Perin Davey (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I continue my remarks from earlier in the day. As I was saying earlier, TEQSA is focused on quality assurance and student outcomes. They ensure that higher education providers meet minimum standards, promote best practice and improve the quality of the Australian higher education sector. The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021 and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2021 set up a framework to recover the costs of TEQSA's operations. These bills are not a surprise. The intention of cost recovery for TEQSA was announced in the 2018-19 budget. Understandably and unfortunately, with the effects of COVID, implementing this change was necessarily delayed, but it cannot be delayed indefinitely and it is now time to look to implement them.

I want to reassure people that the cost recovery is not going to recover 100 per cent of TEQSA's costs. As would be expected, certain costs associated with non-regulatory activities will continue to be fully funded by the government. But those costs associated with applications, risk monitoring and regulatory oversight will be recovered through application based fees and annual charges. Implementation will be phased to increase from the current low 15 per cent cost recovery that we're already at to 20 per cent in the first year, 50 per cent in the following year and 100 per cent in the third year. That way, our higher education providers can adjust to the implementation of this cost-recovery framework.

The bills that are before us today establish the legal framework for the cost recovery and charges but do not set the amount of the annual charge, which will be prescribed by regulation. I heard Senator Kim Carr's contribution to this debate earlier today and his concerns, as well as the concerns of the scrutiny committee, that both he and I are on, about setting aside the charges in regulations. I accept those concerns—in fact, I do share some of those concerns—and I've heard the same concerns from the industry. But I also appreciate the need for continuing consultation on the charges model to ensure that it is not rushed, that it is well considered and that the charges are fit for purpose—that they're not just recovering fees that are imagined or not fair and reasonable. I've also heard the concerns of some in the sector, particularly smaller providers, who are worried about the potential for inequity of the charges model. This is why I commend the ongoing consultation—in fact, I implore those who are going through the stakeholder feedback at the moment and who are designing the final model to take into account those concerns and the concerns of smaller providers, and to consider not only a fair and reasonable model but also capacity to pay, what the likelihood is of providers to pass on fees to their students and the capacity to pay of those students.

There are many factors that must be considered when developing the right model to set these charges. One component to the cost recovery is the annual charge, and certainly this has driven the highest level of correspondence to my office. The annual charges will cover the cost of delivering a range of regulatory activities, including student and stakeholder concern management resolution; stakeholder communications and engagement; the provision of risk assessment; and administrative support, including responding to inquiries, business support and guidance. Importantly for the first item, student and stakeholder concern and management, the draft cost-recovery model indicates it would be divided amongst tertiary providers proportionate to each provider's size by student enrolments. It will not be applied in a postage stamp model. This means that an institution like the Batchelor institute of the Northern Territory, the only First Nations dual sector tertiary education provider in Australia, with 223 students commencing in 2019, will pay vastly different rates to that paid by a large university such as the University of New South Wales, with 59,000 students. The reason for proportional costs recovery is that activities related to student and stakeholder concern are directly related to the number of students. More students means more issues raised with TEQSA and then more work for TEQSA. So that proportional split is fair.

In the current proposal, which, as I said before, is being reviewed, the remaining regulatory activities are proposed to be evenly split. The argument put forward by TEQSA is that these regulatory activities often provide more support to smaller providers who have fewer staff and less capacity to do risk assessments for themselves. This is an area I'm confident that those sifting through the stakeholder feedback will consider when designing the final formula.

The final impact on a provider must also consider the changes to application based fees. As part of the changes facilitated by these bills today, there is capacity for reduced course accreditation for smaller providers with fewer than 500 full-time equivalent students. This means some of our smaller providers but with a large number of courses could save up to $50,000 per year. This is a crucial point. This is specifically designed to address the concerns that have been raised with my office by smaller providers about the potential inequity of the cost-recovery model. At an individual provider level, the percentage change in fees and charges will vary due to the different application based fees. It will also vary year to year based on the fact that it is dependent on enrolment and the student and stakeholder management side of the fees. Some will pay less in accreditation fees. Some of it, as I said, will be based on the difference in student numbers.

There is absolutely no doubt that our tertiary education sector has a quality assurance system that makes us very attractive to international students. We want to ensure that our tertiary sector continues to have a strong international reputation so that, at the other side of COVID, we can bring back those international students to enjoy studying onshore here in Australia.

At the same time, however, I commend our university sector for being able to pivot, for being agile during COVID and for being able to maintain relationships with their current international students through online offerings and other mechanisms to ensure that we remain a primary place of study for international students. As I said at the opening of my remarks earlier in the day, many of our universities, despite fearing the worst, have actually produced financial results this year far greater than they were expecting, which is a testament to their ability to pivot, to respond to the challenges of COVID and to continue to service not only their international students but, more crucially and more importantly, our students throughout Australia who have been impacted themselves by various lockdowns. There have been various impacts in different states. Some of the students who were to commence university this year haven't even set foot on campus, not through any fault of their own but just due to the fact that COVID keeps popping its head up, left, right and centre. I credit them. I credit our universities and thank them all for the work they've done to see us through. I thank our university sector for its ongoing and crucial contribution to our economy.

There is no doubt our tertiary sector has a quality assurance system that is robust and adds to this attractiveness for international and domestic students. We know this sector greatly contributes to our national economy through both import dollars and domestic activity. It's also very important to recognise that our higher education providers also attract research dollars, both domestically and internationally, and they have many other beneficial community associations, through local sponsorship and through local community interactions, that cannot be underestimated.

I reassure our community and the sector that these bills are not a negative. In fact, they should be viewed as an opportunity to ensure that our international reputation for a high-quality tertiary sector will be ongoing and robust into the future in a manner that is fair and equitable, so the burden is not met purely by taxpayers, some of whom have never set foot on a university campus.

