Budget Review 2016–17 Index

James Griffiths and Marilyn Harrington

The 2016–17 Budget marks another step in the ongoing process of attempting to reform Australia’s tertiary education sector.[1] Proposals for reform in the 2014–15 Budget have been extended and modified through successive negotiations and consultation processes, with the savings continuing to be accounted for in the Budget.[2] The 2016–17 Budget is an opportunity to assess which policy proposals remain.

Changing the structure of higher education funding

The main higher education changes in the 2014–15 Budget were a shift to a more user-pays, market-based model, with greater competition from private providers and changes to funding arrangements for universities and students.[3] The most contentious proposals were an average 20 per cent reduction in government subsidies to higher education providers for undergraduate student places under the Commonwealth Grants Scheme (CGS) and deregulating undergraduate student fees.

Many of these changes were to commence on 1 January 2016. However, neither these initial reforms nor later amendments were passed by Parliament.[4] The 2015–16 Budget did not address the 2014–15 reforms.[5]

As one of his first acts as Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham announced in October 2015 that the remaining higher education reforms would be delayed until 2017 at the earliest and consultation would follow.[6] The Mid-year Economic and Fiscal Outlook 2015–16 estimated the cost of this delay would be $331.2 million from 2015–16 to 2016–17.[7]

Budget measures

In the 2016–17 Budget, the Government has announced it will abandon its proposal to deregulate fees, resulting in estimated savings of $2.0 billion over five years from 2015–16. It is unclear how the $2.0 billion savings have been calculated, given the 2014–15 Budget did not account for any specific expenses associated with fee deregulation.[8] The 2016–17 Budget also identifies a cost to this measure of $596.7 million over five years in underlying cash balance terms.[9]

The Government proposes to retain the other features of its higher education reform package, including the reduction in CGS subsidies, the extension of CGS places to non-university providers and sub-bachelor qualifications, and the lowering of the Higher Education Loan Programme (HELP) repayment threshold. It is proposed that these remaining changes will now be implemented from 2018.

Future of the higher education sector

In conjunction with the 2016–17 Budget, the Government released a discussion paper presenting its case for change and setting out proposed reforms for the higher education sector.[10] A number of options are presented, including reductions in government subsidies, changes to HELP and limited fee deregulation for specific ‘flagship courses’. It rules out fee deregulation across the entire higher education sector.

The savings from the 2014–15 higher education budget measures have never been legislated, but they continue to appear in the budget forward estimates. While these original measures are considered in the discussion paper, other policy options that are presented suggest the future shape of higher education reform may change.

Other higher education budget measures

Ensuring informed choice for students

Many of the assumptions in the higher education reforms rely on informed choice. Research suggests that the more students pay, the more they focus on the quality of their education and the more discerning they are about provider choice.[11]

The 2016–17 Budget seeks to enhance informed choice for students by providing an additional $10.1 million over four years for the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA). This funding will enable TEQSA to respond to the growth in provider registrations and course accreditations and build its capacity ‘to investigate and respond to developments in the higher education sector’.[12]

The Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching website will also be enhanced, with an additional $8.1 million over four years, to provide students with more information about higher education providers.

Quality teaching

Savings through ‘efficiencies’ of $20.9 million over four years have been identified for the Promotion of Excellence in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education program—a program designed to increase the quality of teaching in the higher education sector.[13] This amount is more than half the program’s existing allocation. The higher education sector is concerned about this development because these funds are the sole financial incentive to improve the quality of university education.[14]

Access and equity in higher education

The 2016–17 Budget includes measures which will affect access and equity programs within the higher education sector.

Efficiencies of $152.2 million over four years have been identified for the Higher Education Participation Program.[15] Since the 2014–15 Budget, savings of $208.5 million have been made to this program, which funds higher education providers to better recruit and retain low socioeconomic status (SES) students who might otherwise not participate in undergraduate studies. [16]

There are also budget measures affecting support for Indigenous higher education. The Budget redirects $9.7 million from the Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio to the Education and Training Portfolio to consolidate funding for the Bachelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education. Three existing Indigenous programs (the Commonwealth Scholar Program, the Indigenous Support Program, and the Indigenous Tutorial Assistance Scheme—Tertiary Tuition program) will be consolidated into one program. This does not appear to impact on the funding available under these programs—the measure is intended to allow more flexible and responsive support for Indigenous Australians in higher education.

Vocational education and training

There is no new money for vocational education and training (VET) in the 2016–17 Budget. As TAFE Directors Australia has noted, ‘investment in skills education is largely ignored or deferred indefinitely’.[17]

VET expenses under the Education function are estimated to decline from $1.9 billion in 2016–17 to $1.5 billion in 2019–20—a decrease in real terms of 27.6 per cent.[18] This decline is mostly the result of the cessation of the National Partnership (NP) on Skills Reform.[19] The NP has been reviewed, but a new agreement has not been concluded.[20]

Funding for VET also appears under the ‘Other economic affairs’ sub-function. These expenses are expected to decline by 4.8 per cent in real terms from 2016–17 to 2019–20. This is largely the result of the redirection of $247.2 million over five years from the Industry Skills Fund, which supports the training needs of small and medium enterprises.[21]

The future of VET FEE-HELP, one of five loans available under the broader HELP scheme, is under consideration. Prior to the Budget, the Government released a discussion paper to guide its redesign.[22] The higher education discussion paper released with the Budget also considers VET FEE-HELP as part of its broader review of HELP.

 

 

All online articles accessed May 2016. 

For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.

---

© Commonwealth of Australia

Creative Commons

With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party, this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.

In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.

To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.

Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.

This work has been prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament using information available at the time of production. The views expressed do not reflect an official position of the Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion.

Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library‘s Central Entry Point for referral.