Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, , 2:30:47 to 2:55:14
Independent experts Andrew Norton and Claire Field provide a critical analysis of the bill, focusing on mission-based compacts and the need for legislative clarity on student contributions.
Topics: Education, Law reform
Speakers: Speaker 14, Andrew Norton, Mehreen Faruqi, Marielle Smith, Unknown Speaker, Professor Andrew Norton
>> Thank you Senator Fricki. Um thank you all for your evidence today especially to those of us who were here to the end last night. So thank you for your participation. We really do appreciate it. Um I will now call our final two witnesses. Um, so we'll just give us a moment to grab them online and as people leave the table and we've got Miss Cla Field joining us via video conference at some godly hour of the morning for her. So thank you Miss Field for your participation. Um, and also Professor Andrew Nordon in the room. >> Um, we have been asking witnesses if they have opening statements and are able to table them to do so. But if you um do need to speak to them, I'm also happy for you to do that. But before we start, we just might um have you say your full name for the purposes of the handside record and the capacity in which you're appearing today. Um we might start with you, Miss Field.
>> Oh, thank you. Um and you can hear me all right.
>> Yes, perfectly.
>> Okay. I'm Claire Field and I'm an independent uh consultant.
>> Thank you. And Professor Norton?
>> Yeah. Andrew Norton, professor of higher education policy at MES University.
>> Thank you. And in terms of opening statements, were you able to table those or do you need to
>> I didn't have one. I thought it was seven and a half minutes each. Probably didn't need one.
>> and and dto no statement from
>> Thank you. And we have uh shuffled the program to give us more time today. >> Um I have a few questions, but Senator Fricky, I'm happy for you to go first.
>> You to go if you like.
>> Well, why don't you go because you called the witnesses.
>> Sure. Thank you and thank you both for being here. Uh I might start with you, Professor Norton. Um I've read through your submission you've given a pretty scathing assessment of uh the bill that is in front of us and from what I've heard from many stakeholders it it seems to be like a halfcooked bill. Um what in your view if you could take us uh through your key issues or some of the key issues because I know you have a lot of issues. Um and is this bill redeemable through amendments? Look, I
guess the principal concern that I've got, which hasn't come up a lot today, >> is the role of the mission-based compacts. >> And so I'm concerned they give the uh a tech following the statement of priorities from the minister huge discretionary power over universities >> in a way that we've simply never seen before in this country because we're not really clear on what they are. But it could, you know, displace some of kind of the legislative instruments that have previously been used to guide policy >> where there's a clear framework applying to the whole sector >> but instead the universities kind of picked off one by one with these missionbased compacts >> and the Senate sort of excluded from this process because at the moment obviously they can review the the legislative instruments that come before it potentially for for disallowance >> and because as quoted from my submission before because I believe a tech will have a very narrow view of the purposes of universities. I fear that the the missionbased compacts will be used to direct the sector in a very narrow utilitarian way >> leaving little scope kind of the broader intellectual inquiry for its own sake or the humanities or the creative arts you're talking about last night. And therefore we could end up essentially by bureaucratic discretion with a radically different system to what we've had in the past and a system that's achieving a much narrower range of goals.
>> How do we fix this?
>> Well, I think at minimum there should be a statutory list of what can be included in the missionbased compacts and also what cannot be included. So with the current funding agreements which are kind of the rough equivalent of the missionbased compacts in the current system there are some restrictions >> on what can be included. For example, one of those is on industrial relations. >> So that was put in there because of concerns that a liberal government in the powered government was going to use these to force the universities to align their industrial relations policies with those of the government. >> But of course you know the a similar concern this might kind of thing might happen again. So if you have a clear list of what can be included, what can't be included, that does provide some
>> Um and and just coming back to the kind of the object of the bill or the NTO, National Tertiary >> uh objective, education objective. Um many have said that it's really narrow. Do you think it is important to broaden out that objective to actually talk about the mission of public education?
Absolutely. Because it's kind of totally ignoring what universities designed to do and talking about what are really just broader government objectives and because these are used are supposed to be used by the ATH to inform us decision making. >> The narrowness of them kind of goes back to what I said before. This is pushing them down a particular path which is very narrow utilitarian rather than the broader purposes of the universities which I believe should be preserved.
