraph (1)(b) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of the Minister’s receipt of the recommendation.

This amendment again seeks to address Democrat concerns and those of several sector stakeholders regarding the lack of specificity in this bill on the functions of the board and how grants under the fund will actually be awarded. It amends clause 41 to clarify that the primary function of the advisory board is to assess and rank applications for grant assistance under the Higher Education Endowment Fund and to make recommendations to the education minister on which applications should be awarded funding.

This amendment retains the power of the education minister to seek other advice from the board where it in some way relates to grants for capital works or research facilities. We have also introduced reference to program guidelines in this section and stipulated that these guidelines must make clear the considerations by which grants of financial assistance will be awarded, including amongst other things the eligibility and merit criteria. These factors will have a critical impact on whether or not the fund is a successful stimulus to the higher education sector.

As the bill stands, the parliament is being asked to approve legislation for the commitment of a very significant amount of money to an initiative that could have a big impact of the higher education sector, and yet we have little detail to allow either us or the sector to anticipate what that impact might be. Once the bill is passed, we will have no control over the fine detail, and I am not alone in being concerned about the extent of discretion afforded the government in this regard.

Again, many sector stakeholders suggested to the Senate inquiry that the guidelines be a disallowable instrument, so this amendment stipulates that as well. Finally, this amendment also refers to the interaction between the advisory board and the minister on applications for grant assistance under the fund. Currently the bill does not actually specify that the advisory board is to recommend applications for grant assistance to the minister, but this was implicit in Minister Bishop’s second reading speech, where she said that she will be supported by the board in allocating:

... grants in a manner which best enhances the sector ...

The Department of Education, Science and Training further confirmed this in their submission. There is, however, no legislative requirement for the minister to heed these recommendations. This was highlighted as a concern by a number of sector stakeholders during the Senate inquiry because it leaves the door open to politicisation of the grants process. The Democrats share those concerns and with this amendment we seek to ensure that any grant recommendations by the advisory board are tabled in the parliament. That still gives the minister the discretion to accept or reject the recommendations of the board, but it will improve the level of transparency afforded to those decisions.

The government may protest that they approach these things professionally, but it is a fact that perception counts for a lot when awarding taxpayers’ money, so any improvement to transparency ought to be welcome. If the government wish to reject this amendment, I would ask what exactly they have to hide by doing so.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With all due respect, Senator Allison, what a silly question—what does the government have to hide?—just because it does not agree with your amendment. Grow up!

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Allison, do you wish to make a point of order?

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. It does not seem to me to be very parliamentary for the minister to be telling senators in this place to grow up. Chair, I ask you to ask the minister to refrain from that kind of jibe.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. It does not seem very parliamentary either to accuse the government of having something to hide simply because it does not agree with an amendment. Let me explain the government’s position to the senator. As stated in 41(1) and 41(2) of the bill, the function of the advisory board will be to advise the education minister about matters related to the making of grants of financial assistance to eligible higher education institutions in relation to capital expenditure and/or research facilities. The government has made it clear that the higher education sector will have a genuine opportunity to engage in the development of this new funding program. This will ensure that the advisory board can make recommendations to the education minister on the basis of sound advice and sector participation.

Further, the government does not accept the need for amendments to the provisions of the bill relating to the issues of program guidelines. It is unnecessary for this level of detail to be prescribed in legislation. This is not an unusual situation. The government has many successful, robust grants programs that do not have their guidelines in legislation. It is an entirely appropriate mechanism, along with the requirements of the Financial Management and Accountability Act, to safeguard against the inappropriate allocation of grants.

Question negatived.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Australian Democrats amendment (3) on sheet 5353:

(3)    Page 30 (after line 30), after clause 41, insert:

41A  Keeping the Parliament informed of grant recommendations

            The Minister must cause a copy of a recommendation from the Advisory Board that relates to:

             (a)    a grant of financial assistance to an eligible higher education institution in relation to capital expenditure; or

             (b)    a grant of financial assistance to an eligible higher education institution in relation to research facilities;

            to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of the Minster’s receipt of the recommendation.

This amendment works with the bill as it is currently read to simply call for the minister for education to table the advisory board’s recommendations relating to which applications should receive grants. I am moving this separately because I think it is possibly the most effective single step we can take to improve the level of transparency inherent in the implementation of the fund. In this case the amendment works with clause 41 as printed, adding a new clause 41A to stipulate that any recommendations from the advisory board relating to grants to higher education institutions be tabled in the parliament within 15 days. While it is possible that this amendment could be seen as including all advisory board recommendations to the minister, I would like to stress that I am specifically interested in the advisory board recommendations as to which applications should receive grant funding and not recommendations relating to broader policy or program implementation issues.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The subclauses 45(1) and 45(2) make it clear that it is the education minister who authorises grants of financial assistance to eligible higher education institutions. I note that this power was not disputed by any of the parties who made submissions or gave evidence to the recent Senate committee hearing. It is proper that the right to authorise grants rests with the responsible minister, who is accountable to the department for her decisions. This is not an unusual situation. The government has many successful, robust grants programs that do not table recommendations of ministerial advisory bodies in parliament. I further note that the government has made it clear that the higher education sector will have a genuine opportunity to engage in the development of this new funding program.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

HIGHER EDUCATION ENDOWMENT FUND (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2007

Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.

Bill agreed to.

Bills reported without amendment; report adopted.