Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Temporary Chairman, on a point of order: has the opposition’s amendment been moved yet?

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, it has not.

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

Before moving the amendment standing in my name, I would like to make some preparatory remarks and then perhaps ask a question of the minister. I listened with great interest to the debate last week about this bill. Much of the debate that had to do with workplace relations and the HEWRRs was in fact largely irrelevant. You will be aware, Madam Temporary Chairman, that the government and indeed the opposition—the parliament of this country—revoked the legislation which provided the architecture for the HEWRRs arrangements. If there was any doubt left at all, on 29 July this year regulations were made by the Minister for Education, Ms Gillard, that in fact formally remove HEWRRs from the operation of this bill. So, even though the HEWRRs took up much of the time of government senators, they are irrelevant insofar as this discussion has to do with anything at all.

One thing that all senators agreed on was that universities were not well administered in the eighties and nineties. Indeed, university governing councils were often regarded as somewhat dysfunctional. The national governance protocols were not only supported by universities but developed in consultation with them. That is an important point to remember. The national governance protocols were not developed in antagonism with universities; they were developed in cooperation with the higher education system. Up until the change of government in November last year there was only mild criticism of them at best. There may have been some criticism and it is fair to say, as both government senators and Senator Milne on behalf of the Australian Greens mentioned, that there were some compliance costs. But there are always compliance costs when it comes to any arrangements relating to accountability, so that was not unusual, and the criticism was mild at best.

The opposition believes that to remove the national governance protocols because of at best vague concerns flagged by both government and Greens senators is ridiculous and that it is the wrong way to go. There is nearly $9 billion worth of public expenditure here and the opposition believes that it should be accounted for, that the way this money is spent in terms of university administration is very, very important and that it should be subjected to transparent arrangements. We do not make any apologies for that at all.

These are protocols that were developed in consultation with universities on the back of—let’s face it—often dysfunctional university councils in the seventies, eighties and nineties. The opposition still believes that those protocols were a great benchmark for university administration, and we do not apologise for there being a sanction if those protocols were not adhered to. In fact, the opposition believes that they are important benchmarks for the continued operation of our universities.

I noted the question last week from Senator Xenophon, which I think was in question time last Thursday, about the Audit Office and the Ombudsman. Accountability is something that all governments and all institutions receiving public money should be subjected to. Again, we make no apology for that. I also listened, earnestly and with great interest, to the Prime Minister’s speech last week to the National Press Club about education. The Prime Minister spoke, I think it is fair to say, passionately about education and the idea that schools should be accountable for outcomes. If schools do not perform, it is possible in the final analysis that they will be merged or perhaps even closed down.

I think the Prime Minister and the government are serious about reforming education. But you cannot at one level say it is important to have accountability in secondary education and somehow say it is not appropriate to have appropriate accountability at the tertiary level. It is absolutely vital and the opposition again asks the government: why is it necessary to remove this regime of accountability, which was, again, made in consultation with universities?

I accept the criticism of the government and of Senator Milne on behalf of the Greens that some vice-chancellors do not want this regime. That is probably right. I suspect that some of them do not want this accountability regime—that is probably fair. But you know what? That is bad luck. This is $9 billion worth of public money. It is not owned by any vice-chancellor. This is the taxpayers’ money, administered by the parliament. We vote this money for public expenditure, and universities should be accountable to the minister first and through the minister to this parliament for how that money is spent. The opposition makes no apologies about that at all. The fact that some vice-chancellors might think, ‘Ah, gee, this somehow inhibits my creativity, and what a terrible thing that would be,’ is not something that the opposition is concerned with. We want good university administration and make no apologies for the fact that in the final analysis there can be sanctions.

I have a question. We will see how we go. I understand the government’s position, so I will not press this too deliberately, Senator Evans and Senator Ludwig. How will the government guarantee that good governance practices are pursued by universities if the government will no longer be able to enforce any standards? In other words, what will the sanctions be for noncompliance with quality standards?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The consequence of breaching the requirement is as follows. It is a condition of funding under the Commonwealth Grants Scheme that a higher education provider must meet the quality and accountability requirements, which are found in sections 36 to 60. If a provider breaches a condition of grant, the minister may reduce or require repayment of some or all of the grant. That can be found in section 54-1. The minister may also revoke a body’s approval as a higher education provider if the minister is satisfied that it has breached a condition of grant or a quality and accountability requirement. That can be found in section 22-15.