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021 and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2021. The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, TEQSA, as the national regulator of our universities, plays a very important role in maintaining the quality of our nation's higher education. Australia has world-class universities, thanks in no small part to the regulating work that TEQSA does. These bills will continue to support this work by enabling TEQSA to charge universities an annual fee for the work that it does. This will take the monetary burden off the taxpayer and create a self-sustaining system between universities and their regulator to keep higher education in Australia strong.

The importance of having high-quality and robust universities cannot be overstated. Higher education shapes the minds of young people and prepares them to be productive and contributing members of society. University students get the opportunity to expand their minds and learn to think critically, which is very important to being a good citizen of the world. Education is often the difference between developed and undeveloped countries. This is why keeping universities operating at a high standard remains a priority for this government. The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency is the government's authority for doing this and ensuring continuing high standards at our universities.

The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency does the work of registering higher education providers, accrediting courses where self-accreditation has not been given and regulating providers to ensure they are delivering best practice. Any new provider of higher education must first register and then renew their registration once every seven years. Throughout that time TEQSA conducts regular compliance and quality assessments and also collects and disseminates information relating to higher education and best practice.

Because of the essential work that happens it's important that TEQSA gets the money it needs to function. At the moment this money is coming from the taxpayer. The purpose of these bills is to transition TEQSA's cost recovery to come from universities, as the beneficiaries of its services. At the moment only 15 per cent of total cost is being recovered from the sector. Over the next three years this will transition to 100 per cent so that TEQSA can become a self-sustaining system. It makes sense for universities to pay for the services that they are benefiting from and which they need for their industry to remain strong. In addition, it's government policy that regulators be able to recover the full cost of what it takes to deliver their services, so these bills will see the higher education sector come into line with this.

An example of the important work being done is when TEQSA identified and improved the transparency of the admissions process of universities. There was way too much variety and confusing application pathways, which made it difficult and confusing for potential students to apply. TEQSA was able to address the problem by creating an implementation plan that universities adopted which included standardising admissions information, terminology and thresholds, which streamlined the process. This means that potential students can now easily see the admission requirements and compare universities in order to make an informed choice about where they go and whether they can get in. This is just one example of the important regulatory work that TEQSA does and why it needs adequate funding to be able to fulfil its purpose of protecting student interests and the reputation of Australian higher education.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a difficult time for the higher education sector because of the loss—

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order, Deputy President: the senator is in breach of standing order 187. You are not permitted to read your speeches in this place.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Farrell, I think we're fairly lenient on that standing order, but I do remind senators it is a standing order and I would ask you to speak to your speeches.

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's fine, thanks, Madam Deputy President. I don't need to read a speech to talk about education in this country and what the Labor Party did to education in 1990, with the Dawkins plan. If you want me to go off script, Senator Farrell, I'll do that any time, because I well remember what the Hawke-Keating government did to education in this country. They commoditised degrees in this country and treated our children like commodities. They introduced the HECS debt, basically enslaving our children to debt, just like Paul Keating did when he brought in the foreign banks to this country and let the RBA off their leash and inflated house prices. And now our students go to university and they end up with a massive HECS debt. They've got very little chance of getting jobs because everyone had to get a degree rather than stick with TAFE, and now they're in big trouble because the Button plan destroyed manufacturing. That was the perfect combination. 'Let's destroy manufacturing. Let's prop up the finance industry by giving unmitigated control to the superannuation industry, letting in the foreign banks and letting in foreign debt.' And what have our children got? Nothing. We've privatised all the infrastructure in this country. They've got degrees that don't get them jobs. And now they've got to give up 10 per cent of their incomes, which I spoke about earlier today—and Paul Keating himself admitted it came out of their wages. So I don't need a lesson from you, Senator Farrell, as to how destructive your party—

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Rennick, I remind you not to reference other senators directly.

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Deputy President. I don't need a lesson from Senator Farrell as to the destructive nature of what Labor has done to this country. There isn't an industry in this country that hasn't been destroyed by the Labor Party. It's interesting. They talk about casualisation and how wages are casual. I was just reading about how, under the 1983 Prices and Incomes Accord, casualisation went from single digits to up to 25 per cent—thanks to the Hawke-Keating government. And they've got the hide to come in here and talk about casualisation rates in this country. There isn't a thing the Hawke-Keating government didn't destroy. And the little bit that was left when the Rudd-Gillard government got in—what a mess they made with the boat people!

I'm not going to bother talking about this bill, because this bill is all about trying to get education back on track in this country.

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

Madam Deputy President, we do appreciate that in a second reading debate we range widely, but there is no relevance whatsoever in this senator's remarks to the terms of this bill. We have got onto boat people and various other things which I suggest you are not contained anywhere in the bill. Perhaps he could draw his attention back to the terms of the bill.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Carr. I have been listening carefully and I was waiting for Senator Rennick to get back onto the bill. But it is a broad-ranging debate and he was speaking mostly about education.

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Deputy President. I was actually coming back because this bill is a part of the many things that we're doing in the Morrison government to get education back on track in this country so that our children, when they graduate from tertiary education, whether it be from university or TAFE, can get a job. At the end of the day, higher education is a means to an end; it is not an end in itself. It is not about propping up academics to write research publications that basically create alarmist theories about the Great Barrier Reef and all that stuff. No, no, no. It is about delivering outcomes—that is, a higher standard of living for our children to make sure that they can stand on their own two feet. I want to acknowledge the great work that Senator Cash has been doing in giving a 50 per cent incentive to the apprenticeship scheme. That's been totally booked out, I understand, totally filled; I think we're extending that. It's great to see that the Morrison government are trying to get people back into apprenticeships. We openly acknowledge we don't want to rely on too much immigration for the sake of filling jobs.

