Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, , 22:45 to 31:53
Senator Faruqi questions witnesses on the urgency of reforming student fees and expanding the National Tertiary Education Objective to include research and intellectual freedom.
Topics: Education, Public service staffing
Speakers: Vicki Thomson, Mehreen Faruqi, Distinguished Professor George Williams, Paul Harris, Unknown Speaker
Thank you. Thank you chair. Good morning everyone. I might start with the group of eight. In your submission um you have said without sufficient independence, authority and resources a tech risks becoming another layer of bureaucracy and a few other many other submissions have also highlighted that Miss Thompson that you know it it risks doubling up what the department of education already does. Um, do you think that amending the bill to make it more independent and impartial is pretty crucial for it to actually fulfill its stewardship role?
>> Yes, absolutely. And and we've said that and we've suggested amendments uh for that because the risk is uh and and it kind of goes back to the discussion we were just having is that the Department of Education in and of itself is a very important entity and a tech is an important entity. You can't pull from one into the other. And the risk is if we pull resources out of the Department of Education, whether it be staff or funding into a tech, we're just diminishing the value of both. And then we've just got a secondary body which is really another layer of bureaucracy. So we have um been very explicit that there should be an amendment which exam it amplifies that independence. It requires a tech and the department of in uh education to enter into an enforcable agreement so that we guar so that there is a guarantee of minimum standards of access of access to staff to data uh which will underpin the the evidence base that we need resources and services. We see that as very fundamental.
>> Okay. Thank you. And I just want to come back to um job ready graduates uh for a minute as well. Um because as you said, Professor Williams um it is I agree with you it is one of the worst policy I have seen in my time in this country in higher education. Um but at the moment the way a tech is set up only to look at um I guess con commonwealth contributions and we understand that there work has already started to look at the cost of delivering um education but obviously nothing on the contribution side. Um so it could take another two years for anything any reform to happen on the job ready graduates. Um, do you think that that is acceptable? And maybe I'll start with IU.
>> And look, as I've described, I see this is the most urgent reform required in higher education. If you don't start with fair fees and access for students, then the system itself is compromised. Um, particularly for the most vulnerable who most need higher education. But I'd also say, Senator, we have an excellent additional inquiry into these issues. Looking forward to putting a submission into that. It's good to see parliament has seized with this issue >> and as much I you know I would like this amendment to go forward. I would also say well perhaps there's ways of just moving forward on this. There's another parliamentary inquiry. It is urgent. Um yes I don't want to see this take two years. I'd like to see this to build momentum across a variety of forums and >> I don't put all my eggs in the tech basket to be frank. I I think there's a range of ways this ought to be progressed. The department does the policy work on this. So yes it should be included with ATH but at will take some time to get up to speed. it's got important work to do and that there are other ways of moving forward with greater urgency.
>> Okay, I'm very glad to hear that because I also believe there are other ways and we could actually look at getting rid of the massive fee hikes and funding cuts of the job ready graduates by just doing it without um you know a tech having to go through the rigmarole. What about you um Miss Thompson?
>> Yes, we're we're on the same page on this one, Senator. Um Job Ready Graduates has been an unmititigated disaster. Um, you know, the group of eight has been on record. Um, we never supported it when it was introduced and we continue not to support it. We've spent um quite justifiably talking about the impact on students. You know, some of our students are paying up to 90% of the contribution of their of their degrees. And on the other side of the fence, you know, universities funding was cut uh in STEM uh the the delivery of STEM um degrees. So, it just doesn't make any policy sense. But um the sense of urgency is real because students right now are paying and if we take another two years that's students who are right now paying and so if there are other means by which we can um bail the cat then we need to be looking at that but that's not to say that and we have recommended and I know others have that we do need to extend ax remit beyond commonwealth contributions because we don't we want to protect it for the future remembering This is a long-term body. So, we need to deal with the policy issue now, but we need to also embed protections for the future.
>> Yeah. Uh, Professor Williams, you mentioned earlier uh the recommendation in the uh National Tertiary Education Union submission about actually improving the National Tertiary Education Objective, which I also um am very keen to do because it does seem very narrow at the moment. And professor Andrew Norton um has said in his submission that the government takes a narrow instrumental and technocratic view of the purposes of higher ed of the higher education system. So would you agree that the NT EO uh and the objects of the art uh of the act could actually be expanded to recognize the public mission in the educational, social and civic functions of a higher education to be more explicit about about our higher education sector.
>> I think that I think that would be a sensible improvement. Yes, I've read both the NTUs and and Andrew Norton submission. I thought that both made good points about that. And I think we need it would be an improvement to capture in this legislation the critical public purpose of universities and the distinct cultures that underpin that particularly intellectual freedom. Wouldn't take many words to do so but I would say whenever we're regulating the sector we need to capture the essence of that sector and what we're striving to achieve by way of public good >> and and it's not there as explicitly as it could be. It's clearly implicit there but yeah I think they are sensible suggestions.
>> Yeah. And Miss Thompson, would you agree with that as well? And just also in terms of research, do you think there should be a specific amendment to make sure that a tech does have a focus on
>> Uh, yes. taking the first one first. The um the the yes, we we we would agree that the national tertiary education objective should make reference um to to the the issues we've just discussed as well as to learning and and other things um which could probably be done quite easily in relation to research. Yes. And in fact, if we actually go back in history when we were I was on the reference group along with Paul and others in the establishment of ATH, we pushed very strongly for it to be a turk, the Australian tertiary education and research commission >> because research is so embedded. So we do believe that we should have a specific amendment uh to recognize the remit of re for a tech to rec recognize research within its rebate.
>> Yeah. and some uh submissions have actually recommended that there be an additional commissioner with an explicit focus on research. Um is that something you think would be useful?
>> Uh look, we've certainly supported the expansion of commissioners to ensure uh breadth of coverage and I know the minister has picked that up. Um I'd have to take that one on notice in consideration of whether we need a specific commissioner for research. What we need are commissioners with expertise across the broad sector. Um so that's not something that I have we have given consideration to as explicitly as ensuring that a tech has both the expertise in the terms of the commissioners it has but it also recognizes the role and value of research within the remit of its of the organization.
>> What about IU? What are your suggestions to improve the focus of a tech to be on
>> I don't have any problems with what Vickiy's mentioned. I I think it there sensible things. I think when in terms of the number of commissioners, you've got to be pragmatic with cost as well with these things. You've got to recognize that that both within the department and outside there's limited budget. So, how it's deployed is important, but it would be sensible to build in things like you've got the productivity commission that for particular projects you can add an additional commissioner. um you know if there's a budget there why not enable that for a period of time >> and that would actually provide at least an escape valve um to ensure that there's the capacity there to bring people on as needed to lead important
>> and in our submission senator we also talk about the ability of the ATH to second or bring people in from the sector to work on specific projects I don't think that's reflected in the current legislation >> and in our submission we've put forward specific amendments for section 11 and section 13 to deal with those issues about the national tertiary education objective and also the how research is reflected in the functions of the ATH.