What this is not about is what the Liberals put in place, which was a system of micromanagement that tied universities up with red tape. Rather than let the universities get on with the business at hand, you tried to ensure that you could influence them around the table.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to say that, consistent with my remarks last week, the Greens will not be supporting the opposition’s amendment that they have foreshadowed in relation to making funding a sanction for not doing as the government says. But the point that I wanted to make tonight is precisely the same point that the opposition has made. At the very time I was on my feet last week welcoming the end of the Howard government mentality of sanctions and punishment for universities if they did not do what the Howard government said and congratulating the Rudd government for getting rid of that principle, the Prime Minister was delivering his speech on the education revolution in which he was talking about doing to our schools exactly what the Howard government did to universities. That was the very thing that horrified me.

At these two levels, there are totally inconsistent policy positions. For example, the minister, Julia Gillard, in her second reading speech on this bill said:

This bill is about getting the heavy foot of the Liberal Party off the throat of our universities.

Frankly, what the Prime Minister was doing last week was putting the heavy foot of the Labor Party on the throat of our schools. Ms Gillard, the minister, said that this was about removing unwarranted bullying and government interference in our universities and in other higher education providers. Now we have the Prime Minister doing just the same.

Last week, he threatened the states and the education unions by declaring that future education funding would be conditional on information about the performance of individual schools being made available to parents. He demanded that the states agree to a new national system of school transparency by December. He went on to say that it would be a non-negotiable condition of the four-year Commonwealth-state education funding agreement to come into effect in January. Exactly the thing that the government have said that they wanted to get rid of regarding university funding they have now done regarding school funding.

They have said that every child in Australia, no matter where they live, how much money their parents earn or what language they speak, is entitled to a good education. I could not agree more with that statement. Every child is entitled to leave school able to read and write and to be given the opportunity to achieve the best they can at school and afterwards. Every school has a responsibility to give children that opportunity. And they have to be funded to do so. That is the point. Unless you fund public education, you are not going to get those outcomes.

What is so wrong and wrongheaded with the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister saying to principals, ‘We’ll pay you more and you get those results or you’ll get sacked,’ is the assumption that every child going into every school approaches school with the same social capital. That is not the case. Instead of taking this bullying approach, which the government has said it is repudiating for universities—instead of replicating that in schools, we need a national conversation about an education revolution. The whole community has to think about the social capital it provides to kids as they are growing up and getting ready for school.

You have to accept that in some areas you are going to have students presenting for school and being hungry. Are you going to sack a principal because some of their kids come to school hungry and cannot learn because they cannot concentrate? In Tasmania, we have breakfast clubs in several schools. Communities are raising money to provide Milo and toast so that students can eat something before they start the school day.

The same thing is happening in other areas. Students turn up to school not necessarily even having been home the night before because they have stayed, in all sorts of circumstances, elsewhere. There are some homes in which there are no books to read, there are some homes where people do not even talk to their kids and some homes where kids do not even get to the point of being able to count 1 to 10 or to know anything about the ABC before they go to school. There are others where parents have invested huge amounts in getting their children ready for school. To say, ‘You will perform here as this principal and every child will achieve to this level in this school or you will be rated down in some sort of league table’ absolutely denies the reality that is the case in the Australian community.

We need to fund schools to be able to educate children appropriately and to the best level that they can achieve, and that means funding schools and having programs for special needs children that are appropriately funded. I just cannot believe the inconsistency of the government policy here. Of course I am going to support the government’s legislation and I am going to repudiate the coalition’s amendment, which is saying that you should tie funding to universities based on this draconian idea that you will bully the universities into governing themselves in a one-size-fits-all or else you do not get your funding. At the same time, I would like to hear from the government why that is a terrible thing when it comes to universities but it is an appropriate thing when it comes to schools education. As a principal, it is a very bad idea and it is appalling for education.

Putting computers in schools and taking a sanctions view of education, saying, ‘We will pay you and sack you if you do not get the outcomes’ is so wrong-headed. It is not collaborative, it is not understanding of societal needs and it is even refusing to realise that public schools in Australia are educating some of the most difficult children to educate and some of the kids with very special needs, and that requires adequate funding and support. If you are going to have inclusion of special needs children you have to have appropriately funded schools so that you have aides who can assist them in their learning. You have to have class sizes that are small enough to allow students to be able to achieve to their full potential.

The government is adopting a demanding attitude and is talking in terms of ‘failing schools’. The Prime Minister is saying, ‘Kids out there going to average schools deserve every opportunity that kids at flash schools have.’ What is an average school? What is a flash school? I assume that that is the difference between a public school and a private school, because that is how it would have been under the Howard government, and what we are seeing replicated here are Howard government policies.

