Senator MASON (10:38 AM) —I might then make some summary remarks before moving my amendments. I want to thank the minister again for his answers this morning. They are helpful. I think it is fair enough then to say, Minister, that we have established that the government does not in principle oppose the imposition of funding conditionality. The minister just mentioned section 19-15 and, of course, section 54-1. Both of them indicate that. No matter how you dress it up, 54-1 is funding conditionality, as is 19-15, and carries with it the possibility of financial sanction or even ultimately the closing down of the higher education institution. I repeat this point, particularly perhaps for Senator Milne’s benefit, just to illustrate that the minister has plenty in her armoury if there are non-compliant universities. The National Governance Protocols, in the opposition’s view, are not unusually punitive. That would be our argument.

Secondly, the minister mentioned last time in committee—and just a few seconds ago—that no university has been sanctioned under section 54-1, and I am sure, Minister, you are correct. But it was revealed in estimates earlier this year that every university was also compliant with the national governance protocols. Indeed, my first question to you this morning, Minister, referred to the fact that all universities seem to be complying with the national governance protocols to date. I repeat, all universities were complying with the national governance protocols. I think it is important to state that.

Thirdly, there has been no evidence in this debate beyond conjecture that any of the national governance protocols are inhibiting creativity or diversity in higher education. There has been only surmise. Senator Ludwig the other day in committee said that universities would be placed in a straitjacket. No-one can give an example of when this has occurred, nor of any particular protocol that inhibits creativity or diversity. So, again, my view is that it is surmise.

Fourthly—and I am repeating myself, but I think it is important to do this—we are talking here about the expenditure of $9 billion of public money. The national governance protocols were supported. They were developed and indeed welcomed by the university sector. They were welcomed—why? Because universities had a history and a reputation for lacking first-class governance. I do not think that that particular point is under debate. There were no real criticisms of the protocols until the government decided to be rid of the protocols. There was some muted criticism about compliance, but there always is when people are under threat of sanction for noncompliance with auditing principles. As I mentioned the other night, the fact that a few vice-chancellors do not welcome the scrutiny and accountability of these measures does not faze the opposition; we are much more concerned with protecting public expenditure—taxpayers’ money—than we are with the convenience of vice-chancellors.

The opposition’s amendment that I will introduce will do three things. Firstly it will require universities and higher education providers to keep meeting the national governance protocols as a condition of increased funding under the Commonwealth Grants Scheme. Secondly, it will retain the provision that for the funding to be affected the minister must be satisfied that the provider does not meet the requirements, known as the national governance protocols. In the event that the minister is not satisfied that the protocols have been met, he or she can apply a penalty. In short, the amendment restores the tried and tested relationship of conditionality for additional funding where universities meet the national governance protocols. With that, I move: