Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Prohibiting Academic Cheating Services) Bill 2019 raises a number of issues. It has, of course, a laudable aim: to crack down on cheating services that exploit vulnerable students. It is aimed at seeking to strengthen the integrity of our tertiary education system. While, as the Labor Party has pointed out, there are some difficulties with this and the debate has ranged very widely, I think it's fair to say that the provisions of this particular amendment to the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency are welcomed.

But I want to concentrate more on the questions around our international reputation in terms of research. I want to concentrate specifically on the question of the relationship between our research sectors and international students, who are often the victims of these sorts of cheating arrangements. I'm particularly affected by the concerns that have been raised by students from China. Fees paid by international students, especially those from China, have been used to cross-subsidise the funding of research in this country, and it's the lack of a secure funding base for research which has seen so much of our university sector move into international education as a means of subsidising our research investments. With the onset of the pandemic and the consequent decline in international student numbers, we've seen this question really brought to the fore. Funding for university research is now down some $4.7 billion this year—$4.7 billion of approximately $12 billion that universities spend on research.

China is Australia's biggest source of international students. In 2018, the services export market to China was about $11.7 billion. Our economy is hugely dependent on our relationship with China. In some quarters, particularly sections of the media, the university sector is singled out as the villain for cultivating this relationship. They've called for a radical decoupling from China. Of course, the criticism is not extended when it comes to other sections of Australian society, particularly agriculture or mining, forestry or fisheries. You don't hear the suggestion that we should immediately cut off our relationships with the People's Republic of China. We hear nothing, for instance, of the $63 billion from the iron ore trade that is tied directly to China. For instance, in the period from 2016-17 to 2018-19 the value of Australian merchandised trade with China increased by 40 per cent. Iron ore was the most valuable part of those exports.

So what some call excessive dependence on China is not only a higher education characteristic, yet the university sector is attacked for that dependence while other sectors of the economy are not, and the reputations of highly regarded academics and university administrators are smeared because they have promoted engagement with China. There are suggestions that somehow there is some disloyalty to Australia if these academics engage in research collaboration with China or if they encourage more Chinese students to come here.

The former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Queensland, Professor Peter Hoj, has been referred to in The Australian as a 'China-friendly' vice-chancellor, as if there's some offence in that. He's been attacked by Senator Paterson because of the University of Queensland's decision to award him a performance payment. This is irony upon irony, because not only is Professor Hoj a highly decorated, internationally recognised scholar; he in fact played a leading role in the establishment of the new University Foreign Interference Taskforce, which is to be set up within TEQSA. He, of course, was criticised by Senator Paterson on the basis of 16 KPIs awarding Professor Hoj payment concerning research collaboration with China, increasing the university's share of the Chinese student market.

Professor Hoj was awarded his Companion of the Order of Australia in 2019 in the Australia Day honours list, which specifically referred to the fact that he had presided over the establishment of the Confucius Institute for the study of Chinese languages and culture at the University of Queensland. When that award was granted, it was presented amongst his achievements. The citation includes his role as a senior council executive member of the Hanban, the Office of Chinese Language Council International, since 2013. Are Professor Hoj's critics suggesting that somehow or other the Governor-General made a mistake in awarding him the nation's highest honour?

Professor Hoj was defended by the university's chancellor, Mr Peter Varghese. Mr Varghese is a former director-general of the Office of National Assessments. He's keenly aware of what constitutes a security risk and what does not. He's found nothing inappropriate in Professor Hoj's actions. He said that under Professor Hoj's leadership the University of Queensland has risen from a global ranking of 90, when he became vice-chancellor in 2012, to a ranking of 54. That's why he received his performance payment. I understand that Professor Hoj has been linked to the possibility of taking a vice-chancellor position in the city of Adelaide. I understand that that's actually welcomed by senior Liberals even if it is rejected by some of the fringe players within the Liberal Party. Managing the relationship with China has to be a primary concern of whoever is the vice-chancellor, whether it be at Adelaide or the University of Queensland.