The fact of the matter is that public education is the backbone of our society. It is the reason we have got the democracy that we have, which has allowed people, on the basis of merit, to be able to make their way in Australian society, and we have been proud of that. One of the things we have been most upset about in the last 10 years is the increasing gap between the rich and the poor, and that is what I thought the Rudd government were about addressing. They certainly have said they are about addressing that. But you are not going to get that unless you fund public education. What we have seen in this decision to duck public education funding in terms of the formula, for another four years, is to see public education falling further behind in the funding stakes. The Prime Minister then says, ‘We are not going to fund you adequately, but if you do not perform we are going to sack you and we are going to shift responsibility for literacy and numeracy and performance solely onto teachers and principals. We are not going to have a general conversation in the community about why we have got so many people in Australia today who have difficulties with literacy and numeracy.’ Isn’t it time we started to look at broader societal ways of addressing that?

If you have got a parent between 15 and 30 who cannot read and who struggles with numeracy, then the children they have are also going to struggle with that and are going to be significantly disadvantaged when they go to school. From the moment they reach school they are going to know that, compared with others in their class, their sense of self-worth will be diminished, and it will not be their own fault. How are we going to deal with the fact that we have a large number of disadvantaged adults in our community? We have to raise the whole idea of lifelong learning. We have to take away the stigma associated with the people in our community who cannot read and write as well as they need to but would like to, and we need to help them to be able to do so.

To take the appalling attitude that the Howard government took to governance in universities, tying it to funding and having a sanctions and punishment regime, and to shift that to schools is inexplicable and it is not going to get us anywhere. It is so far from an education revolution. You cannot have a revolution that is not funded. You cannot have a revolution just by putting computers in schools and giving them equally across the government and non-government system without addressing the current inequity of funding between public and private education. We have to fund public schools in order to be able to do what they need to do to get this society to a point where we can take advantage of a knowledge and information based future.

I would appreciate from the government an explanation as to how it is that the Minister for Education can stand up in relation to this bill and say:

Our higher education providers were expected to run things the Howard-Costello way—or face severe financial penalties that reduced core funding for teaching and learning.

The Minister for Education said that in relation to higher education and the very next week she said the complete opposite when it comes to schools. I am sure I speak for a number of people in the Senate who would appreciate some understanding of the inconsistency in this philosophical position.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that the opposition is intending to move an amendment to this bill. Would this be an appropriate point at which to do so? I could sum up on the various issues that have been raised after those amendments have been moved.

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

The minister is partly correct. I want to ask a few questions of the minister before I move my amendment, just to see if I need to move my amendment. I want to ask a few questions and test the minister on the policy ground before moving my amendment.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to respond to Senator Milne’s question if that is the point. I think, Senator Milne, that there is a difference in approach here. I appreciate the support you have indicated for the government’s position with regard to this bill. You are quite right: this is a punitive measure in this bill aimed at a reduction in funding. The financial penalty would be substantial—some 7.5 per cent of a university’s base grant. What the government and the Minister for Education are arguing with regard to schools is a different approach entirely, and that is a means by which the government is seeking to negotiate with the states about the new funding agreements. The detail of those funding negotiations will, of course, be resolved in the process of negotiation, and I look forward to the opportunity to discuss the specifics of those bills when they are actually before the chamber. At no point have I seen in any of the comments made by Minister Gillard that there would be a penalty on grants in the form that this particular bill is in before the chamber at the moment.

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

Is the minister’s principal concern the fact that the minister has the capacity to impose a sanction on universities for noncompliance with the government’s protocols? Is that the issue, or is the issue the fact that the government wishes to stop, to use Senator Ludwig’s language, ‘micromanagement’ of university governance?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The concern that the government has with the foreshadowed amendments that you are seeking to present to this chamber today, Senator Mason, goes with the issue of the micromanagement of universities. There is a fundamental philosophical difference between us and you on the issue of the management of universities. The view that this government takes is that we do actually trust universities. The view I would ascribe to you is that you do not. You fundamentally take the view that you need a punitive mechanism like this because universities will inherently disappoint you. We do not share that view.

What we do say is that there are ample requirements in the current legislative framework for accountability to ensure that universities report to and effectively work with government departments—both the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations and, in my case with regard to the research programs, the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research—and that that accountability mechanism is sufficient. You do not need a punitive measure like this—a penalty of 7.5 per cent to be taken from a university’s base grant if the National Governance Protocols are breached in the way which you seem to think will happen.

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

But under section 54-1 of the act the minister has the capacity to reduce, or require repayment of any part of, a grant. In other words, the capacity for a minister to sanction is there and, indeed, under the principal act the power is not just to reduce the grant to a university by 7½ per cent; in theory it could be the entire grant—I am not suggesting that that would happen. In other words, a sanction greater than the sanction included with respect to the National Governance Protocols is included in the act under section 54-1, so obviously the government is not against the idea of the minister using a potentially large financial sanction against universities for non-compliance with governance or quality standards.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Mason. Yes, you are quite right: there is a provision under section 54-1 that, if a provider breaches a condition of a grant, the minister may reduce, or require repayment of some of, the grant. It is entirely discretionary. It is a process of negotiation that occurs where there is an allegation of a breach. To my knowledge, it has never been exercised, because these matters are resolved through a negotiation process.

