Bills Digest no. 118 2006–07
Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures
No. 1) Bill 2007
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
Financial implications
Main Provisions
Concluding Comments
Endnotes
Contact Officer & Copyright Details
Passage History
Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2007
Measures No. 1) Bill 2007
Date introduced:
28 February 2007
House: House of Representatives
Portfolio: Education, Science and
Training
Commencement:
Provisions in Schedule 1
are dependant on Sate and Territory legislation and commence on
Proclamation or within 12 months of Royal Assent. All other
provisions commence on Royal Assent with the exception of some
items in Schedule 3 which commence on 1 January
2008.
The Bill will:
- amend the Higher Education Support Act (2003) (HESA)
to provide funding to implement the Research Quality Framework
(RQF);
- amend the HESA to implement the revised National Protocols
for Higher Education Approval Processes;
- clarify requirements of the Higher Education Loan Programme
(HELP) and arrangements for Commonwealth supported students;
- amend the HESA, the Higher Education Funding Act 1988
(HEFA) and the Higher Education Support (Transitional
Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2003 (TCA) to
limit the time for students to claim entitlement to Commonwealth
support; and
- make a range of minor technical amendments to HESA.
The Bill increases the overall appropriation
by $40.8 million for the period 1 July 2007 to 31 December 2010 to
revise the maximum funding amounts in sections 41-45 of the HESA.
The increased appropriation will support the implementation of the
Research Quality Framework (RQF).
The Bill includes provisions to implement the
revised National Protocols for Higher Education Approval
Processes (the Protocols) following a review and consultation
process regarding the existing protocols, a process which commenced
in 2003.(1) The Bill also provides funding for
implementation of a new method of assessing and funding research:
the Research Quality Framework (RQF).(2) Like the
revised Protocols, the RQF follows a lengthy review and
consultation process arising from policies announced in the 2004-05
Budget as part of the Government s science and innovation package
Backing Australia s Ability.
As part of the science and innovation package
Backing
Australia s Ability the Government announced a Research
Quality Framework (RQF) for publicly funded research would be
developed in consultation with universities and publicly funded
research agencies to measure the quality of research and its
benefits to the wider community. Following a consultation period
the RQF has been formulated by an advisory group and
endorsed by the Government. The RQF will provide the basis for
redistributing research funding. Two key criteria to be used are
that research rewarded must be of the highest quality and highest
impact. (3) A major criticism of the RQF is the
perceived problems in measuring the impacts of
research.(4) Concern has also been expressed that it
will be expensive to implement and administer. The Productivity
Commission concluded that there is no clear objective evidence
pointing to deficiencies in the quality of research currently
funded through block grants. There is, however, evidence that the
RQF will bring costs as well as benefits but, at this stage, it is
not possible to assess the balance .(5)
The existing National Protocols for Higher
Education Approval Processes ( the Protocols ) were approved
by the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and
Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) in 2000. The development of the Protocols
followed the attempt by Greenwich University to operate in
Australia with support from the Norfolk Island Government. The case
of Greenwich University highlighted the absence of an agreed
national approach to higher education approvals.
In December 2003 the Department of Education,
Science and Training (DEST) initiated a review of the Protocols.
The review by former Vice-Chancellor Professor Gus Guthrie called
for a national discussion of the agreed understanding of what is a
university and what is higher education more
generally.(6) Following the Guthrie Review the then
Minister for Education, Science and Training, the Hon Dr Brendan
Nelson, initiated a national consultation process to consider
changes to the Protocols. In the Government s issues paper
Building University Diversity, released in March 2005
the Minister stressed the need for a diverse range of higher
education institutions servicing different communities and varied
requirements and called for debate on the requirement for all
universities to undertake research as well as teaching
.(7)
Revised
Protocols were developed by MCEETYA s Joint Committee on Higher
Education and following consideration of feedback from the sector,
were endorsed by MCEETYA in July 2006. The revised
National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes
will take effect from 31 December 2007 pending amendments to
Commonwealth and State and Territory legislation.
Items 1-62
are amendments required to give effect to the Protocols which were
agreed by MCEETYA in July 2006. These protocols are given
legislative recognition in HESA, Schedule 1 of which says
National Protocols means the National
Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes (first endorsed
by the Ministerial Council on Employment, Education, Training and
Youth Affairs on 31 March 2000), as in force from time to
time.