I'm glad to commend this bill to the Senate because I know that this bill is another step that the Morrison government has been taking to clean up higher education in this country. The mess left behind by prior Labor governments, we're still cleaning up, after those horrid neoliberal years under the Hawke-Keating government that left our country desolate. A lot of this stuff, we're only seeing it now, of course. It's very important that we stand up to that. I will leave it at that. Senator Farrell, any time you want me to go off script, you just let me know. I'm happy to talk to you in here about this or about any topic, any time, any place.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] I rise tonight to speak on the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021 and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2021. It's always entertaining to follow on from Senator Rennick. I'm going to put facts on the record here tonight. The purpose of these bills is to establish a new charge to recover the cost of Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency risk monitoring and regulatory oversight activities for registered higher education providers. This will transition the authority's operations from partial to full cost recovery over the next three years. The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, TEQSA, is Australia's independent national quality assurance and regulatory agency for higher education. All providers that offer higher education qualifications in or from Australia must be registered by TEQSA.

These bills will give TEQSA the capacity to collect and administer a new registered higher education provider charge, and authorises regulations to be made to prescribe the amount and the method for setting charges. In what is becoming more and more common by this government, they have excluded the majority of detail about the proposed cost recovery framework from the legislation. Instead, key details will be contained in regulations and a new TEQSA charging guideline. With every chance that this liberal government gets, they want to minimise transparency and accountability. It's a hallmark of the Morrison government. How can we, as senators, perform our job if we cannot properly scrutinise legislation? As such, Labor will be opposing this legislation. Now is not the right time to move to full cost recovery for higher education providers, who have had a tumultuous 18 months. The majority of these providers are experiencing major financial difficulties because of the COVID-19 pandemic and have been largely excluded from any financial support from the Morrison government, and now the government wants to whack them with more fees.

It's interesting to listen to the contributions of the Liberal senators in this place tonight. What they've said is that there's been an acknowledgement that the COVID-19 pandemic has had an impact on tertiary education providers and, in general, university students. But they still want to push through this legislation. Universities faced revenue losses of around $3 billion last year and laid off more than 17,300 staff—that is, 17,300 people who lost their jobs because the Morrison government refused to help. They're not only the researchers, the academics and the tutors but also the cafeteria workers, the librarians, the grounds keepers, the maintenance staff, the admin staff, the cleaners. These jobs are not only in our cities but also in regional areas, where some of our universities are based. That has a direct impact on those regional communities, and there is a flow-on effect, a negative one, throughout our economy. Worse still, higher revenue losses are expected this year as the pipeline of international students dwindles, and uncertainty about our borders reopening remains very relevant here today. Because of the completely bungled vaccination rollout by those on the government benches and their refusal to implement a nationally coordinated quarantine system, these uncertainties are likely to remain for some considerable time.

This is all in the context of the Morrison government providing little if any support to this sector. We must not forget that the government changed the rules three times to exclude our public universities from JobKeeper. Education is our fourth-largest export industry, and it has been completely neglected by the Liberal government. Now they want to add greater costs to higher education, costs which will obviously more than likely flow through to students. Like with Medicare and with superannuation, the Morrison Liberal government will take every chance they get to cut funding from our universities. They have really taken it in their stride, doubling costs for students, cutting government support to education and, in the middle of a pandemic when one of the main streams of income for universities effectively went to zero, they have nothing—nada. Our universities are engines for innovation, and we rely on them to overcome problems in the future. We need just look at our responses to COVID-19 and how important our researchers and academics have been in informing our response to this virus. But right now they feel abandoned and kicked to the kerb by the Morrison government.

The government's proposal to move to an annual levy contradicts TEQSA's guiding regulatory principles to take a risk-reflective and variable-touch approach. University peaks argued that an annual levy means the burden of regulatory cost will be carried by the lowest-risk providers, which are large public universities. Haven't they endured enough? At the same time private providers are concerned that increased application based fees, which will rise by a whopping 700 per cent in some cases, will threaten their financial viability entirely. For smaller providers, it could be their undoing. These institutions have flagged that providers' closure, at a time when the financial viability of many providers is already threatened by this pandemic, will lead to higher cost to the government through reliance on the Tuition Protection Service. The Liberals are just seizing on this as a cost recovery exercise, but what they don't realise is the impact that they will have. They don't care about the students who will have to face US-style debts or they will threaten through the viability of their providers. Let's face it, the Morrison government have no plan for higher education. The Morrison government don't care about this sector, as they have so ably demonstrated during this pandemic. Labor have a plan to boost the skills of our nation. Our $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund can help translate innovation into Australian businesses and into jobs. Labor also understand and appreciate the importance of commercialisation of research, and that is why we will also introduce a start-up scheme that will offer income-contingent loans to 2,000 final-year students or recent graduates to support their participation in accelerated programs. This will help drive innovation and grow much-needed links between universities and the start-up community.

In contrast, in their latest budget, the Liberals cut a further 10 per cent from university funding. The government did bring forward some emergency research funding last year, but that has now stopped. In their biggest attack on universities and students to date, the Morrison government have raised the cost of university degrees for thousands of students—up to $60,000 for a bachelor degree with honours. That is in stark contrast to the nonsense that Senator Rennick put forward in his speech tonight, because he is going to support this legislation. He supports $60,000 bachelor degrees with honours being implemented in this country by this government. At the same time, these students are worrying about trying to save for a deposit for a home, looking for a job and maybe even starting a family. This is also going to have an impact on mature-aged students who are considering going back and furthering their education. This will absolutely place an unfair burden on young people trying to get a leg up. That will be the result of this legislation if it is passed.

What is also invisible in these bills is that there will be less funding for the courses that the Morrison government is trying to promote. Universities will receive 32 per cent less to teach medicine to students, 17 per cent less to teach maths to students, and they will receive 16 per cent less to teach engineering to students. How can they spin that? How can Mr Morrison spin that extra burden being placed on students and on Australian universities?

