Bills Digest No.116 2003-04
Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill
2004
WARNING:
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as
introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest
does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be
consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the
Bill.
CONTENTS
Passage History
Purpose
Background
Main Provisions
Endnotes
Contact Officer & Copyright Details
Passage History
Higher
Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2004
Date Introduced:
11 March 2004
House: House of Representatives
Portfolio: Education, Science and
Training
Commencement:
Royal
Assent
To amend the
Higher Education Funding Act 1988, the Higher
Education Support Act 2003 and the Higher Education
Support (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act
2003 for various purposes, including:
-
minor funding adjustments
-
the remission of HECS-HELP debts for work experience
students
-
transitional arrangements for the University of Notre Dame,
and
-
allowing Ministerial discretion with regard to 2005 funding
increases resulting from the implementation of the National
Governance Protocols.
Commonwealth funding for higher education is
currently provided under the terms of the Higher Education
Funding Act 1988 (the HEFA). From 2005 funding will be
provided under new arrangements as provided for by the Higher
Education Support Act 2003 (the HESA) and the Higher
Education Support (Transitional Provisions and Consequential
Amendments) Act 2003.
The Bill will make minor adjustments to the
funding levels contained in the HEFA, resulting in additional
expenditure of $11.047 million in 2004. According to the
explanatory memorandum (the EM), these additional funds are
primarily for over-enrolments, the Regional Protection Fund and
indigenous education in the Northern Territory.(1)
Funding changes to the HESA will result in an
additional $157.980 million expenditure over the 2005-2007
triennium. The EM states that this will provide for the
reinstatement of funding for the Workplace Reform Fund and the
enrichment of indigenous education in the Northern
Territory.(2)
In his second reading speech, the Minister
stated that the additional amounts provided to enrich indigenous
education in the Northern Territory would be $1.5 million each year
in 2004 and 2005.(3) These funds are to facilitate an
affiliation between the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary
Education and Charles Darwin University. The actual arrangements
will be a matter for the institutions themselves. If this
affiliation does not occur, then the funds will be used in other
ways to enhance indigenous education in the Northern Territory.
The Bill will change the funding arrangements
for the University of Notre Dame Australia, a private institution
located in Fremantle, WA.
From 1999 the Commonwealth began funding
places at the Broome campus of the University of Notre Dame on the
same basis as public universities. The rationale for the funding of
Notre Dame was the remoteness of the campus, the lack of
alternative providers, and the particular needs that the campus
serves (ie. the Aboriginal student population). From 2000
Commonwealth triennial funding (and HECS access) was extended to
student places for teacher education at the Fremantle campus of
Notre Dame. This was justified on the basis that the university was
providing teachers for the Catholic school system in WA, a role
performed the Australian Catholic University in the eastern states.
However, Avondale College, a private higher education institution
which produces teachers for the Seventh Day Adventist school system
only receives Commonwealth grants on an annual contractual
basis.
The Government s higher education policy
statement of 2003, Backing Australia s Future, stated that
funding for private higher education institutions would be
rationalised, with 1400 Commonwealth supported places being set
aside for allocation to these bodies. These places would include
the 655 Commonwealth supported places currently provided to
Avondale (teaching) and Notre Dame (teaching, information
technology and the places at Broome for indigenous students). The
745 new places would be allocated on the basis of the Commonwealth
s assessment of needs and priorities, in consultation with States
and Territories with regard to their labour market needs. Marcus
Oldham College, a small private farm management institution, was
provided with a one-off payment in lieu of future annual
funding.
The HESA distinguishes between two types of
higher education provider: Table A providers and Table B providers.
The former consist of all 37 public universities, plus the
Australian Maritime College and the Bachelor Institute of
Indigenous Tertiary Education. Table B comprises Bond University,
Notre Dame and the Melbourne College of Divinity. However, the
minister also has the power under s.16-25 of the HESA to approve a
body as a higher education provider. Such determinations are
disallowable instruments. Under s.30-1 of the HESA providers that
are not Table A providers can only receive grants under the
Commonwealth Grant Scheme if the grant 'relates only to national
priorities'. The current national priority areas are teaching and
nursing.
