Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Over the course of this inquiry, our committee heard from 81 higher education providers and major sector bodies. We received over 200 submissions and held public hearings across three states. The fact that became incredibly clear to us over the course of this inquiry is that poor governance at our universities has failed both staff and students, who told us over and over again that they felt betrayed, undermined and let down.

We heard from staff who have dedicated decades to teaching and supporting students but who were shut out from decision-making processes. Students, who were advised that budget cuts had led to overbooked classes, felt like their overall learning experience was being undermined, and, during some classes, we heard, students were sitting on the floor. They could not take a place at the table. Clearly, it is unacceptable for students to not get the education they deserve, students who often leave behind their homes and their families to go to university to fulfill that lifelong dream. We were told that, when students raised their concerns, they felt like they weren't heard. They felt like they were openly dismissed or ridiculed and that they didn't have a say at the table.

Staff told us of the insecure work and its impact on their lives, and, in some institutions, we heard 70 per cent of teaching was being performed by casual or sessional staff. And we heard how these staff were working unpaid hours, struggling to access basic entitlements and did not have the security to help underpin the quality of education that their students expected. Staff and students felt betrayed.

For many young Australians, tertiary education is the key to unlocking the future they dream of, but poor governance at our universities has let these students down. We made a number of recommendations, including ones which went to executive salaries. Our committee heard that 300 university executives were earning more than their state premiers. I fully understand and accept that universities need to be competitive in the fight for global talent, but they are also public institutions, established for the public good, and it was our committee's view that their salary arrangements should reflect that. In our interim report we recommended that their salaries be guided by new classifications and remuneration ranges set by the Remuneration Tribunal.

Our final report added an extra eight recommendations for change, including reviewing rules to ensure public education and research stay front and centre and updating the governance of universities to make sure that leadership reflects that mission.

We recommended stronger guidance from TEQSA, improved accountability and more data collection on the number of casual staff and a statement of expectations on internal governance issues. Our recommendations went to a much greater role for TEQSA in monitoring and reporting on course quality and staffing, greater powers when it came to matters in the interests of students, and a positive duty on providers to comply with the threshold standards. These recommendations built upon our interim report and are about ensuring our universities meet the standards and expectations of students, staff and communities at their heart. We need to raise the bar on the governance in higher education, and our report lays out a plan to do that.

I want to acknowledge the important work underway by the Minister for Education and the way he has dealt with both our inquiry and the other reviews that have been underfoot. We know that universities will now be required to report annually on their compliance on an 'if not, why not' basis. We know there are big reforms to TEQSA coming thanks to the minister's work and the work of state and territory governments. Our government is going to give TEQSA the power they need to step in and act when required, including on university governance.

This report was really significant. It came off the back of staff and students in the sector who were crying out for reform; staff and students who felt thoroughly betrayed in a sector which should be the pinnacle of standards in our community. So many young people strive intensely to go to university and they give up a lot to do so because they know a good university education can and will change their lives—not just their lives but their families' lives—and it will add to the broader development of knowledge and research in our community, which makes Australia competitive and which makes Australia great. But they have been let down by failed governance processes in this sector, and that has to change. There is no longer time for excuses. There is no longer time for delay. There is a road map now thanks to the report of our committee. I want to acknowledge Senator Sheldon and all of the members who served on this committee, including Senator Faruqi and Senator Kovacic as well, for their work in this report.

Tony Sheldon (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The final report of the university governance inquiry has revealed deep cracks in the institutions that are so key to our economy and the economic empowerment of the next generation of working Australians. The Universities Accord identified:

In recent times, our regulatory and university governance arrangements have been too slow to recognise and respond to several important issues …

The Fair Work Commission told the inquiry that it had recovered $176 million for 80,000 underpaid higher education staff between 2019 and 2024, and the figure has gone into the tens and hundreds of millions of dollars more. The inquiry heard evidence that up to 70 per cent of teaching is delivered by casual or seasonal staff, many of whom work under precarious conditions, with low pay and no job security.

The final report called on universities to embed a staff voice mechanism in their governance structures so there is centralised oversight over wage compliance. Staff voice is a critical part of reform of the sector. The voice is an asset for the running of universities, not a token role that helps university councils manage the expectations of their staff. These staff are among the smartest and brightest in the country at some of the world's top universities, but universities are not using them or their talents. Last year the National Tertiary Education Union released a report which examined the experience of staff representatives who sit on university councils. That report found that only 17 per cent of participants were very positive when asked to describe their board cultures, while 59 per cent were very negative.

At the same time, vice-chancellors are outsourcing their responsibilities through consultancy firms that have vested interests. These firms are advising universities on how to restructure their organisations and—surprise—the result is the use of more consultants. Vice-chancellors are handing over the keys to the safe. Consultants should add value and not replace the expertise that is already at universities. The inquiry heard evidence that one in three universities have someone from a consultancy firm on the board. According to recent reporting in the Australian, the sector spent roughly $1.5 billion in external consultants and contractors in 2024.

Universities self-govern themselves like a corporation, but without the corporate accountability. I'm not saying these organisations don't need to be successful—a successful university sector is a key to our national interest—but universities are public institutions whose core purpose is for the social good. But the structure and make-up of the university boards have been going in the exact wrong direction. Too many vice-chancellors and chancellors have ducked and weaved when their decisions have been put under scrutiny.

There was a report in the Saturday Paper on the weekend that TEQSA chief executive, Mary Russell, had written to ANU's chancellor, Julie Bishop, outlining a series of concerns, including that ANU's governing council was not receiving information that was needed for effective governance, and the same members were not enabled to participate in the governance of ANU because of the impact of others' conduct.

This is on top of the shocking spending habits of Julie Bishop herself. She had the university spend $800,000 on a new office for her in Perth, billed ANU $150,000 in a year for travel expenses and has two employees of her own consulting firm working simultaneously in her ANU office. At the same time, ANU were cutting jobs, cutting courses and handing big contracts to Nous Group consultancy firm. More than 95 per cent of ANU staff, when surveyed, said they had no confidence in either the chancellor or the vice-chancellor.

The government undertook the Universities Accord to do the investigation into these matters at the same time. That's why Minister Clare has moved to strengthen the powers of TEQSA and introduced a new set of government principles that will be put into law and universities will have to report against them. Minister Clare has reached an agreement with education ministers around the country to establish an independent process for the salaries of senior executives.

It is a condemnation of our public institutions that 306 senior executives are earning more than the premiers of the states the universities reside in. I want to thank NTU for their relentless pursuit of high standards in this sector, and dedicate this government to have your back. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.