Sixty-three per cent of the University of Queensland's international students actually come from China. They in fact provide some 20 per cent of the university's revenue. Mr Varghese said that the way to reduce that level of dependence is actually to seek greater diversity in students who come here. The wrong way would be to launch a sudden and disastrous decoupling from China. International student fees fund research at Australian universities, but the people who complain about the reliance on these fees have so far done nothing to provide a more secure basis of funding by the Australian government, where the funding should actually come from.

The education minister recently announced that he wanted to convene a group of vice-chancellors to look for a solution to this crisis of funding within our research sector. Let's hope he finds one, because what was missing from his announcement was any suggestion that there should actually be an increase in funding.

The inconsistency we see in these proposed changes to domestic student fees can't inspire any confidence—certainly not from me. Mr Tehan has made suggestions about making students more job ready by reducing funding for science, at the same time, of course, suggesting that teaching humanities somehow or another is improper. The proposition is farcical.

This is a government that does very little thinking about the implications of its higher education policies, but it seems quite happy to acquiesce to having our university scholars—our scientists, our researchers—pilloried by its own backbenches, because it's easier to get a headline by inciting fear about security breaches. It is fear without substance.

It's the same tactic that is used against academics who engage in science collaboration with Chinese colleagues. A notable example of that is in today's Australian. A report by Sharri Markson and Kylar Loussikian names several Australian Chinese academics who have had or currently have appointments at Australian universities. They are also said to be beneficiaries of China's Thousand Talents Program, which provides financial incentives for researchers abroad and encourages them to do work in China. The journalists cite the FBI investigations into the program, and it's been alleged that there's been a transfer of intellectual property to China without the knowledge or permission of the universities employing these people. But, after insinuating that that's the case in Australia, Ms Markson and Mr Loussikian hastened to say they're not actually suggesting that there'd been any wrongdoing by academics here. You might be surprised to note that. You've got to read the articles carefully. On a number of occasions The Australian this morning said that there's no suggestion of wrongdoing, inappropriate action or a failure to meet disclosure requirements. In fact, The Australian goes on to suggest that in fact what we've got here is lax regulation. Australia, which of course has stronger and tougher regulations than the United States, has allowed something to go wrong—the smear, of course, to be suggested.

We could find no evidence. No-one has declared any evidence of any breach of the Defence Trade Controls Act, so what's the basis of The Australian's story?

Yet again, it contains nothing but smears and insinuations directed at people who, I repeat, the journalists themselves say have done nothing wrong. It has become an all too familiar pattern for Ms Markson in reporting Australian research collaborations with China. The bigger picture is ignored.

The fact is: China is seeking to develop technological capabilities so that it can be a global leader in advanced manufacturing. It simply doesn't want to accept the old division of labour that has been assigned to it. China, in its Made in China 2025 plan, which was announced in 2015, set about restructuring its economy. There have been investment increases in R&D in China of some 400 per cent. China is rapidly moving away from being chiefly a producer of low-cost, mass-market goods. According to the highly reputable Leiden science index, 10 years ago China had only one institution in the world's top 25 leading universities. Today it has 13—in 10 years. It has a series of measures to attract talent, as does this country, as does the United States, as do the English, as do the Germans. It's a common feature of higher education around the world.

We shouldn't be naive. No-one pretends that there is no such thing as industrial espionage, but people who wish to make allegations of industrial espionage need to produce proof, not smears. There is nothing resembling proof in today's reports in The Australian. More important than these confected fears is the question of what role Australia chooses to play in the historic transformation that is actually occurring in China. The continuing conflict between the United States and China is only intermittently a trade war. It has enormous capacity to do immeasurable damage to Australia's national interest. It is an underlying clash in a contest for technological supremacy. We have an opportunity here to actually participate for the benefit of Australia— (Time expired)