Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

I move the opposition amendment:

(1)    Clause 13, page 10 (lines 19 to 23), omit subclause (1), substitute:

(1) The National Tertiary Education Objective is the objective for tertiary education in Australia to:

(a) develop a world-class tertiary education sector that drives excellence in teaching and learning; and

(b) deliver world-leading research and scholarship, particularly in strategic areas of national significance; and

(c) improve productivity by developing a highly skilled, adaptable and productive workforce; and

(d) establish close links between tertiary education providers, industry and business to strengthen student outcomes and support innovation across the economy; and

(e) deliver positive student experiences across the tertiary education sector; and

(f) promote competition and innovation across the tertiary education sector; and

(g) support Australian values, including equality of opportunity, the rule of law, and Western liberal democratic traditions; and

(h) drive efficiency across the sector to provide value for money for students and the Australian taxpayer; and

(i) reduce regulatory burdens on the tertiary education sector where practicable.

As I said in my contribution to the second reading debate, if we're going to have a legislated objective for tertiary education in Australia, it can't be the version that's currently in the legislation. It's worth revisiting what that objective actually does, because it has to be said that it will be an iron rod that gives guidance to the new regulator. What does the objective say? The legislation says this:

(1) The National Tertiary Education Objective is the objective for tertiary education in Australia to:

(a) promote a strong, equitable and resilient democracy; and

(b) drive national, economic and social development and environmental sustainability.

Then, if that weren't clear enough, the legislation goes on to say:

(2) In performing functions or exercising powers, the ATEC and the ATEC Commissioners must have regard to the National Tertiary Education Objective.

It's explicit. This is a requirement of this new legislation. It guarantees that, in circumstances where it would otherwise be irrelevant, the ATEC must be thinking about social development—whatever that means—and environmental sustainability.

Let me just digress for a minute to explain why this is the case. As the minister knows and as I know and as everyone else in this place knows, it's a basic principle of administrative law that, in making a decision, a body like ATEC must have regard to relevant considerations and must not have regard to irrelevant considerations. Failing to do this means your decision is liable to be overturned on judicial review. If you're a regulator making the decision, it's a matter that's relevant. You must take it into account. And, if it's not relevant, you must not take it into account. That's common sense, and it's also the current law.

So when you pass a provision like section 13 as it's currently drafted, you make sure that deeply political but otherwise irrelevant considerations like social development and environmental sustainability must affect every decision ATEC makes. You're opening yourself up to every green lawfare activist who wants to challenge a decision about a provider in the courts because it doesn't adequately deal with climate change or the latest progressive social trend. You can imagine how, when ATEC goes to enter into a mission based compact with the University of Sydney or University of Melbourne, an issue motivated protest group might be interested in challenging you. Well, this objective is their green light. It guarantees that those considerations will be taken into account where they are otherwise irrelevant, and it makes it just that little bit easier to challenge an ATEC decision on activist grounds.

That, in and of itself, is bad enough. Worse than that, I think the objective misses the obvious. It fails to set things that are and should be relevant to decisions about tertiary education in this country—things like teaching, learning, research, scholarship, productivity, positive student experiences, competition and innovation across the sector, Australian values, efficiency, value for money both for the taxpayer and the student, and the reduction of regulatory burdens. Those are the things that the regulator should be taking into account when making every decision about our tertiary sector. Those are the things that you'd expect and hope to see.

As I said before, it's not just me saying this, and it's not just the Liberal Party. Even bodies like the NTEU—no great ally of the Liberal Party—have said this. They say:

The NTEU believes that this objective does not adequately address the character, nature and purpose of higher education; it makes no reference, for example, to the importance of critical inquiry, academic discovery and discourse, institutional independence or even to academic freedom. Instead, the objectives seek to define tertiary education as part of broader Government policy and could apply to virtually any sector.

It's very strange when the coalition and the NTEU find agreement on something, but when they do, I think it should be a red flag that says, 'Perhaps the objective is not right as it is.'

It's not an excuse to say that this objective was the recommendation of the Universities Accord. That shouldn't bind governments. It's for governments to consider the recommendation, to weigh up the justifications, pros, cons and implications. In deciding to write it into legislation, this is an active policy decision by the government. Once it's in the legislation, it's there; they own it.

As I've said, the national tertiary education objective, as drafted, is not fit to proceed. Amending it should be a necessary but not sufficient consideration for legislating anything like an ATEC. So this amendment changes it. It's a simple and straightforward amendment, and I'd like to think it's uncontroversial. It says that the objective of tertiary education in Australia is exactly what you'd expect it to be: teaching, learning, research, scholarship, productivity, positive student experiences, competition, innovation, efficiency, value for money and support for Australian values. I want to acknowledge the contribution of the member for Wentworth, who has improved this by the addition of what now reads as paragraph (d) in the amendment that we've put forward, and I thank her for the contribution that she's made.

If the government does not support this amendment, they'll be sending a very clear message. They'll be prioritising misplaced pride over substance. They'll be voting against teaching, against learning, against research and against support for Australian values. (Extension of time granted, on the motion of Mr Leeser) Instead, what we would like to see them do is support the amendment. I noted in the minister's comments that he wasn't going to support the amendments of the crossbench, but perhaps he will support the very fine amendment here proposed by the opposition with the assistance of the member for Wentworth. We want to see a national tertiary education objective, if it is to be legislated, that Australians would readily recognise as being an appropriate national tertiary education objective, and that's what this amendment is designed to do. I commend the amendment to the House.

See this speech in context