The cuts to funding for universities have meant that it is harder for poorer Tasmanian students to go to university. Over half of Tasmania's school leavers are not in work, training or further education. Our youth unemployment rate is the worst in the country. And what do we see from the Morrison government? Nothing. There is nothing to support Tasmanian young people and mature-aged students from going to university. In fact, that government are adding to the burden. At the same time, the most common feedback we receive from employers is that they can't find the right school leavers to fill jobs because they simply lack the skills. Now nothing that the Liberals are doing is going to boost the skills of young Tasmanians. We have a potential to be world leaders in renewable energy export and manufacturing, but the lack of a solid plan for jobs and training means that Tasmanians will be left behind by this government. At the very same time, here in Tasmania, the state government is now debating within the Tasmanian community as to whether or not TAFE should stay in public hands. The state Liberal government, in combination with the Morrison government, is disincentivising young Tasmanians from going on to university. If young Tasmanians can't afford to go on to university and pay these exorbitant new costs, then they need to have access to TAFE so that we can skill up young people in this state. After all, we really do need to have the TAFEs and universities working together with the business sector to ensure we have the highly skilled workforce that is needed for our industries and to strengthen our local economies going forward.

If we don't have young people in TAFEs, universities or some sort of traineeship or job, then they end up being idle and getting into mischief. They need to have a future. The door is always opened when people have the opportunity to pursue their educational goals. That is fulfilling for them as individuals and it is fulfilling for our economy, for the health and wellbeing and social cohesion of our communities. That is what's needed. For people to be able to invest in a home, to be a full participant in our community, in our economy, we need to have our community as well educated as we possibly can.

That's the strength of a nation, when they invest in education. More money should be going into education. We should be encouraging more people to study maths, the sciences and engineering. That's what should happen in this country. But what do we see from the Morrison government? We see a lot of spin. We see a lot of smoke and mirrors, the government trying to pretend to be all things to all people. But when you scratch the surface, like with this legislation, you see that this is not in the interests of the Australian community. It is certainly not in the interests of my community here in Tasmania.

I oppose this legislation and implore the crossbench and minor parties to vote it down. This is not in our long-term interests. This is bad legislation. It is doing what the Morrison government always wants to do, tear down our universities. We cannot allow this to happen. Labor will not allow this to happen, and I ask the crossbench to join with us in voting this legislation down. It is too important to our economy. We need to have highly educated people to bring us out of this pandemic. We have never relied on them more than we do right now. (Time expired)

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to speak in support of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021 and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2021. These bills, which we are debating here this evening, will give effect to the Morrison coalition government's decision to implement increased cost recovery for the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, which was announced in the 2018-19 budget.

As many of my colleagues have mentioned here this evening, the government has delayed the introduction of increased cost recovery for the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency on several occasions due to external factors, including the COVID-19 pandemic. At present, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency cost-recovery levels are very low, at around 15 per cent of total costs, and the taxpayer currently bears the burden of funding the vast majority of TEQSA's regulatory activities. I should say, here, I will be referring to the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency as TEQSA from here on in.

The increased cost recovery for TEQSA will involve increasing its application based fees, to recover the true cost of these activities. The increase to application based fees will be enabled by a new fees determination, to be issued by TEQSA itself, and will introduce a new annual charge on higher education providers to recover the cost of TEQSA's risk monitoring and regulatory oversight activities. The new charge is the subject of these bills. Later in my contribution, this evening, I will go into some of those regulatory activities that TEQSA undertakes. It is incredibly important work that TEQSA does regulating our higher education sector in this country. They should be appropriately resourced to do that work.

I have some concerns about how universities are complying with the legislative framework with which they should comply, and I certainly have views on TEQSA's role in ensuring compliance. It should also be noted that TEQSA will seek stakeholder feedback on a draft cost-recovery implementation statement, consistent with the Australian government's cost-recovery guidelines. This will be phased in over three years to moderate the immediate financial impact.

There are two bills that we are debating here concurrently tonight. The charges bill will enable a new annual charge to be collected from registered higher education providers—to those listening along at home, that most usually refers to our universities—to recover the costs of TEQSA's risk monitoring, compliance monitoring and investigations, complaint management, stakeholder engagement and other regulatory oversight activities. These costs are not currently recovered by TEQSA and are borne by the taxpayer. The cost-recovery bill will amend the TEQSA Act to enable TEQSA to levy the annual charge created by the charges bill, which I just mentioned.

TEQSA has an incredibly important role to play in ensuring our higher education system in Australia is of an internationally high standard. Universities play an increasingly influential role in Australia and, having listened to contributions from across the chamber and on my own side this evening, I think we can all agree that universities play an important role. Since the early 1990s the number of students in higher education has more than doubled. Around 40 per cent of Australians now have a bachelor's degree or higher. With the influx of international students coming to Australia to study in recent decades, higher education has also become one of our biggest exports.

Undoubtedly, that industry and the business model universities have developed as a result of its growth are under pressure due to the impact of COVID-19 and the inability of international students to come to Australia since the beginning of 2020. But it's critical that Australian universities maintain strong standards of academic rigour, and TEQSA has a significant role to play here in regulating our universities so they do maintain those very strong standards. Australian taxpayers invest a huge amount of money into our universities and to support Australians to undertake higher education. In return for that investment, the core duty of universities is to provide a relevant, rigorous and challenging education to anyone who chooses to go to university. Some may go to university to pursue higher learning based on an interest, for personal growth or some sort of passion, but in the main most people go to university to learn and train for a career. Those students need our universities to be delivering the highest-quality education, and our nation needs those students to be coming out of university well equipped to join the workforce, fill skills gaps and, hopefully, create and build businesses and job opportunities for others.

