Robert Simms (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a question for the minister. Minister, are you aware of the comments made by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull when he referred to the VET sector as being scandalous? In light of the concerns about the scandal that is unfolding within the VET sector, are you concerned that, by making block grants available to private, for-profit universities, you are going to be opening Pandora's box and bringing a similar calamity onto the university sector within this country?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, Senator Simms, I am not concerned, and let me try to calmly talk you through it. I am well aware of the Prime Minister's statements, and indeed I have made similar statements about my concerns with some of the operations in the VET sector and the way in which, in particular, the VET FEE-HELP student loan scheme is working in the VET sector.

It is important to understand that that VET FEE-HELP student loan scheme provides demand-driven funding to students enrolling in vocational education and training courses; that the way that it was established means that institutions are free to set their own prices; that they can enrol as many as they want once they have been approved; and that they get paid, essentially if they so choose, up-front for the entire duration of the course once the student commences their studies. That is profoundly different to what we are talking about in relation to Torrens University Australia being listed as a table B provider in the higher education sector, as distinct from vocational education. There are virtually no analogies that can sensibly be drawn in this regard. Obviously access to ARC block grant funding is not something that is demand driven. In fact, there are clear restrictions around that access that ensure that there can in no way, shape or form be blow-outs, rorting or other problems in this regard.

I would also note that there are, as I said in my summing-up speech, a number of private providers already listed as table B providers: namely, Bond University, who I mentioned; the University of Notre Dame Australia; and the former Melbourne College of Divinity, now the University of Divinity. So it is not unusual to have those private providers.

I did hear you in your speech, Senator Simms, single out Torrens University as being owned by a for-profit company. I would draw your attention to the fact that the parent company of Torrens University Australia, Laureate education, have recently converted from being a traditional corporation in a for-profit sense to being a public-benefit corporation, which requires them to have very clear, positive impacts on society and the environment through a number of legally defined goals. Their structure has in fact changed in that sense as well, which makes them much more analogous with the type of not-for-profit providers that we see already as table B providers in Australia. But, in relation to your specific question there, in no way could I see the type of behaviour that has occurred in the VET sector being replicated by a university by virtue of their being scheduled on the table B listing.

Robert Simms (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you to the minister for his reply. In his reply, the minister did note that a different model applies to Torrens University and recognised that there is a distinction between Torrens University and other private providers within this space. Torrens are uniquely a for-profit university. On the basis of that point, Minister, do you not concede that many Australians would be alarmed to see a for-profit institution getting their hands on public funds in this way and that many Australians could perceive that there are going to be consequences that stem from that?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, no, Senator Simms. I am sure that if you put your mind to it you could create alarm in some quarters, but I think that alarm would be unfounded and misguided were it to be created. Again I would emphasise that this listing relates to access to block grant funding from the ARC, which the ARC has very careful monitoring of. I would note that Torrens has established itself as a very credible and reputable provider in relation to postgraduate student opportunities. Again, in those instances, any support that comes from the Commonwealth is strictly capped and controlled. Really, the safeguards that are in place are extremely clear. And I draw your attention to the point that I made previously, which is that Torrens does not now strictly operate as a for-profit provider with all of the connotations that that perhaps has and in fact now has a very clear public-benefit purpose that is much more similar in its nature to the way in which Australian entities have been historically allowed to operate in the not-for-profit type sector.

Robert Simms (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move the amendment standing in my name on sheet 7805:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 3), omit "Schedules 2 to 6", substitute "Schedules 3 to 6".

The Australian Greens oppose schedule 2 in the following terms:

(2) Schedule 2, page 8 (lines 1 to 5), to be opposed.

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind the chamber that the questions before the chamber need to be separated out.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I just indicate the position of the Labor Party on this matter. The proposition we have before us is a simple measure. The government has decided to amend the Higher Education Support Act to include Torrens University on the list of table B providers. Torrens University has been registered with the regulator since 2012. My recollection is that it arose from discussions with the former Premier of South Australia and in Mexico prior to that date, and it was intended that the university establish its operations in 2013, but it did not subsequently do so until last year.

The entity that Torrens University is associated with, as I think the minister has already indicated, is not, strictly speaking, a for-profit entity. It is headed up by an emeritus chancellor, former President Clinton, and has a number of other distinguished academics associated with it, formerly associated with the University of Adelaide. I think that, given that the circumstances are such, this is a credible, authoritative body which is quite distinct from the shonks and shysters we have seen operating within the VET sector. I think TEQSA is in many respects a different organisation to ASQA, which has not been very effective in dealing with some of the abuses that we have seen.

Specifically, this is an issue that goes to the question of attaining research block grant funding, which is subject to a whole series of other regulatory requirements, including through the ARC, which I think has a very, very strong track record of operating with integrity and on the basis of peer review so that there is an outside measure of monitoring. It also would provide for support for research scholarship and postgraduate awards. I do not expect that a body such as Torrens would actually attract very much additional revenue, given the sheer scale of its operations.

The reality is that there are already existing not-for-profit private entities within the Australian university system—namely, of course, Bond University and the Catholic University of Notre Dame, which of course arose in Western Australia under a similar set of circumstances, I might add, as a result of intervention by state authorities. Whether or not one agrees with the principle of not-for-profit, private entities being within the university system, the reality is they are there. On this issue—the inclusion of private universities as distinct from private companies—the horse has already bolted, and I think there is little that can be said about that, other than drawing attention to that fact this matter has been attended to in this manner. I would like to indicate that, as far as the Labor Party is concerned, we take this view on a case-by-case basis. This is not an invitation for every fly-by-night operator, like Greenwich university or any others, to seek to have entrance into the Australian university system. In fact, we must have the most stringent of standards to ensure that we have due quality assurance and that we can maintain an international reputation in regard to both domestic and international postgraduate students. For those reasons, the Labor Party will not be supporting either of these propositions that are put before the chamber.

I apologise that I was not able to get to the chamber in time to do the second reading on behalf of the Labor Party, but Senator Dastyari did a very admirable job on my behalf. But the central principle here is that this is bill is made up largely of non-controversial measures, which should have been put to this chamber last year, not this year. In fact I have had to move private senator's bills in regard to one particular matter here—particularly the New Zealanders. It just reflects the fact that these are genuinely non-contentious in most parts, apart from this matter, and ought to have been given swift passage. They should have been put to the chamber 18 months ago for a normal, routine passage, but the government has chosen to act in this belligerent way through the former minister—recognising of course that the Senate had to reject the whole package because it was so closely associated with some unpalatable measures, including the introduction of $100,000 degrees.

But since we now have a debate about the GST we can now see circumstances where this question becomes even more complicated, and I think it would be wise to get these matters out of the way before we have to deal with the unsavoury consequences of increasing university costs because of this government's determination to pursue the GST, which will see a further 15 per cent rise in everything from a textbook through to a university course cost and all of the other matters directly associated with education. So I would urge the chamber to deal with these matters promptly so that we can move on to the next item.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For all the reasons that I outlined previously, some of which were indeed echoed to some part by Senator Carr in the early part of his remarks, the government also opposes the Greens amendment.

Robert Simms (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to put Greens amendment (2) on sheet 7805. I just wish to put that amendment.

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are going to have two separate questions. Given that amendment (2) is the substantive amendment I propose to put that one first. The question is that schedule 2, page 8 (lines 1 to 5) stand as printed.

Robert Simms (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 7805:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 3), omit "Schedules 2 to 6", substitute "Schedules 3 to 6".

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 7805 be agreed to.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.