>> Yeah. Um what are the other issues you heard? I know you've been sitting here all morning. You've heard others talk about um independence talking about the blurring of roles between a tech and TEXA talking about maybe the doubling up with the Department of Education. I'm just wondering if you have any views on those and if you could take us through
>> With the independence issue, I think we're have to be clear at two different aspects of this. So, a tech will not be the same as JSA or productivity commission because they do not have substantive kind of managerial roles >> in the sectors they're talking about. They are advisory agencies. And so on the advisory part of a tech then I think it kind of should have greater independence than is in the in the the bill as it stands do their own inquiries release things there is this state of the system report but that's once a year >> and could appear as late as 31st of December >> y >> of that year >> y >> whereas I think it needs the power to >> potentially release you know ad hoc reports something comes up >> we need to know about it let's do it in one or two months rather than waiting. But on the mission based compacts, I don't think you know unelected technocrats should have extreme power to decide what is going on in the system. Therefore, I I don't think they should be independent. I think they should be controlled by what is in the statute >> and by the whatever priorities the minister of the day has established. And from that point of view, they've got a narrow technical task >> of finding the most effective way of achieving these goals without actually selecting the goals themselves. Mhm. Um
there was a lot of discussion on job ready graduates this morning and um the reasons why a tech doesn't have um you know the jurisdiction give advice on um student contributions and I didn't hear a response from the department which could justify them not having um you know this jurisdiction. Uh I mean you have been a critic um an avid critic of job ready graduates and rightly so. Um, do you think with like a tech having providing an advice on half the the problem is kind of kicking the can down the road and there's more of an urgency to deal with the impacts of job ready graduates?
>> I agree and it doesn't need advice from a tech to proceed with this. You know, there are known potential solutions out there. The one that I've been associated with is trying to link student contributions with roughly expected earnings. So there's some reasonable prospect that the graduates will repay in a fairly normal kind of sort of 8 to 15 years kind of time period. >> And that would obviously mean the humanities would go back to the the lower student contribution as they were under the previous system. So for me there's a lot of important technical detail and working out which discipline goes where to design this system. Um but I think in principle we already know what a sensible system would look like and you know you've already got a bill and we could proceed with this far more quickly.
>> Yeah. Um thank you professor Norton. I might go to you Miss Field and thank you for being here as well.
>> Um pleasure.
>> Your submission notes that there are significant differences in the A tech recommended by the accord and the bill that we're examining today. Um could you kind of take us through your concerns with what we have in front of us?
>> I certainly thank you Senator. Um it is less independent than envisaged uh by the accord. Um I note um professor Glover's uh comments and obviously he's in a very good position to you know um as the commissioner at um JSA um and also having a role um as the interim A tech commissioner. Um so I think the accord uh envisaged a a more independent body um better able to take that stewardship role. Um I do think some relatively straightforward amendments would allow a good compromise and uh a robust agency that could get on with the important work that it needs to do. And that goes to uh not having to seek permission from the minister uh to do various things like publish research and um uh publish reports. Uh I think that's a a clear problem and a key differentiator in the work um that jobs and skills Australia Um I think the accord had a very broad view and it's a bit My apologies to all the good people who were part of the accord panel but I think some tighter recommendations would have made it um a lot easier for um their view to have been uh implemented. Um I personally don't believe that you need to bring I think the accord uh panel thought of bringing a number of Commonwealth agencies within a tech purview. I as a former public servant and a former regulator I think TEXA can operate effectively. I think theou is is useful and important. Um but I think it's relatively straightforward how the two would work together. um you've had discussions uh that I've been listening to around the work of the higher education standards panel which would change um under this legislation and I think to make clear one of the advisory committees of a tech ought take on that role and I'm sure that's what's envisaged uh within the legislation. It's just not specifically stated. um you wouldn't want terrific public servants but not experts like the higher education standards panel to be advising on the threshold standards. Um but TEXA really is there to to regulate against the standards and I think it could easily work alongside uh the ATH.
>> Do you share the concerns that Professor Norton has raised um just then around missionbased compact compacts?