I've been a little disappointed by some of the rhetoric on the opposition benches tonight. They were trying to say that these bills are about undermining the quality of what universities are providing to students. I think we can all agree that universities have an important role to play in educating Australians. It puzzles me that those on the opposite side don't understand how these bills that we are debating here tonight, which support TEQSA to undertake its regulatory activities, actually strengthen the quality of the education that our young Australians—or all Australians—are being provided with.

One concern that, unfortunately, continues to arise from our university sector is a worrying lack of commitment to free speech and academic freedom. Again, this is an area where TEQSA has a role to play. Indeed, this government has ensured that TEQSA has a role to play in developing the French Model Code and ensuring that universities are complying with that code. Freedom of speech and academic freedom are fundamentally important to the delivery of a quality higher education. Students at universities, particularly but not only in disciplines such as humanities and the law, must be exposed to a range of different perspectives, including those which challenge their preconceived notions. This is a growing issue and something that I spoke about in my maiden speech to the Senate just over two years ago. Unfortunately, since then we have been hearing more and more stories of university campuses becoming havens to groupthink authoritarianism and cancel culture.

I want to pay credit to the government and the Minister for Education and Youth, Alan Tudge, for recognising this as a major concern. I should note that the education minister preceding Mr Tudge, Dan Tehan, also played a significant role in this piece of work. Both of those ministers have taken steps to develop and implement a model code for academic freedom and free speech for Australian universities—the French Model Code, as I alluded to earlier. Unfortunately, though, we've subsequently seen very poor take-up of that code. It seems that while some university leaders get it, there are many others who don't.

The most recent example is the Australian Defence Force being prevented from setting up a stall at the market day of the Australian National University, just down the road. Senator Seselja, shame! The university has thrown its hands up in the air and claimed there's nothing that can be done about the ADF being banned from their campus, because it was a student union's decision. Yet these student unions are recipients of significant amounts of funding through their universities by virtue of the student services and amenities fee. If students want to protest or make the case against the ADF being able to have a stall at a university, that's perfectly fine; they are more than welcome to do that. But the ADF is a hugely respected institution in Australia. It is highly unlikely that the view that the ADF having a stall at the university equates to supporting militarism, as was claimed by the student union, is shared by all of the students at the university, who pay the student services and amenities fee and fund the student union. In fact, I suspect many students would have relatives and family who have served in our defence forces and have the greatest respect for what the ADF and our defence personnel do to maintain peace and security in our region and ensure that we can go to university and have the freedoms that we do in this country.

Deferring to the power of student union is just one way in which many universities seem to lack a commitment to free speech. In June this year, I was shocked to read comments in a paper from the University of Melbourne's vice-chancellor about the university's plan to further water down its free speech policy. In defending this move, the vice-chancellor referred to the damage and harm caused by questions being pursued on the topics of sex and gender and claimed that the emotional distress and anguish caused by inappropriate words being spoken and written is very real. Such arguments are completely incompatible with both free speech and the pursuit of academic learning. If any point of view can be silenced simply by making a claim that the opinion in question causes someone distress and harm, there is no limit to the number of average people with normal, everyday views that you can silence. All you need to do to shut down debate is claim oppression and have a Twitter account. It's a levelling up of the well-known tactic of seeking redress for being offended. These days, if someone has a different opinion, you haven't just been offended; you've been harmed. Due process, proper scrutiny of claims and any concept of open debate go out the window, as administrators, bureaucrats and, sadly, Australia's universities rush to protect themselves from claims that they have failed to provide a safe environment.

How can a university be committed to free speech and academic freedom while a vice-chancellor is speaking about the damage and harm of questions being pursued and inappropriate words being spoken or written? I raised this question with the department of education in Senate estimates, and I was amazed to receive from the department a response effectively dismissing my concern about the free-speech impacts of the statements by the vice-chancellor on the University of Melbourne's policies. That's why the bills that we're discussing here this evening are so important. TEQSA has an incredibly important role to play, going forward, in the adherence of universities to their free-speech obligations. I certainly hope that TEQSA is prepared to look a little more closely than the department has at the obvious threats to free speech like the ones I have just mentioned here this evening.

In summary, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021 and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2021, are important bills. They will give effect to the government's decision to implement increased cost recovery for TEQSA, which was initially delayed due to external factors including the COVID-19 pandemic. It's incredibly important that we have a well-resourced and efficiently resourced regulatory body for the higher education providers in this country.

In my first contribution in this place two years ago, I raised my concern about the erosion of academic freedom on our university campuses. I mentioned that 10 years ago, when I was studying at university, while my views might have been dismissed by my fellow students—most of them of a different political ilk to me, and they were dismissed on the basis of my own political ilk—at least we were able to have a conversation. I fear that at our university campuses now the conversations, the debates, are not happening. That results in graduates that are only ever provided with one perspective on the world. Isn't the very reason people go to university to expand their horizons, to expose themselves to new ideas? Because it is by exposing yourself to new ideas and to different points of view that you can develop a better understanding of how you think the world operates.

If we want our university graduates coming out of higher education with a sound, robust idea of where their place is in the world and how they are going to impact on their community, then we need bodies like TEQSA willing to ensure that our universities are places that encourage free academic inquiry. If that isn't the case, if our university students can't have the debate, if our universities aren't encouraged to provide students with the opportunity and the space to have that debate, then that is a very sorry state of affairs for free speech in this country and on our university campuses. I feel very strongly about this, as I'm sure you can tell. On that basis, I commend these two bills that we're debating this evening to the Senate.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak tonight on the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021 and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2021. These bills give effect to the government's decision announced in the 2018-19 budget to implement increased cost recovery for TEQSA. They're not new; they're not a surprise. They have actually been paused three times due to the COVID pandemic and its impact on the sector.