However, Part 4 of Schedule 1 of the
Higher Education Support (Transitional Provisions and
Consequential Amendments) Act 2003 has the effect of exempting
Notre Dame from the Table B funding restrictions and treating the
institution as a Table A provider until the end of 2008. The Bill
will repeal these provisions, thus ensuring that Notre Dame will be
subject to the conditions relating to Table B providers. This would
mean that Notre Dame could only receive grants in respect of
national priorities ie. the indigenous and information technology
places might not be funded. The EM states that transitional
arrangements relating to Commonwealth supported students at Notre
Dame will be managed through the Commonwealth Grant Scheme
Guidelines.(4) As the Minister has the power to specify
the national priorities in these guidelines, it would be possible
to define the relevant Notre Dame courses as national priorities
and thus ensure their continued funding.
According to the second reading speech, the
transitional provision had unintended consequences for the
university.(5) These consequences are not specified in
the second reading speech or the EM. It might be noted that Table A
providers receiving assistance under the Commonwealth Grants Scheme
are subject to a number of conditions set out in Division 36 of the
HESA. For example, section 36-35 requires providers to ensure that
at least 65 per cent of places in an undergraduate course must be
Commonwealth supported places (ie. not full-fee places). Under the
existing transition provisions, Notre Dame would be required to
meet this condition.
Section 33-15 of the HESA provides that higher
education providers basic grants can be increased by 2.5 per cent
in 2005 if they meet the requirements of the National Governance
Protocols and if their certified agreements made after 22 September
2003 offer Australian Workplace Agreements in accordance with the
Workplace Relations Act 1996.
The Bill will amend the Education Support
(Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act
2003 to soften the requirements for meeting the National
Governance Protocols. These requirements have been set out in the
draft guidelines for the Commonwealth Grant Scheme.(6)
They include such matters as the size, role and responsibilities of
university governing bodies. Some of these require amendments to
State legislation and are thus incapable of implementation by the
institutions themselves. The amendment will enable the Minister to
approve the additional funding for 2005 in respect of the Protocols
so long as the provider has met some of the requirements and has
taken all reasonable steps to meet all of the requirements.
Schedule 1 adjusts funding
levels in the HEFA and HESA.
Schedule 2 amends the HESA to
enable HECS-HELP repayments to students who have been enrolled in a
work experience unit, but have been unable to complete the
requirements of the unit because of special circumstances.
Note: students who are enrolled in
HECS-HELP places but who are unable to complete their courses
because of special circumstances are entitled to a refund because
of the operation of HESA section 36-20 and Division 79. The
amendment will enable work experience students also to obtain a
refund if they are in the same circumstances.
Items 2 and 3 of Schedule 3
amend the HESA to enable higher education providers to determine
the student contribution amounts and tuition fees for the life of a
course for students who commence that course in a particular
year.
Note: the Minister has stated that this
flexibility was requested by higher education providers. Under the
current terms of the HESA, providers are required to provide
details of their student contribution and tuition fee levels for
units of study on an annual basis.
Schedule 4 repeals the
transitional arrangements for the University of Notre Dame
contained in the Higher Education Support (Transitional
Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2003.
Item 10 of Schedule 5 inserts
a new section 21A in the Higher Education
Support (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act
2003. This will enable the Minister to approve additional
funding for higher education providers for the year 2005 if they
have taken all reasonable steps to meet the requirements of the
National Governance Protocols.
-
Explanatory Memorandum, p 4.
-
ibid.
-
House Hansard, 23 March 2004, p. 26016.
-
Explanatory Memorandum, p 14.
-
House Hansard, 23 March 2004, p. 26016
-
These draft guidelines can be obtained from:
http://www.backingaustraliasfuture.gov.au/guidelines/documents/cgs_guide.pdf
-
Second reading speech, House Hansard, 23 March 2004, p.
26016.
Kim Jackson
30 March 2004
Bills Digest Service
Information and Research Services
This paper has been prepared for general distribution to
Senators and Members of the Australian Parliament. While great care
is taken to ensure that the paper is accurate and balanced, the
paper is written using information publicly available at the time
of production. The views expressed are those of the author and
should not be attributed to the Information and Research Services
(IRS). Advice on legislation or legal policy issues contained in
this paper is provided for use in parliamentary debate and for
related parliamentary purposes. This paper is not professional
legal opinion. Readers are reminded that the paper is not an
official parliamentary or Australian government document.
IRS staff are available to discuss the paper's
contents with Senators and Members and their staff but not with
members of the public.
ISSN 1328-8091
© Commonwealth of Australia 2004
Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the
Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including
information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior
written consent of the Parliamentary Library, other than by Members
of the Australian Parliament in the course of their official
duties.
Published by the Parliamentary Library, 2004.
Back to top