Professor Norton is clearly the expert um in this area. Um I do think I probably hadn't gone to the particular point that he raises and he has concerns about. I think for but I obviously um take note of of his points and um and think they're important to be considered. What is it that will will will and won't go into these compacts? I guess when I looked at the legislation, I was a bit more interested in who's in and who's out. So, it talks about the missionbased compacts really being focused on the universities. Um, and if the compact is around and the reason for it is around how government funding is used by universities and having accountability for that and I think the NTEU sort of talked about the KPIs. Um there are questions for me around both what the table B universities those that don't have um Commonwealth support what sits are they under the same mission when they don't have uh the Commonwealth supported places funding um and not to add to the burden um the regulatory burden of TA institutes but if TA institutes are in receipt of Commonwealth funding what are the accountability mechanism I'm sure they'll use it properly Um but should there be accountability mechanisms for for how those um that funding is allocated and is there a need for a a reduced form of a a missionbased compact for um dual sector institutes like uh TAFES uh that do receive Commonwealth supported places funding. So definitely defer to professor Norton on um uh the need to clarify what's in and what's out. Uh but I think who gets one and what's in it is also um worthy of consideration.
>> Like I am very concerned like professor Norton and other stakeholders about the narrowness of the national tertiary education objectives um in the bill. Um I just wanted to get your view on that because it doesn't really go to the it's very like narrow instrumental technocratic. It doesn't go to the public mission of universities of actually um you know research and education. Um so your your view on that would be excellent as well. Well, thank
you. And uh look, I think you're right. And probably again, as I read the legislation, I went into the the objects of the act and I think they're quite comprehensive and I felt very comfortable with them, but having read all of the submissions that have been made, um yes, I would probably um suggest my support for um a bit of reworking on that National Tertiary
this is a question for both of you about the lack of focus on research um in um in a tech kind of role which is not explicitly really stated. Uh do you both think that that should be part of um um you know what should be in the bill and explicitly stated because that is obviously a huge reason universities exist as well. Um so professor Norton maybe going to you first.
>> In the original objects there is mention of research but then that's not transferred to the functions of a tech or to the advisory capacity of a tech. So I'm almost wondering what went on during the drafting process where that wasn't carried through but definitely you simply can't in a practical sense separate out the teaching and research activities of universities >> and so if a tech is dealing with one it has to deal with the other and that should be done in an explicit way. So it is clearly responsible for at least the advice on that >> even if we maintain sort of separate policy institutions like ARC or NHMOC.
>> How about you miss field?
>> Um I would agree. >> Yeah.
>> Um and just really quickly your view on the job ready graduates as well. Do you have a similar view to what we've heard all day today that it is something that needs to be repealed and urgently the the fee hikes and funding cuts? Yeah.
>> Yes. I think at the time uh that it was introduced um I said you know when 40% or thereabouts of students are paying 90% of the cost of their education there's something wrong um and again uh not to be too critical of the accord panel I think it was a real oversight that they chose to defer this to the ATH um and I do think it's a a real priority for government action
>> professor Norton do you see any reason to kind of push this bull bill through um without having a good look at it and amending it to to address the flaws that have been highlighted by so many
should go for a rewrite >> quite aside from the substantive issues we're talking about. It's very messy >> uh and it'll be more coherent if it was rewritten in part and also to deal with some of the you know the things which you know even Bernard Glover was conceding around the student contribution wording where it's not really clear whether that was a deliberate attempt to avoid the issue >> or just an issue with the way those particular clauses were written.
>> And how about you miss field? What what opinion do you have on that?
>> Um I I agree. I think it's um again, Professor Glover is right. It's hard to say this is the efficient cost of delivering X and this is the amount the the Commonwealth could contribute. It's obvious that the missing component is what the student should pay. Um but I think it's good practice that this ought be clarified uh in the legislation. No question. Um, in terms of whether to proceed with it or not, that broader question that you asked, I actually think even with the flaws that are in it, I I think it's a more independent voice than we currently have through uh the Department of Education and I think that requirement to publish that um annual report and what's required to be published within it um would be a really important step forward for the sector and to have those objects in the act around uh equity and fairness and what it is that the the >> the what what it is that we want from our higher education sector. So I think changes are needed but nonetheless I think it is important to to um progress with the commission.
