Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Removal of the Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements and National Governance Protocols Requirements and Other Matters) Bill 2008. The opposition will not oppose the passage of the bill at the second reading. We support the bill, but of course there is one important exception that I flagged in an earlier debate in this place. Therefore, I give notice that I will move an amendment on behalf of the opposition at the committee stage of the debate. I understand that the proposed amendment has been circulated for the benefit of honourable senators.

This is a debate about the level of accountability that universities owe to those who fund them—that is, the parliament and of course the Australian taxpayer. The coalition’s amendment that I will move at the committee stage of the debate will seek to ensure that universities and other higher education providers continue to meet what are termed ‘national governance protocols’ as a condition of their increased funding. In short, national governance protocols are protocols or standards of governance and accountability in the administration of universities that are required to be met as a condition of funding. The amendment will put back what should never have been taken away.

The opposition’s amendment that I will introduce will require universities and other higher education providers to keep meeting the national governance protocols as a condition of increased funding under the Commonwealth Grant Scheme. It will retain the provision that, for additional funding, the minister must be satisfied that the provider meets the requirements known as the ‘national governance protocols’. In the event that the minister is not satisfied that the protocols have been met, he or she can apply a penalty. This mechanism is necessary because the opposition believes that the protocols should be supported by the parliament with incentives, financial incentives, for universities and other higher education providers to strive for excellence and best practice in university governance.

Importantly, the coalition’s amendments in no way affect the government’s amendments to remove the Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements from force. In fact, in a recent instrument the government has already removed the Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements from the relevant regulations, and the opposition did in fact support that change. There was argument earlier on in this place about certain regulations being disallowed. Much of that debate is now irrelevant because those regulations have been removed—with, indeed, the opposition’s consent.

If the coalition’s amendments are not successful, the opposition intends to oppose the government’s bill currently under debate before the Senate—that is, if the amendment fails, we will oppose the entire bill. In essence, the opposition will not support any legislation that removes increased funding levels of 7½ per cent conditional on meeting National Governance Protocol provisions. It is fair to ask: why does the opposition believe in maintaining the National Governance Protocols for universities and higher education providers? The opposition is committed to retaining the National Governance Protocols because we are committed to ensuring accountability in the way the taxpayers’ money is spent and to encouraging professionalism and best practice in the way our universities are governed. The Commonwealth will provide nearly $9 billion to the higher education sector this year alone. The government, on behalf of taxpayers and the entire community, clearly has a stake in this debate, an interest in ensuring good management of universities and a responsibility to see public money administered and spent in a wise and transparent manner. This is about accountability.

Concerns about the standards of governance at universities were expressed as early as 1995 in the Hoare review. They were echoed in the 2002 Victorian government review of higher education and, most consequentially, in the 2002 review, conducted by the then Minister for Education, Science and Training and current Leader of the Opposition, Dr Nelson, called Higher education at the crossroads. All these reviews came to the conclusion that universities need not only to improve their internal governance but also to be seen to lift their standards so the public’s confidence in them can be maintained. This conclusion was born out of specific concerns that the old-style university boards, filled with politically appointed amateurs, were no longer coping with the demands of running modern universities in an increasingly globalised, business-savvy and, indeed, competitive world. Universities were not seen to be accountable for the increased public funding they were attracting. Internal university governance was not transparent and, indeed, not professional enough.

I have served on a university board and I know Senator Carr has as well, and I think we did our best. I am not sure I added a lot to the process; perhaps Senator Carr added more. But this is not a partisan debate in that sense. I think that it is fair to say that professionalism was lacking from university governance until recent times. National Governance Protocols were instituted by the previous government in order to remedy this state of affairs by tying the increase in funding to universities that happened to improve their internal governance according to these protocols. The protocols ensured various things. For example, the protocols require that members of the governing bodies act in good faith and in the best interests of the university as a whole—that is in protocol 3—and mandate that the size of governing bodies must not exceed 22 members—that is in protocol 5. I think that when Senator Carr and I were serving on the board of the Australian National University the membership of that board was something approaching 40 or 50, which was not an appropriate figure for good governance. How the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Chubb, and the Chancellor, Professor Baume, made it work says more about their ingenuity, I think, than about my contribution.

The protocols also set out the appointment, induction and professional development of members—that is in protocols 4 and 6. This is all about governance, administration, transparency and, indeed, accountability. It is true that universities are not, of course, primarily businesses. However, the funding they receive, from both public and private sources, necessitates that they be run in a more professional way according to best practice, including by people with appropriate business and commercial expertise.

I note that the Minister for Education, Ms Gillard, in her second reading speech introducing this bill into the House of Representatives, said of the previous government’s approach that they were:

… the worst manifestations of the distrust that the Howard-Costello government had for our universities. They thought they knew best how to run workforce management in universities and how to govern those institutions. This was another manifestation of their born to rule mentality and their contempt for their fellow Australians.

I assure the Senate that this is not a question of distrust and certainly not a question of a born-to-rule mentality. This is a question of accountability.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Mason, on that brilliant note I ask you to seek leave to continue your remarks. I need to swear Senator Sherry in.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.