On the other hand, the proposal that you have before the chamber is for a mandatory 7.5 per cent reduction of the university’s base grant. Nothing could be more different in the approach and, of course, that is the point I make to you. There are ample measures of accountability in the legislation, but they are based on discretion and a sensible discussion with people who actually run universities. The assumption that you make is that universities should be treated like some 1950s high school where the minister sits back, sort of like a director general of education, and can manage universities as if they operated something like schools in a previous generation. The directors general of education used to have that sort of power. They do not even have it in schools anymore. That is not how the school system functions anymore, but that is the mentality that the Liberal Party seems to be relying upon.

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

Minister, thank you. I appreciate that answer, but clearly, because there is no proposal to get rid of section 54-1—and I hope Senator Milne is listening—there is a punitive sanction, potentially larger than the one of 7.5 per cent that currently exists, against universities for noncompliance. The minister said that it is within the minister’s discretion. Both are within the minister’s discretion because the minister would have to decide whether, in fact, the National Governance Protocols have been met and, under section 54-1, would have to decide whether there have been sufficient quality or governance failures to warrant, in effect, some fine or some taking away of the grant. So clearly—this is the point, Senator Milne—the government does not mind having a potential sanction against universities, because it is there under section 54-1. Clearly that is not the problem the government has. It is not about sanctions against universities, because they are in the act. So, if it is not sanctions the government has a problem with, it must be micromanagement of university affairs, because it clearly is not about sanctions.

I want to ask the minister: if it is not about sanctions—because the sanction is larger under section 54-1 than it is under the National Governance Protocols—then what particular national governance protocol inhibits the creativity of vice-chancellors in universities? What part of the National Governance Protocols means that there will be micromanagement? What part of the National Governance Protocols will inhibit university creativity—which one?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Mason, I think you should read section 54-1 in the context of section 60-1 under division 60 of the current act. It sets down the procedures by which a minister may act to reduce a grant or require repayment of a grant. It is quite a complicated process:

(1)

Before making a decision under paragraph 54-1(a) or (b) in respect of a body, the Minister must give to the body notice in writing:

(a)

stating that the Minister is considering reducing the body’s grant, or requiring the repayment of a grant made to the body, as the case may be; and

(b)

stating the amount of the proposed reduction or repayment and the reasons why the Minister is considering taking that action; and

(c)

inviting the body to make written submissions to the Minister within 28 days on either or both of the following matters:

(i)

why that action should not be taken;

(ii)

why the amount of the proposed reduction or repayment should be reduced; and

(d)

informing the body that, if no submission is received under paragraph (c) within the time required, the action will take effect on the day after the last day for making submissions.

That indicates that the minister cannot act unilaterally. Under the opposition amendments that are foreshadowed, there is a mandatory 7.5 per cent reduction in a university’s base grant if, in someone’s assessment, the university has not met the National Governance Protocols.

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

Minister, with great respect, if you look at section 60-1 you will see that, in the end, it is at the minister’s discretion and the minister will make the decision. It is that clear. So the government clearly does not oppose the idea of sanctions against universities. Clearly, the objection is the second objection—that the National Governance Protocols would micromanage universities. I asked this question before, Minister: which of the National Governance Protocols would be guilty of doing that?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The approach that the government takes is that there should be voluntary arrangements entered into in regard to the national protocols. The current provisions require, in division 60, that the minister would be subject to legal sanction themselves if they sought to breach the law. So, when you say it is at the discretion of the minister, there are quite defined procedures that the minister must follow. Your proposal is a mandatory 7.5 per cent reduction in the base grant, quite arbitrarily, if a minister chooses to take the view that there has been a breach. This government is saying that universities are run by professional people and there is a proper process by which engagement occurs between departments of the Commonwealth and those administrations. There is ample opportunity through the existing legislation, both in terms of the teaching and the research program, to ensure that proper procedures are followed. If a university is in breach, in the minister’s view, of any funding agreement then there are procedures for moneys to be repaid. But the minister themself must follow those procedures to secure those repayments. What you are suggesting—and what there was under the previous government’s arrangements—is a mandatory application of a 7.5 per cent reduction.

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

Minister, my point is that the government does not object to the imposition of financial sanctions against noncompliant universities as a matter of principle. That is the point I have been trying to make to Senator Milne. The government is not in principle objecting to imposing financial impositions upon universities. That is a matter of principle, because no-one has said that section 54-1 will be removed. My question, which I ask for the third time, is: which of the National Governance Protocols inhibits the creativity of universities to adapt?

Progress reported.