>> Yeah. I mean I don't see it as a choice of passing this bill or an improved bill like we have the time. It's a big change that is happening in our tertiary education sector. The sector has been decimated over the last many years. Um so we should try and get it right. Would you kind of agree with that?
>> Of course. Yes.
>> Yeah. Just um lastly, if there's any other recommendations apart from the ones you've given to the committee, um um now is the time to talk about those. So maybe go to you, Professor Norton.
>> Look, I think it's reiterate that it needs the broader purposes. uh it needs clear constraints on what a tech can and can't do >> and you know for the advisory part but not the implementation part needs the clear independence to do that.
>> Yeah thank you and miss field
>> um the only uh comment I would make and it um is a reiteration from me um I do think around staffing the ability to second staff not I think um again um Mr. Turvy spoke about recruiting staff, but I actually think being able to second in experts from the higher education sector um into an agency like this is absolutely vital.
>> I think there's very few new staff being recruited. It's most mostly current staff from the department. Um but I think they did say that they had the ability um to um contract staff. Thank you so much both. Really appreciate it. Over to you, Chair.
>> Thank you, Senator Faruqi. Um, Miss Field, you you did speak um in your answers to Senator Freaky about the role of committees, which we also heard from the department about today. Could I just ask, do you see this as a useful avenue for the ATH to broaden its perspectives and seek out that specialist expertise advice where required?
>> Yes, I do. And I think um to to me again I'm a bit of a a pragmatist and having worked in the the public service um it seemed to me fairly self-evident that something like the the expertise on the higher education standards panel would be an obvious um advisory committee um for it to set up and that the legislation um provides for. And there are a range of other issues uh topics that it will want to look at where it will need that um that additional expertise and I think the the bill does talk about consultation uh with stakeholders across the sector. Um it does go though to a bit of a point that again uh professor Glover spoke to and it really goes to the critical importance of who then is selected as uh commissioners. if we're reliant on the commission in terms of putting those uh committees in place. Um at the moment, uh Jobs and Skills Australia do a very good job under their their commissioners and I'm sure that the um uh department and the minister's recruitment process will also bring us um some very good commissioners for this role. But perhaps a bit more clarity around those committees would be uh useful.
>> Thank you, Miss Field. And I mean notwithstanding that you've spoken about your view on the need for amendments, do you support this bill and the establishment of the Ache?
>> Yes, I do.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um and just one last question. I'm particularly interested in the state of the tertiary system report and the impact that that publication um might have on progress across the system. Um can you elaborate on the comments you made regarding that in your submission and the impact you see that annual reporting requirement having on the achievement of the AEX objectives?
>> Sure. Um I think section 42 um of the the bill talks about what needs to go into that annual report. I mean I do take um Professor Norton's uh point that it will be potentially somewhat delayed. you've got to have the year and then um you know have that time to to pull it together and publish it and hopefully it's timely and and not too too delayed. But if you're writing an annual report from a commission which goes to the current and emerging trends in the sector, the financial sustainability of the sector I think is really key and I'm pleased to see that included in there. um whether the system is meeting the needs of uh student demand, the demands for the the skills that we're producing in the sector. Um the outcomes for under reppresented groups, some not all of those um elements are available in different places today. Bringing that together with the authority of the commission and attaching those outcomes to the financial sustainability of the sector I think then provides evidence for the robust debate and hopefully um funding changes that I think the sector needs.
>> Thank you so much Miss Field and I do appreciate um you facilitating an earlier appearance today. it was important to us to try to expand the total duration of this session which I'm glad we were able to do and thank you senators for accommodating that as well. Um you'll note it's just Senator Fricky and I here so I anticipate there will be qus for both yourselves and also for other witnesses who have appeared today from other senators. Um but otherwise that does uh conclude your session. So thank you very much and thank you for your evidence. Um all quanss will be due back to us by Friday the 20th of February 2026. So I encourage other senators to lodge them as soon as they can. Um but that concludes today's hearing. So thank you to all who appeared handside broadcasting secretariat everyone. Um and especially those who joined us after finishing at 11:00 tonight from the department. Thank