What these bills give effect to is the government's decision to implement cost-recovery arrangements for TEQSA. What does this involve? Listening to this debate throughout today, I'm not quite sure that those opposite actually understand that. What we'll be doing is increasing TEQSA's application based fees to recover the true cost of these activities. These fees will be discounted in respect to some of the providers with smaller student loans, ensuring that we reduce the financial barriers to course innovation. Per-hour charges for compliance assessments will also be implemented. These will be waived if no compliance action is taken. There will be a new annual charge to recover the cost of TEQSA's risk monitoring and regulatory oversight activities, which are not covered by application based or compliance fees. So the new annual charge is the subject of these bills.

Prior to the COVID-19 fee waiver, which is actually in place until 31 December this year, TEQSA's cost recovery was incredibly low. In fact, it was around 15 per cent of total costs. With these changes, TEQSA's level of cost recovery will increase to around 90 per cent of regulatory costs and 75 per cent of total costs. A small number of non-regulatory activities will continue to be fully funded by the government, which equates to being fully funded by the taxpayer, including those who didn't have the benefit of attending university. These include actions to deter third-party cheating services and to promote integrity in the face of external threats, including cybersecurity and foreign interference. The cost of these activities—around $3.9 million per year—will not be recovered from higher education providers.

As I said, the government has delayed the increase of cost recovery for TEQSA on several occasions due to external factors, including the COVID-19 pandemic. These delays have been occurring at a time when the Morrison government has, in fact, been providing record funding to Australian universities: $20.4 billion in 2021, an increase of 17 per cent, and up from $17.3 billion in 2019. This includes an additional $1 billion boost to support university research, which is flowing to the universities this year. Under our Job-ready Graduates Package, more Australians are studying in our universities than ever before—over 800,000 students this year. It's an increase of five per cent in the total number of students since 2020 but commencements of new students are actually up by seven per cent.

But what's really important to note here is that more Australians are studying courses that are actually likely to get them a job. It's outrageous, I know, that we might want to focus on university degrees that actually ensure that graduates are employable and are educated in fields that the market is actually in search of! When we look at some of those areas, what are the levels of commencements that are up? We are looking at 14 per cent in science, 13 per cent in IT, 10 per cent in engineering, 14 per cent in agriculture, 11 per cent in education and eight per cent in health—all significant increases in new commencements in areas where the jobs of the future will be. Science in particular is well-funded under the JRG package. Funding is up by eight per cent more than the average cost of delivering a science degree and 10 per cent more than the cost of an engineering degree. These are some of the most profitable fields under the new arrangements.

On average, base funding across all fields is 5.6 per cent more than the average cost of teaching a bachelor's degree. So claims that the Job-ready Graduates Package is discouraging enrolments in science and engineering are in fact not correct. As usual, the opposite side haven't quite got those facts correct—what a surprise! The enrolments show that, nationally, enrolments in science are up and enrolments in engineering are up. Thanks to our record investment and reforms, Australian universities are actually in a better financial position than anyone expected. There are a number of indications that 2020 outcomes were better than anticipated 12 months ago.

I will put this in actual figures for those opposite. In 2020, a number of universities reported a surplus: Monash University, $259 million; the University of Melbourne, $178 million; the University of Queensland, $83 million; the University of Western Australia, $58 million; the University of Adelaide, $41 million; Flinders University, $35 million; Edith Cowan University, $24 million; the University of Southern Queensland, $13 million; and Western Sydney University, $13 million. All are reporting a surplus, despite claims to the contrary from those opposite and what was originally being proclaimed by the sector.

During the debate today, we have heard those opposite raise cuts to higher education. As we know, that is simply untrue; they just make it up! Our boost to research funding, which accounts for the decrease in higher education funding as shown in Budget Paper No. 1, was not a bring forward; it was a new, one-off stimulation. And the figures in the budget papers exclude the Higher Education Loan Program outlays. Including HELP outlays, the government's overall funding to universities in 2021 is $20.4 billion. As I said, it's a significant increase. In fact, it's an increase of 37 per cent since 2013. TEQSA's cost-recovery levels are currently very low, at around 15 per cent. The taxpayer currently bears the burden of funding the vast majority of TEQSA's regulatory activities. That includes university graduates but, more importantly, the taxpayers include those who never had the benefit of attending a university. Increased cost recovery for TEQSA will involve increasing application base fees to recover the true cost of these activities. The increase to these application base fees will be enabled by a new fees determination to be issued by TEQSA.

We're looking to introduce a new annual charge on higher education providers to recover the costs of TEQSA's risk monitoring and regulatory oversights. The new annual charge is the subject of these bills. TEQSA will continue to seek stakeholder feedback on a draft cost recovery implementation statement, consistent with the Australian Government Cost Recovery Guidelines.

Whilst higher education providers are likely to criticise the new annual charge, it's actually going to be phased in over three years to moderate any financial impact. The charge will be calculated each year for each provider. The amount charged will change each year and depend on a number of factors, including TEQSA's estimated costs for the year in question, the number of registered providers and also the number of enrolled students each provider actually has. If the proposal outlined in TEQSA's consultation were to be implemented unamended, it's estimated that the vast majority of providers, around 80 per cent, would pay an annual charge of between $25,000 and $35,000 a year, once fully phased in—so from 2024 onwards. The annual charge will be phased in, as I said, over three years, commencing on 1 January 2022. So, from 1 January next year, they will be looking to recover 20 per cent of the costs. This will rise to 50 per cent in 2023 and 100 per cent from 1 January 2024.

Having gone through those estimated surpluses of a number of those universities, it's important to note that it's only a small number of very large universities that could see an annual charge of up to around $45,000 a year. The total funds expected to be recovered through the annual charge are currently estimated at around $5.7 million a year, once fully phased in. Plus, just so we're clear, with regard to the charges bill, this will enable a new annual charge to be collected from registered higher education providers to recover the costs of TEQSA's risk monitoring, compliance monitoring investigations, complaint management, stakeholder engagement and other regulatory oversight activities. These costs are currently not being recovered and are being borne by the taxpayer. The annual charge will be phased in over three years. As I just said, 2022 will see 20 per cent, 2023 will see 50 per cent and 2024 will reach the 100 per cent mark. This will be phased in to ensure that the financial impact is moderated. The amount of the annual charge will be prescribed by regulation setting out the formula for the charge, and this will be made through the Governor-General's Federal Executive Council.

