COALITION SENATORS'
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
1.1
Coalition senators note the many concerns raised throughout submissions
to the Student Identifier Bill 2013, most of which are outlined in the majority
report. These concerns include:
- Increased workload and regulatory burden
- Incompatible systems
- Inconsistent data collection
- Privacy concerns, and
- Rushed process through parliament.
1.2
Whilst noting the potential benefits to students, Coalition senators are
aware of the administrative burden that this proposal could place on Registered
Training Organisations, particularly smaller operators. As outlined in a
submission by the Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science,
Research and Tertiary Education (DIICCSRTE), due to the mandatory nature of the
student identifier and as set out in Clause 53 of the Student Identifier Bill,
operators will be required to support the introduction of the student
identifier in various ways by:
- restricting the issue of a VET qualification or statement to an
individual unless a student identifier has been received;
- validating a student identifier given by a student with the
agency;
- ensuring the security of the student identifier and related
personal information; and
- recognising transcript issues by the new agency.[1]
1.3
Coalition Senators are also aware of the duplication that exists in some
states where a student number already applies, and would strongly recommend
that the new agency established to oversee the implementation of the student
identifier ensures that duplication is avoided.
1.4
Similarly, it is recognised that data matching and recording is not
uniform across states and as such could add increased costs and complexity to
the process as operators attempt to match and change existing systems and
software. Some stakeholders also advised of inconsistencies associated with of
type of data collected, for example: in some cases registered training
organisations submit the data of birth of a student to five different
government departments in four different date formats.
1.5
Coalition Senators support the initiative to harmonise student data
collection across jurisdictions but take seriously claims that there is still
work to be done prior to implementation. We support the use of modern
technology to ensure that the system is fully automated to ease the burden on
stakeholders, while also ensuring data security.
1.6
During the Senate Inquiry submitters expressed concern that all
accredited courses will be required to be recorded against the Unique Student
Identifier. According to Blue Dog Training, courses such as the Responsible
Service of Alcohol and General Construction Induction course (White Card) are
delivered face to face or online in approximately half a day or less and
accordingly, short courses that are not attached to qualifications or
certificates should be exempt.[2]
Coalition Senators would like to see the Bill amended to apply a student number
only to Certificate Three courses and above.
1.7
Coalition Senators are aware that the implementation of a Unique Student
Identifier may see a number of students opting for non-accredited training
instead. One such example would be the fertiliser training provided to farmers,
where they are more concerned about the information than the educational
outcome.
1.8
Coalition Senators are aware of concerns raised during the inquiry
relating to the collection of information, storage security and the interaction
between the Privacy Act and the Student Identifier bill. Victoria Police are
concerned about the collection of information which provides demographic data
on officers undertaking police training being made available to a range of
sources, and are currently negotiating alternative training data collection for
policing.[3]
1.9
This view was further highlighted by a submission from The Police Federation
of Australia:
The Bill indicates that personal information may be disclosed
for the purposes of research related to education and training. The potential
distribution of USI data to additional external agencies presents a further
risk to the privacy of police officers.[4]
1.10
Coalition senators take matters of privacy very seriously: as more data
is being collected on citizens more often and by more organisations, the role
of government needs to be clear and consistent. That is why the process of Parliament
is to ensure the rights of citizens are not diminished by the actions of
government. It may be appropriate to apply an anonymous code instead of a name
such as the health care identifiers to ensure that these privacy concerns are
adequately addressed.
1.11
Although the Privacy Commissioner noted that the bill's alignment with
the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) provided adequately for the protection of
privacy, the Commissioner submitted that the current drafting of subclause
22(2) may require amendment to ensure that relevant entities mentioned in the
bill are effectively covered under the Privacy Act. As such, the Privacy
Commissioner made the following comment:
The OAIC believes that to ensure the correct interaction
between the Privacy Act and the SI Bill and to ensure that Subclause 22(2)
achieves its purpose, it should be amended to say: 'an act or practice of an
entity that contravenes section 10, 15 or 16 is the subject of an investigation
by [replace with: 'a complaint to'] the Information Commissioner under Part V
of the Privacy Act'. This would then allow for the full use of the
Commissioner's powers under Part V of the Privacy Act.[5]
1.12
The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills considered the
bill and sought clarification and advice from the Minister for Tertiary
Education, Skills, Science and Research, the Hon. Craig Emerson MP, on a number
of clauses. These address the delegation of legislative power (Clause 21);
merits review for refusing to provide a student access to their USI (Clause
25); the delegation of legislative powers (Clause 53); and provisions for the
delegation of legislative power incorporating material by reference (Clause
57).[6]
1.13
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has also examined the
bill and concluded that '...the bill promotes the rights to education and to work
and any limitations on those rights are reasonable.'[7]
However, that committee sought clarification from the Minister for Tertiary
Education, Skills, Science and Research on how provisions relating to the collection,
use and disclosure of USIs are consistent with the right to privacy.[8]
The committee also sought clarification of the circumstances in which
exemptions to the requirement for a USI are permitted under the bill.[9]
1.14
In line with the practice of good governance Coalition Senators believe
that the legitimate concerns raised by these committees need to be addressed by
the relevant Minister prior to the passage of this Bill.
1.15
As a result of these concerns, Coalition senators make the following recommendations.
Recommendation 1
1.16
Coalition senators recommend that the Bill be amended to include only
those courses at Certificate 3 and above.
Recommendation 2
1.17
Coalition senators recommend that clause 21 of the Bill be amended to
ensure that individuals are protected, as highlighted by submissions received
from stakeholders, including law enforcement agencies.
Recommendation 3
1.18
Coalition senators recommend that subclause 22(2) in the Bill be amended
in line with the recommendations of the Privacy Commissioner.
Recommendation 4
1.19
Coalition Senators recommend that the Bill be delayed until the response
from the Minister is received and considered by the Scrutiny and Human Rights committees
with respect to the concerns regarding data collection, storage and
dissemination and the issues around consent.
Senator Chris Back
Senator Bridget McKenzie
Deputy Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page