Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Minister for the Arts and Sport) (12.17 p.m.)—I thank all honourable senators for their contributions to this debate. The Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007 will fundamentally reshape the higher education landscape in Australia. It responds to calls from the sector for greater flexibility and less red tape. It will allow a more diverse and vibrant higher education sector to emerge, one that strives for excellence and one that can achieve its own destiny. No longer is university elitist. No longer is higher education unsustainable, as it was under the 1970s era of Whitlam. The reforms of this government will also enable the sector to break out of the ‘one size fits all’ straitjacket of the 1980s Dawkins era. The decision in the budget to fully fund university overenrolments of up to five per cent of a university’s total funding will potentially create around 21,000 additional Commonwealth supported places, thereby effectively eliminating remaining unmet demand—that is, the number of eligible applicants who miss out on a place at university. In addition, it will allocate a further 2,300 new Commonwealth supported places later this year. Essentially, anyone who wants, and is eligible for, a place at university next year should be able to get one.

This is a far cry from the days of previous Labor governments when 100,000 young Australians who were eligible to go to university missed out on a university place. This coincided with unemployment of 11 per cent when a million Australians were on the unemployment scrap heap. This bill will relax the caps on Commonwealth supported and domestic full-fee-paying undergraduate student places. Labor has suggested that universities will en masse convert Commonwealth supported places into full-fee-paying places and will turn their backs on students seeking to take up a Commonwealth supported place. I expect universities to act responsibly, and I am instructed to tell the Senate on behalf of the minister that she will not let this happen.

Government policy remains that universities must offer their Commonwealth supported places in a disciplined cluster before they offer full-fee-paying places. Any significant shifts in student load between clusters must be approved through the funding agreements between the Australian government and universities. The Australian government will not let Australian universities walk away from their obligation to ensure access for Australians who want, and who are eligible for, a university education. Senator Carr has confirmed today that Labor would phase out fee-paying domestic undergraduate places.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Australia) (12.25 p.m.)—The Australian Democrats oppose schedule 5 in the following terms:

(1) Schedule 5, page 13 (lines 2 to 14), TO BE OPPOSED.

As I foreshadowed in my remarks in the second reading debate we oppose the schedule that effectively removes the restriction on the number of full-fee-paying places. I have outlined my rationale for this amendment. In his contribution to the second reading debate the minister indicated that a certain event would not be allowed to happen—namely, that courses could become full-fee-paying courses only. Could the minister explain to the Senate how that would take place, how it would work that the guarantee would be enshrined?

Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Minister for the Arts and Sport) (12.26 p.m.)—I am advised that that outcome will be secured in two ways: by the funding agreements, and by the requirement that any decision by a university to offer a course on a fee-paying basis only would have to be approved by the minister in advance.

Senator JOYCE (Queensland) (12.27 p.m.)—Is there the potential to manipulate a cluster of courses in such a way as to exclude a certain course? For instance, if you have within a cluster of courses medicine and dentistry at the University of Sydney, could the university only offer the Commonwealth sponsored positions within, say, medicine? What is the government’s intention to prevent this from happening?

Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Minister for the Arts and Sport) (12.28 p.m.)—Senator Joyce has been good enough to foreshadow his question to the minister’s office in advance and I have been provided with the following answer. To reinforce the expectation that universities will be responsible in their decisions on fee-paying places and be transparent about them, the Minister for Education, Science and Training will be introducing some new provisions in their funding agreements with the Australian government. Higher education providers will need to publish in advance details of any undergraduate courses where the balance between Commonwealth supported and domestic fee-paying places offered is to be changed substantially. If a university proposes to offer an undergraduate course on a fee-paying basis only, the reasons for that decision will also have to be published and that decision must be approved by the minister. In the unlikely event that it is needed, a further provision of funding agreements will enable the Australian government to direct a provider to provide Commonwealth supported places in a particular course where it would be in the interests of prospective students to give such a direction. There would be an opportunity for the provider to raise concerns about any such proposed direction.

Senator CARR (Victoria) (12.29 p.m.)—If that is the case, why did the officials at the Senate estimates committee confirm that it is possible for universities to offer entirely full-fee-paying courses within a subject discipline within a cluster?

Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Minister for the Arts and Sport) (12.30 p.m.)—Senator Carr, I am not in a position to assist you as to why officers may have answered a particular question in a particular way, nor would I be prepared to comment on the answers of officers to a question without having examined the question and the answer.

Senator JOYCE (Queensland) (12.30 p.m.)—I would like to put on the record that I thank the minister for his answer. I look forward to the foreshadowed provisions and I will rely on the good intent of the government to see them through.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Australia) (12.30 p.m.)—I also thank the minister for outlining the proposal by the government, in skeletal detail, and I will now ask some specific questions about what on earth is going on here. The government has just come into the chamber and told us that there is going to be a new arrangement in relation to higher education providers and the provisions that deal with them—that there is now going to be some kind of insertion of new rules, new requirements, into these provisions, regarding how up-front, full-fee-paying courses are dealt with. We need to go over it again and clarify exactly what is happening here.

When is this new arrangement going to operate from? When will we see the detail of this arrangement? Will it be legislated for—that is, will there be legislation before us in the chamber? Will it be through delegated legislation or guidelines, or will the changes simply be inserted into the agreements with the funding providers, or in negotiations with universities? Does this not represent an extraordinary new way of intruding into academic autonomy, or is this simply the government rationalising it on the grounds that ‘we give public money therefore they have to be responsible for certain actions’? And, if so, what are the mechanisms for appeal or debate?

I understand that Senator Brandis, the minister, has explained that this is subject to ministerial approval. So it will