The second bill, the cost recovery bill, will enable TEQSA to levy the annual charge created by the charges bill. The amendments will require higher education providers to pay the annual charge as and when it falls due, including any penalties for late payment, and failure by an education provider to pay the charge will constitute a breach of its conditions of registration. I commend the bills to the Senate.

Susan McDonald (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021. I am very pleased to be speaking on this this evening, because the university sector is terrifically important to this nation. Prior to COVID impacts, Australia enjoyed 1.5 million enrolled students, of which 31 per cent were international students. In the 2017 economy, this accounted for $38 billion. That is a significant sector for the Australian economy. Not only does it bring dollars to Australia; it brings lifelong relationships.

In fact, I can tell you an interesting story of an engineering firm in the Gatton area which creates stock crushers, crates and other agricultural machinery equipment. They would get students down from the Gatton university. These students would come from all over the world. Now this engineering firm exports to all over the world and, not coincidentally, to the very countries where these students came from. These students went back to their own nations and agricultural industries and talked about the terrific work that was being done by this business. So now they export to probably every country that you can imagine. This relationship with students can't be overvalued. It is terrifically important to the relationships that we have as a nation with a small population. Those students come here, they learn about us, our culture and our values, and then they take those back home, and Australia remains somewhere they speak about as a warm place with great relationships and great businesses. Those opportunities are something that we should value as we export those education opportunities. We also have six top fields of education in Australia: management and commerce, 266,989 students were enrolled; society and culture, 197,988 students; health, 181,453 students enrolled; natural and physical sciences, 88,013 students; education, 86,915 students; and engineering and related technology, 84,875 students. This industry also provides 63,469 jobs in the higher education sector. This is a terrifically important sector.

I congratulate the minister on the changes that were made recently to the structure of fees associated with different university degrees. We made a very conscious decision to realign fees against jobs that were needed in Australia because we know that the amount of HECS debt sitting on the Australian nation's balance sheet has been growing. That's a reflection of the number of students who are finishing but not ensuring a job in their chosen field or generating the income that would allow them to start paying back those fees. If we're going to invest in people and in their education—the most important thing we can do for anybody in their life—then it's important that we match them with an industry that they're going to be able to work in. So I think that is a terrific change. As somebody who has children of university age, who are going through the process, it is something that I have reflected on and watched a great deal. I'm delighted to see more young people enrolling in degrees that will take them to a purposeful life, because that is what we wish for all of our children.

Education provides more than that. It provides the ability for people to transcend wherever they may find themselves starting off in life. Whatever position their families have, whatever their circumstance or geographic location, education can provide them with a pathway to transcend their original life and reach their full potential. Isn't what we want for every person in Australia that they reach their full potential through education, whether it be starting out on distance education, because they're a geographically isolated student, or ending up at a university somewhere in this nation?

In northern Australia we are incredibly fortunate to have some terrific universities. Whether it be James Cook University, the University of Southern Queensland, Charles Darwin University or Curtin University, they are all incredibly valuable education institutions. The JCU medical school in particular populates northern Australia not just with medical students but then rural GPs through its training program. It is recognised as being one of the best in the land, particularly because it achieves its core purpose, which is to educate and then populate medical practices in northern Australia and regional Australia. It does a terrific job in that regard. The other thing that JCU has is that it is the only university in Australia which can claim to be the No. 1 university in the world for a training program, which is the marine sciences faculty. It is No. 1 in the world, the only Australian university that can make that claim. It's something that I am terrifically proud of and something that we have been providing funding and support for over generations. One of my grandfathers was the first chancellor at James Cook University. As a mining engineer, I reflect on the number of mining engineering courses at JCU, and I have made this observation to the faculties there: being so close to the North West Minerals Province and all of those terrific rare earths and that traditional hard rock mining of copper, zinc, lead, silver and gold, all of which are so important in modern economies, we should have more mining degrees at James Cook University.

So northern Australia is somewhere that has some really unique expertise, and I certainly look at the place that northern Australia holds in the geographic centre of relevance, the tropics around the world. Some of the biggest cities and population densities around the world sit within the same band that Cairns, Townsville and Darwin sit in. So our natural expertises in tropical medicine, tropical architecture and mining in the tropics are things that I think we should be continuing to invest in and that northern Australia has a real advantage in. It would be terrific to see us encourage those expertises in those universities, to see more students come to Australia, a stable and welcoming nation with a real expertise in educating people from around the world. In fact, we bring around 3,000 overseas students every year to train in medicine at JCU and other universities in Australia. What a terrific education to be providing, and what a terrific skill set to be sending back around the world.

Listening to some of the debate this afternoon and this evening, I have heard a couple of unusual comments, but, of course, I'm putting it down as just another Labor lie. I will put the claim about reducing uni funding in the same bucket as those other Labor lies, such as the one about the cashless debit pension card. In the Senate vote, it was the coalition that voted against a cashless debit pension card and it was Labor and the Greens that in fact voted for a cashless debit pension card. Yet that is the current Labor lie that they're spreading on social media at every opportunity.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator McDonald. Senator Chisholm is on his feet.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order, Acting Deputy President: we're dealing with the legislation at hand. This has got nothing to do with the legislation at all, so I don't know what tangent the senator thinks she's on.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Chisholm, I recognise we do have very wide-ranging debates in this place, but I will point Senator McDonald to the substance of the bills that we are discussing here this evening in making her remarks.