The revised
Protocols, which apply to both new and existing institutions,
include a number of new provisions which will facilitate the
Government s call for diversity in the higher education sector. Key
changes in the protocols are:
- Provision for specialist universities to offer courses at
undergraduate and postgraduate level and undertake research
activity in one or two fields of study only;
- Provision for institutions other than universities to seek
authority to accredit their own courses where they demonstrate a
strong track record in quality assurance and reaccreditation;
- To reserve the title University college for use by new
universities, which during an establishment period, need only
undertake research and higher degree teaching in one field;
- Provision for university colleges to develop into new
universities under the sponsorship of an established university;
and
- Clearer rules on the requirements of overseas institutions
designed to assist those with appropriate international standing to
offer courses in Australia and thereby increase choice for
students.
The Protocols
define use of the title university but allow new types of
institutions to operate in Australia, specifically specialist
universities and university colleges. University colleges may not
shorten their title to university but will be allowed to develop
new universities under the sponsorship of an established
university. Specialised universities may use a modified form of
university title reflecting the discipline of specialisation (e.g.
Sydney University of the Performing Arts) but may not shorten their
title to university .
Schedule 2 deals with
entitlement to OS-HELP for periods of study with overseas higher
education institutions. OS-HELP is a loan scheme to assist eligible
undergraduate students to undertake some of their course of study
overseas. The provisions of Schedule 2 Item 3
clarify that to be eligible for OS-HELP the student must be:
- enrolled in full-time study with an overseas higher education
provider;
- outside Australia while undertaking the study and;
- undertaking study outside Australia which will count towards
the course requirements of the student's home provider (the
Australian provider).
Item 2 clarifies that a
student is eligible to apply for OS-HELP whilst overseas but is not
eligible if the student has completed the overseas study.
Item 1 clarifies that
students are no longer entitled to assistance under the HEFA.
Item 2 sets a six week time
limit after the census date for the provision of corrected
information by a student that affects their eligibility for
Commonwealth assistance.
Schedule 4 ensures that
higher education providers may determine the campuses at which
units of study will be offered to Commonwealth supported places
(previously HECS places ) and allows providers to stipulate that a
student may be Commonwealth supported only if the study is
undertaken at a particular campus.
Schedule 5 clarifies the
residential eligibility for Commonwealth assistance through
HECS-HELP(8) and FEE-HELP.(9) New Zealand
citizens and permanent visa holders are not eligible for
Commonwealth supported places, HECS-HELP or FEE-HELP if they are
undertaking their entire course of study overseas. However the
provisions in Schedule 5 clarify that when the course requires some
time outside Australia (e.g. undertaking an archaeological dig)
then the student may access Commonwealth support and
assistance.
Provisions in Schedule 6 deal with the meaning
of bridging course for overseas-trained professionals and allow for
such courses to be provided by Open Universities Australia as well
as by higher education providers.
Item 1 deals with the name
change of Victoria University of Technology to Victoria University
on the list of Table A providers. Higher education providers listed
in Table A of the HESA receive Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding
for Commonwealth supported student places (previously called HECS
places ).
The provisions of Schedule 8 allow a higher
education provider to advise a student undertaking studies across
universities that the student is Commonwealth supported even when
either of the home or host university is a non-Table A
provider.
Item 1 varies the maximum
payments for other grants under Part 2-3 of the HESA to provide
funding for the RQF.
In December 2006 the Minister announced
funding of $87 million to support the implementation of the RQF, of
which $41.9 million will be provided to universities over three
years commencing in 2007-08. The Bill appropriates $40.8 million of
the $87 million to assist universities meet the costs of
implementing the requirements of the RQF and to fund the Australian
Scheme for Higher Education Repositories programme: a university
digital storage system that will allow research outputs to be
submitted for RQF assessment. The remainder of the $87 million will
be spent on the departmental costs of implementing the
RQF.(10)
Items 1 and 2 clarify that a determination
made by the Minister to suspend a provider s approval as a higher
education provider is a legislative instrument for the purposes of
the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.
The significant features of the Bill are those
relating to the National Protocols for Higher Education
Approval Processes and the funding of the Research Quality
Framework. The revised Protocols continue to define use of the
title university and what courses and activities universities
should offer. The Protocols maintain the understanding of
universities as research-based institutions providing quality
teaching and research to PhD level in at least three fields. Whilst
maintaining the requirement for research and research teaching, the
Protocols reduce the research and research teaching requirements to
one or two fields of study in specialist universities and
university colleges. The Protocols are also to be amended so that
some institutions can accredit their own courses.
In a wide ranging speech on the need for
diversity in the higher education sector the Minister, the Hon.
