Minority Report by the Australian Democrats
1.1
The Australian Democrats welcome additional investment in higher
education. These bills give effect to the key commitment of the Higher
Education Endowment Fund and establish the broad mechanisms through which both
the investments of the Fund and the grants to eligible higher education
institutions will be managed.
1.2
The initial investment of $5 billion, followed by a further investment
of $1 billion, is long overdue and will go some way towards redressing the many
years of under-funding by the Government. It is important to see this amount in
the context of cost-cutting to the sector by successive governments.
1.3
The Australian Democrats broadly support the concept of a fund that can
provide grants for capital works or research infrastructure in perpetuity.
There is an argument for investing the $6 billion in the sector immediately to
address maintenance backlogs and infrastructure demands, just as there are
strong arguments that a reliable source of infrastructure funding is likely to
be more beneficial in the long-run so long as it does not replace existing
infrastructure funding programs.
1.4
There have been mixed messages from the Government in this regard. The
Australian Democrats hope that more recent assurances that the HEEF will
supplement, and not replace, existing infrastructure programs accurately
reflects the Government's plans.
1.5
One of the apparent aims of this Fund is to attract higher levels of
philanthropic support to the university sector. While this is a worthy goal,
the Australian Democrats agree with evidence given at the Committee hearing by Professor
Larkins that philanthropic donors tend to support specific activities that
hold particular meaning for them. The more general a fund, the less likely it
is to attract support. While the Democrats note the commitment by the Minister
for Education, Science and Training, the Hon Julie Bishop MP, that further
consultations on this would be held, the Fund currently does not allow for
donors to have any say over how their contributions are spent. As such, we do
not consider that this Fund will leverage significant philanthropic support.
1.6
The Australian Democrats also share the concerns of the National
Tertiary Education Union, the Federation of Australian Scientific and
Technological Societies, the Group of Eight, and the Australian Academy of the
Humanities that there is a very high level of ministerial discretion at all key
stages of this program. As written in these bills, the Minister of the day
appoints the members of the Advisory Board, sets directions for the Board,
signs off on program guidelines that are not even mentioned in these bills, and
decides which applications are awarded funding, based on advice by the Advisory
Board.
1.7
While we acknowledge that the Minister should have ultimate
responsibility with regard to the disbursement of grants through this Fund, the
Democrats want to ensure a higher level of transparency than these bills
currently afford. We will seek to move amendments to clarify the composition
of the Advisory Board and to require the Minister to make the recommendations
of the Advisory Board publicly available.
1.8
The Democrats are also concerned that the likely impact of this Fund on
the higher education sector cannot be estimated until issues such as the
eligibility and merit criteria, the extent to which matching funding will be
required, and whether grants will be linked to university implementation of
broader government ideology, are all made clear. These will determine whether
the Fund serves as a successful boost to infrastructure funding for the whole
sector or instead generates unintended consequences and favours certain players
over others.
1.9
These bills do not clarify the Government's position on these important
issues and reflect a trend in behaviour by this Government to seek
Parliamentary approval without giving the Parliament the kind of details that
allow it to make informed decisions. The Democrats, therefore, will move
another amendment to call for the program guidelines to be made a disallowable
instrument, so that the Parliament can ensure that the funding it is being
asked to approve will indeed have the effect that the higher education sector
needs and wants.
1.10
Finally, while the Democrats support increased infrastructure funding
for universities, it notes that this significant investment by the Commonwealth
will not at all address the ballooning cost of higher education for students.
This is just as pressing a concern and yet only a comparatively small
allocation of $222 million for student income support in the last Budget will
have a direct impact on the affordability of higher education.
1.11
The Democrats reserve the right to move further amendments to this
legislation when it is debated in the Senate.
Senator Natasha Stott Despoja
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page