Susan McDonald (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you so much for bringing me back to the piece of legislation, because I was distracted by some of the baseless claims that the opposition has made about university funding. I put them in the same bucket as the lie about decreased Medicare funding which the opposition has also told.

Turning back to this particular legislation, I think it is important that we reflect on why it's important that we look at a cost recovery model for TEQSA. I have spent some time reflecting on the importance of the university education sector here in Australia and why it's important that we have a body that oversees it and holds it to high standards so that it continues to be important in providing education, jobs and a place for our young people to be.

This cost recovery legislation will allow the nation to have better and more direct collection of these costs, as I say. Currently, TEQSA are recouping only around 15 per cent of the total costs of this regulatory activity. Having a pathway through to greater cost collection means that it also allows stakeholders to have a greater sense of ownership and consultation in that process, so the stakeholder feedback on the draft cost recovery implementation statement will provide an avenue for stakeholders to have that.

It will take three years to phase that in, but can I tell you that in other industries I'm involved with this process has allowed industry to come back to government with more modern, innovative and technical ways to be able to assist government with providing a better way to identify the issues that government seeks to regulate, and then a better and often more cost effective way to achieve those cost recoveries.

I see this as a very positive step, and this bill, the cost recovery bill, will amend the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011, the TEQSA Act, to enable TEQSA to levy the annual charge created by the charges bill, and it will require a higher education provider to pay the annual charge as and when it falls due, including any penalties for late payment. Failure by a higher education provider to pay the charge will constitute a breach of its conditions of registration, and this is again an important part of what we're seeking to achieve here, which is to ensure that the Australian education sector, which is so important not just to Australians—be they young Australians starting out on their career seeking to commence their professional accreditation and training or a more mature Australian who is seeking to retrain into a new sector—but also for those non-Australians that I started my speech talking about, who come to Australia and who may work in an industry while they're doing their studies, but at the very least they will be exposed to the great Australian way of life and the great Australians they meet. They will take back with them not just with this terrific education but the Australian values, the Australian way of doing things and Australian friendships that will ensure that Australia Post continues to send cards and parcels around the world at Christmas and other holiday times. So the regulation and the assurance of the quality of the education sector is critical for Australia on so many levels, and it is for that reason that I recommend this bill to the Senate. Thank you.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I couldn't help but reflect on the importance of education as my good friend Senator McDonald, the envoy for Northern Australia, was giving her speech. It actually took me back to some reading I've done recently in relation to Neville Bonner, who was the first Indigenous parliamentarian elected to federal parliament. In fact, this month is the 50th anniversary of Neville Bonner's swearing in as a senator of the federal parliament. He was from my home state of Queensland and from my party, the successor of the Liberal Party, the Liberal National Party of Queensland.

When one reads and reflects on Neville Bonner's story, one of the things that leaps out is he managed to attain his position in this place with the benefit of only one year's formal education—one year's formal education! It's told in his story that when he was a young boy growing up outside of Lismore a local police sergeant or detective encouraged his mother to send Neville and his siblings along to the local state school at Lismore. They got dressed, they went to the school and immediately the parents of the white children descended on the school to take their kids out. Neville Bonner said he had indescribable feelings when his opportunity for education was denied to him at that point. That was something he carried with him for the rest of his life. Notwithstanding that, he still managed to achieve election to this place and to serve his party, his country and the people of Queensland.

We should not have a debate in this place on higher education, universities et cetera without certainly my party talking about Sir Robert Gordon Menzies and his role in the university sector. Menzies said:

Our great function when we approach the problem of education is to equalise opportunity to see that every boy and girl has a chance to develop whatever faculties he or she may have, because this will be a tremendous contribution to the good life for the nation.

Before I go into the particulars of the bills I want to reflect on that quote and what it means in terms of my party's philosophy with respect to education and the university sector—the philosophy I subscribe to. First is the concept of equalised opportunity. We often talk about providing equal opportunity—we need to strive to provide equal opportunity to everyone in this country regardless of their background, regardless of their ethnicity, regardless of their gender and regardless of whether they live in the bush, the city, a regional area or the outer suburbs; 'We need to provide equal opportunity to everyone in this country'—but sometimes we neglect to talk about how we go about equalising opportunity, how we go about helping people regardless of their background and how we assist young Australians to make the most of their opportunities and equalise those opportunities. Menzies hit the nail right on the head when he talked about the role education plays in terms of equalising opportunity.

The second limb of that quote is that 'every boy and girl has a chance to develop whatever faculties he or she may have'. There is recognition that there's individual responsibility involved in that. It is up to the individual to make the most of whatever God-given faculties they have—to work and study hard in whatever field and whatever endeavour and to progress their life as far as they can using the faculties they've been given and to the best of their ability.

The third element is that by doing that—by equalising that opportunity and by each boy and girl developing their faculties to the best of their ability—they're contributing a great good to the nation, so there's a contribution to the nation. So there are three elements in that philosophy in relation to the role of education. Those elements were invoked by Robert Gordon Menzies in that quote.

Those on the other side will invoke the spirit of Gough Whitlam—and good luck to them; that's fine—but let us never forget that under Sir Robert Gordon Menzies in this country there was an absolute explosion of the tertiary sector. The University of New England was established. Monash University was established. Macquarie University, La Trobe University, the University of Newcastle and Flinders University—a host of new universities came online. There was also an explosion in the number of university students—from 53,700 in 1960 to 88,230 in 1966, an increase of 35,000 in just six years. There was an extraordinary increase in the number of university students and also in female participation. In 1952, 19.7 per cent of university students were women. By 1966 that had increased to 25.9 per cent. Of course, that was part of the journey of reaching the levels that we see today.

I also couldn't help but reflect upon the speech that Senator Chandler gave in relation to this topic and her great advocacy in favour of freedom of speech on our campuses. It reminded me of a quote by Menzies that the mission of our universities— (Time expired)