Julie Bishop, welcomed the revised Protocols as an important part
in moving the sector from a one-size-fits-all mentality thereby,
increasing choice for students.(11) Universities are
also likely to experience competition from a growing private sector
that has benefited from the introduction in 2005 of FEE-HELP, an
income contingent loan scheme for full-fee paying domestic students
accessed through the provider. The requirement for research across
at least three fields may deter private providers seeking full
university status, but some may seek the specialist university
status.(12) Private providers welcome access to
self-accrediting status and many are likely to seek such status as
it would save the time and money spent under the existing
provisions whereby they must satisfy state authorities of the
quality of their courses.(13)
The Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee
(AVCC) is not opposed to new universities but is more concerned
that the quality of Australian university education is
maintained.(14) However the minister expects diversity
will not mean more universities, indeed, she says I hope over time
it will mean either the same number, or, perhaps, fewer
universities. I do not propose to force universities into mergers.
These marriages must be voluntary, but I encourage universities to
look at their future, and determine which direction to take merge
or reform. (15)
Funding for the RQF partly allays the concerns
of universities about the implementation costs of the RQF. The AVCC
estimated costs of $40 million and these have been recognised in
the Bill.(16) A wider concern is the need for the RQF.
The AVCC s submission to the review stated
If the Government does not consider that
additional investment in research is justified then the AVCC has
severe misgivings about whether the RQF should be implemented in
the complex way currently being developed. In such a case, it would
be much more resource efficient for Government and universities to
modify the existing formulae for the Institutional Grants Scheme
and Research Training Scheme to inject an element of qualitative
assessment of research outputs drawing on the extensive existing
data sets about the quality and impact of
research.(17)
Critics of
the framework have also noted the British Government s decision to
review their RQF like Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) in favour
of a simpler mainly metrics based system such as the existing
Australian framework which includes measures such as research
income, research publications, and research student load and
completions. The Labor Party has promised to replace the RQF with a
new Research Quality Assurance system and use the $87 million to
implement such a system.(18)
- Details and
documents on the review of the Protocols available on the DEST
website at:
http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/policy_issues_reviews/key_issues/MCEETYAS/default.htm
- Details and
documents on the RQF available on the DEST website at:
http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/research_sector/policies_issues_reviews/key_issues/research_quality_framework/default.htm
-
Research Quality Framework Fact Sheet; the
Recommended RQF as endorsed by the Development Advisory Group
was released in October 2006.
- RQF design not
advanced enough for 2008 start, say lobby groups , Campus
Review, 6 September 2006, p. 6.; Productivity Commission
Public
Support for Science and Innovation Draft Research Report ,
Productivity Commission November 2006, Box 11.3, pp. 11.18-19.
- Productivity
Commission Public
Support for Science and Innovation Draft Research Report
p. 11.1.
- Further Development of the National
Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes (Guthrie
Review) DEST, 2004.
-
Building University Diversity: Future
approval and accreditation processes for Australian higher
education ,Issues Paper , DEST, March 2005,
p. i.
- HECS-HELP is a
loan available to eligible students enrolled in Commonwealth
supported places to cover all or part of the student contribution
amount. The Australian Government pays the loan amount directly to
the higher education provider and a HECS-HELP debt is recorded for
the student with the Tax Office.
- FEE-HELP is an
income contingent loan scheme for full-fee paying domestic students
accessed through the provider.
- J. Bishop
(Minister for Education, Science and Training),
Minister announces financial support for RQF, media release, 18
December 2006.
- J. Bishop
(Minister for Education, Science and Training),
Speech Curtin Institute Public Policy Forum 24 July 2006;
Academic Simon Marginson argues that the Protocols will instead
create confusion and believes a preferred approach is to maintain a
register of two types of university: research universities that
would have to fulfil the criteria currently required for
universities and teaching only universities, see: Simon Marginson,
Separate protocol for foreign universities unstable , Campus
Review, 22 March 2006, p. 6.
- Subjects mooted
for specialist universities have been mineral resources, performing
arts, food science and agriculture but the greatest growth among
private providers is religion based institutions. See: Guy Healey,
University title protected by research depth , Campus
Review, 22 March 2006, p.6; Guy Healey, The shape of things to
come , Campus Review, 29 March 2006, pp. 12-13.
- Guy Healey,
University title protected by research depth , Campus
Review, 22 March 2006, p.6.
- Way clear for
specialist unis , Australian, 12 July 2006.
- J. Bishop
(Minister for Education, Science and Training),
Speech Curtin Institute Public Policy Forum 24 July 2006
-
AVCC welcomes release of RQF final advice by the Minister,
media release, 28 March 2006.
- AVCC,
The Research Quality Framework: The AVCC
Response to the EAG s Preferred Model, AVCC,
October 2005, p. 3.
- Kim Carr, Bell
tolls for RQF under Labor , Campus Review, 27 February
2007, p. 3; Labor to scrap flawed RQF , Australian, 21
February 2007.
Coral Dow
20 March 2007
Social Policy Section
Parliamentary Library
This paper 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.
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 2007
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, 2007.
Back to top