Government Senator’s Report
1.
This
inquiry has been quite unlike any other conducted by this committee, at least
in the last ten years. Its unusual features should be noted. The inquiry was
essentially a procedural stratagem to pressure the Minister to respond to the
Senate return to order, and to ensure therefore that the issue could be kept
alive for the Opposition over an extended period of time. There were no terms
of reference. The resulting report of this inquiry is thus a curious document
which defies categorisation.
2.
First,
it deals for the most part with a point of Senate procedure which very
occasionally results in a resolution of the Senate being in conflict with the
Government’s determination to insist on the exercise of a ministerial
prerogative. Governments of all persuasions have from time to time insisted
that such prerogatives take precedence over Senate returns to order.
3.
Second,
the report purports to demonstrate that the Minister’s motivation in denying to
the Senate the information sought by the Opposition was to suppress information
which might show that universities were in serious financial difficulties. Much
of the main report is taken up with ‘commercial-in-confidence’ considerations
as a basis for refusal to table documents. This is an interesting but
irrelevant issue so far as this matter is concerned, as will be shown.
4.
The
main report describes the circumstances which gave rise to the inquiry. It may
be further explained that the information sought by the Opposition is largely
contained in documents resulting from the regular consultations that take place
annually between university vice-chancellors and officers of DEST. These are
known as ‘profile’ discussions, and they are held for the purpose of defining,
for the information of DEST, the business and planning strategies of each
university, and of assisting higher education policy development, including
identification of expenditure priorities.
5.
The
profile discussions are regarded by both DEST and each university as being
confidential, although, as is described in the majority report, the fact that
some universities are prepared to publicly reveal financial details provided to
DEST is not a matter of particular concern to the Minister. Ten of the fifteen
vice-chancellors who responded to the committee’s invitation to provide
information stated that they regarded the information as being within the
Minister’s domain to release if he chose to do so.
6.
As
related in the main report, some vice-chancellors had misgivings about the
accuracy of information processed by DEST. The Minister, quite understandably
made no comment on this, but it underlines the significance of his decision not
to release the information without the consent of universities. In the letter
attached to this report at Appendix 4, the Minister advised the Chair that the
information which was subject to the Return to Order would be provided if the
consent of the vice-chancellors was secured. The Minister advised that all but
seven vice-chancellors (later revised to eight) had agreed to provide
information that was part of the profiles process.
7.
Contrary
to the main report’s contention therefore, this is not an issue centred on the
merits of claims of commercial confidentiality by the Minister. Rather, as
explained in the submission from DEST, it is one of protecting the commercial
confidentiality of information provided by universities. There can be no
permanent protection of this information, as annual reports and other sources
of consolidated data will be available in due course. The real issue is whether
the Minister should take due regard for the sensitivities of universities as
autonomous and independent institutions. Naturally, questions about
accountability will arise, but the operations of universities, including their
internal financial administration has never been, and never should be, the
subject of direct parliamentary scrutiny. That role is ably performed by state
auditors-general and state parliaments.
8.
The
sub-committee sought advice from state auditor’s general and the Commonwealth
auditor-general in the hope of discovering any systemic weakness or evidence of
impropriety or violation of audit rules in the processes which surround
university agreements with DEST or which point to some lack of accountability
to state parliaments. Beyond explaining the audit processes which apply to
universities, those auditors-general who replied added no information that was
useful to the inquiry. The sub-committee can draw no conclusion other than the
fact that universities are complying with all statutory provisions and other
audit requirements.
9.
It
should be noted that some information which was sought by the Opposition was
provided, mainly relating to the operating results for universities in 2000. As
the Secretary of DEST informed the sub-committee chair, much of the information
sought from other documents had to do with policy advice to the Minister,
which, by long-standing convention was never made public. In this instance the
issue of commercial confidentiality is irrelevant.
10.
On the
broader issue of the state of university finances, a matter which takes up a
large proportion of the main report, it may be observed that policy debate has
moved on a great deal further than when this inquiry commenced. It is unlikely
that the now outdated information given in the main report accurately describes
the current financial position that universities find themselves in, or will
find themselves in the future. The financial position of any institution will
fluctuate over time. This subject of this report has been overshadowed in the
Government’s reform proposals in its Backing Australia’s Future legislative
initiative, the main purpose of which is to ensure reliable income streams for
universities which should end a long period of financial uncertainty for them.
11.
In
conclusion, it does not appear that any particular purpose was served by this
inquiry, and it is unlikely that the Minister will respond as requested to
comply with the Senate’s return to order, if for no other reason that profiles
discussions and university finance reform measures have moved along.
Senator John Tierney
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page