Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I must say that the there are some deeply troubling aspects in this bill. I start at the front, in terms of the objective. The legislation proposes a national tertiary education objective that is meant to guide the ATEC in the performance of every function and exercise of every power. Let me read this objective. The objective that's contained in clause 13 of the bill is to:

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

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

I'm trying to relate that objective, in a precise way, to our tertiary education sector. Reflecting on that bureaucratic language—that objective could apply to almost any institution in this country. I put it to you that, if I were to state that objective outside of the context of this debate and ask any reasonable listener to tell me what the purpose of that objective was, what it was related to, which institution it related to—I suspect an average person would struggle to connect that objective to the tertiary education sector at all. There's no mention of learning. There's no mention of research. There's no mention of teaching. There's no mention of knowledge. There's no mention of critical thinking.

I'm looking again at the definition, the objective—'promote a strong, equitable and resilient democracy and drive national, economic and social development and environmental sustainability'. It's absurd, absolutely absurd. This is the objective of the so-called steward of the higher education system, and it's completely disconnected from the teaching function of a university, its research function, its learning function, its critical thinking function, its knowledge function. It's unmoored. It's unmoored from the purpose for which it's in this bill in terms of our tertiary education system.

I'm not the only one who's noticed this. The National Tertiary Education Union said:

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.

That is exactly the point I made, and I challenge the government speakers to take on that point.

Tell me, if this objective were put in any other legislation or on a blank piece of paper and the reader of the objective were asked to connect it with the institution for which it's meant to provide the objective—tell me how you reach that connection with the tertiary education sector, because I can't see it. I'll put some direct questions to the speakers who will follow me and who themselves have benefited from the critical thinking with which they've been inculcated through our tertiary education system. Tell me: Why the objective doesn't refer to teaching? Why doesn't the objective refer to learning? Why doesn't the objective refer to research or knowledge or critical thinking? Why have the concerns of the National Tertiary Education Union, our educators in the tertiary education system, been ignored in this regard? Tell me, because I can't see the reason.

I have other comments and concerns with respect to this bill, but I will say this. It's a great disappointment that, in relation to something where we should be able to get cross-chamber support, for a piece of legislation that's this important—it's a great concern that the government is pressing forward with a piece of legislation that does not achieve its stated objectives.