Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I move Democrat amendment (2) on sheet 5353:

(2)    Clause 41, page 30 (lines 22 to 30), omit the clause, substitute:

41  Functions of the Advisory Board

        (1)    The Advisory Board has the functions of:

             (a)    assessing and ranking applications submitted under the Higher Education Endowment Fund for a grant of financial assistance, according to guidelines issued by the Education Minister;

             (b)    making grant recommendations to the Education Minister; and

             (c)    other matters referred to it by the Education Minister that relate to:

                   (i)    making grants of financial assistance to eligible higher education institutions in relation to capital expenditure; or

                  (ii)    making grants of financial assistance to eligible higher education institutions in relation to research facilities.

        (2)    A guideline made under subsection (1)(a) must specify the considerations by which grants of financial assistance will be made to higher education institutions, including but not limited to criteria providing for merit and eligibility.

        (3)    A guideline made under subsection (1)(a) is a legislative instrument to which section 42 (disallowance) of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 applies.

        (4)    The Minister must cause a copy of a grant recommendation made in accordance with paragraph (1)(b) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of the Minister’s receipt of the recommendation.

This amendment again seeks to address Democrat concerns and those of several sector stakeholders regarding the lack of specificity in this bill on the functions of the board and how grants under the fund will actually be awarded. It amends clause 41 to clarify that the primary function of the advisory board is to assess and rank applications for grant assistance under the Higher Education Endowment Fund and to make recommendations to the education minister on which applications should be awarded funding.

This amendment retains the power of the education minister to seek other advice from the board where it in some way relates to grants for capital works or research facilities. We have also introduced reference to program guidelines in this section and stipulated that these guidelines must make clear the considerations by which grants of financial assistance will be awarded, including amongst other things the eligibility and merit criteria. These factors will have a critical impact on whether or not the fund is a successful stimulus to the higher education sector.

As the bill stands, the parliament is being asked to approve legislation for the commitment of a very significant amount of money to an initiative that could have a big impact of the higher education sector, and yet we have little detail to allow either us or the sector to anticipate what that impact might be. Once the bill is passed, we will have no control over the fine detail, and I am not alone in being concerned about the extent of discretion afforded the government in this regard.

Again, many sector stakeholders suggested to the Senate inquiry that the guidelines be a disallowable instrument, so this amendment stipulates that as well. Finally, this amendment also refers to the interaction between the advisory board and the minister on applications for grant assistance under the fund. Currently the bill does not actually specify that the advisory board is to recommend applications for grant assistance to the minister, but this was implicit in Minister Bishop’s second reading speech, where she said that she will be supported by the board in allocating:

... grants in a manner which best enhances the sector ...

The Department of Education, Science and Training further confirmed this in their submission. There is, however, no legislative requirement for the minister to heed these recommendations. This was highlighted as a concern by a number of sector stakeholders during the Senate inquiry because it leaves the door open to politicisation of the grants process. The Democrats share those concerns and with this amendment we seek to ensure that any grant recommendations by the advisory board are tabled in the parliament. That still gives the minister the discretion to accept or reject the recommendations of the board, but it will improve the level of transparency afforded to those decisions.

The government may protest that they approach these things professionally, but it is a fact that perception counts for a lot when awarding taxpayers’ money, so any improvement to transparency ought to be welcome. If the government wish to reject this amendment, I would ask what exactly they have to hide by doing so.