Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, , 16:08 to 22:45
Witnesses outline the anticipated benefits of ATEC for the tertiary sector and discuss the proposed managed growth reforms and regulatory architecture.
Topics: Education, Procurement
Speakers: Distinguished Professor George Williams, Marielle Smith, Paul Harris, Unknown Speaker
Um, thank you Senator PCO. Um, I I've got a couple of questions. I'll put them to the IU, but happy for to jump in. But during the university's accord process, tertiary education stakeholders did indicate overwhelming support for the establishment of an Ache. Um, can you take us through the role you see the ATH playing both over the next few years, but also in the longer term? And either Mr. Harris or Mr. Williams.
>> Thank you. I'm happy to let Professor Williams start.
Thanks Paul. So as I've indicated we're starting not from a system in rude health but a system that needs some reform. Um we can see that very clearly from community attitudes. It's born out of a system that was designed originally in the 1980s with a particular orientation a market orientation. That was a time of course the hawk government brought in a privatization of quantis telra and the like and the universities were part of that formation. We moved to a market system and over that time what we've seen is comworth funding drop part enormously for universities. It's in fact havedved as a percentage of our funding but we've increased our students by a third. So there's been positives there in terms of participation but it's driven us into a system that is very much market orientated and what we would say is we need that system to recognize the failures that come from that in particular that there are areas where domestic students are not always getting the outcomes they should have. low SCES students are being priced out of the system and so the key role for us for a tech is to act as that steward to ensure that the system delivers for students and community and again this is far from unusual you can look at the AC you can look at a range of government bodies for exactly the type of purpose where you have market failure and misalignment with community outcomes you intervene and you need a body to assist to restore and have the settings in line with that so we see a tech essentially as that steward to ensure that those outcomes are delivered And we also recognize that without that, we've got these ambitious 2050 targets for the accord, including 80% attainment. We're going in the wrong direction in a number of the metrics at the moment. This is needed to put things back on track.
>> Thank you, Mr. Williams. I mean, we've we've spoken a bit about the role of an Ache in reforms to the funding system such as the managed growth reforms or the issues around domestic and international students as you've noted as well. In your view, do you think an Ache or the department is better placed to work with universities to implement the new managed growth system?
>> And I think the answer is both have a role. Uh and of course you can't you can't pretend we should cut out the department. We have a system of responsible government. The minister, the department ultimately and rightly responsible to parliament. But it's not uncommon that a department would see the need for a body to provide key advice to fulfill key functions. You look at the Australian Research Council, for example, already in this area. Again, there's there's a number of bodies that fulfill this role and the accord is very clear in identifying the need for a like body in this area. Uh both to um look after some of the key settings around allocations, but we'd also support the idea that it should have that own motion capacity as well to do research to write reports so that that advice can be provided along with government protocols for release. So there's a there's a clear and defined role here that as I say is not highly surprising um unless you want to retain essentially the system we have with more of a market orientation.
>> And chair if I could just add to that.
>> Yes, Mr. Mr. Harrison and I'll come to
you. Um I think um to build on what Professor Williams is saying um the department clearly has an important role but what we're actually going to need to deliver on the accord targets out to 2050 is new kinds of collaboration across portfolios across departments and across jurisdictions. So we would say that two of the really positive features of the proposed model are the focus on increased collaboration across the tertiary system. So between TAFEs and universities and other parts of the system that requires work across different departments and different levels of government and similarly um we think it's a real positive that the A tech has a legislated role to look at streamlining the overregulation of the of the system and again that will require collaboration across departments and across levels of government working with the states more effectively. So we think there is a need there for a new form of stewardship.
>> Yeah. And as Mr. has said if you look at the sort of broader national regulatory architecture a model like this is not unusual or uncommon. Yeah. Um I note the interim a tech started on the 1 of July last year. Um I'm interested Mr. Williams in your experience engaging with the interim ATH and its commissioners. Could you talk us through some of the work you've been doing with them and how you found this way of
>> Yeah, it's been positive. Um, I've really valued the fact that they have been accessible. Um, they've turned up at many, many events to talk about the role of a tech. Um, I think it's, you know, it's started to build the relationships. I would say though, it's been problematic because the bill hasn't been passed. You know, that's the problem. And I I feel for the interim commissioners, it's fulfilling a role without a legislative base. So, we can see that, you know, they've started, they're doing the best they can, but to be frank, they need the legislative architecture to come into place to support the work. So, I am positive from what we've seen, but more hopeful from where we can get to when we have that in
>> Thank you, Mr. Williams. And look, I note, you know, you you've talked about a range of possible amendments in your submission, but notwithstanding these amendments, you do support the need for an ache in the passage of this bill. Is it that correct?
>> Look, it's crystal clear and that's not just the IU that statement of 12 universities including, you know, key regional universities delivering critical work that we support the passage of the bill. We do believe there are sensible amendments that can be made, but again, we won't let the perfect get in the way of the good. And the two we would really focus on as saying we would like to be considered. Again, they're not deal breakers for us, but we do believe that the own motion power is important. Um, again, very consistent with uh jobs and skills Australia and other bodies. And the other one is just to ensure the body has a more direct line of sight over student contributions. It can perhaps get there through other means, but better to be explicit about those things. Look, the other ones I' I'd mention that, you know, are worth considering. The NTEU has an excellent suggestion about more overt reference also to intellectual freedom and the broader purpose of universities. That's sensible. And when it comes to the threshold standards, maintaining the advisory body to do the work there and these are all we would say sensible pragmatic improvements. Uh but they are improvements and they ought not to get in the way of ensuring the passage of the legislation.
>> Thank you, Mr. Williams. I'm going to hand the call to um Senator Fuki now.