Bills Digest no. 33, 2016–17
PDF version [691KB]
James Griffiths
Social Policy Section
7 November 2016
Contents
The Bills Digest at a glance
Purpose of the Bill
Structure of the Bill
Committee consideration
Senate Standing Selection of Bills
Committee
Policy position of non-government parties/independents
Position of major interest groups
Financial implications
Special appropriations
Statement of Compatibility with Human
Rights
Parliamentary Joint Committee on
Human Rights
Schedule 1
Policy development—Indigenous student
assistance
A fair chance for all
Bradley Review
Behrendt Review
Reform proposals from 2014 to the
present day
Indigenous Advancement Strategy
Current situation
Key provisions
Existing Indigenous higher education
assistance framework
Proposed framework
The use of delegated legislation
Technical amendments
Key issue— performance of Indigenous
students in higher education
Measuring performance in higher
education
Assessing Indigenous performance in higher
education
Table 1: Access rates,
Australia-wide, for Indigenous domestic students in higher education, 2009 to
2015
Table 2: Estimated and projected
population rates, for Indigenous Australians between 15–64 years, 2010–11 to
2014–15
Table 3: Ratios for Retention and
Success, Australia-wide, for Indigenous domestic students in higher education,
2009 to 2015
Rationale for program consolidation
Schedule 2—HELP information
management
The nature of student loans
Improvement of the structure of the
scheme
Problems arising from program
administration
Improving the administration of the
HELP scheme
The existing information sharing
regime
Key provisions
Key issue: whether there is a problem
with HELP
Concluding comments
Date introduced: 15
September 2016
House: House of
Representatives
Portfolio: Indigenous
Affairs
Commencement: Sections
1 to 3 commence on Royal Assent. Schedule 1, Part 1 commences on
Proclamation or six months after Royal Assent, whichever is earlier. The
commencement date for Schedule 1, Part 2 is dependent on the commencement of
the Budget Savings (Omnibus) Act 2016. Schedule 2 commences the day
after Royal Assent.
Links: The links to the Bill,
its Explanatory Memorandum and second reading speech can be found on the
Bill’s home page, or through the Australian
Parliament website.
When Bills have been passed and have received Royal Assent,
they become Acts, which can be found at the Federal Register of Legislation
website.
All hyperlinks in this Bills Digest are correct as
at November 2016.
The Bills Digest at a glance
What the Bill does
- The Bill enables grants to be made to certain listed higher
education providers in order to assist Indigenous students.
- Previously financial support for Indigenous higher education
students was provided under various parts of the existing higher education
legislation.
- The Bill consolidates existing support schemes under one part of
the Act and one set of guidelines. It also notes where any financial support
made to students by providers will be taken into account in the assessment for
certain welfare benefits.
- The Bill also extends the provisions for information sharing
under the Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) to ensure consistency across all
the income-contingent loans offered by the Australian Government. This is
intended to assist in the development, administration, or future administration
of the HELP scheme.
How the Bill works
- The Bill establishes the ways in which eligibility criteria,
conditions and amounts payable (including maximum amounts and roll over of
grant payment) for new Indigenous student assistance grants may be defined.
- The Bill specifies that the Minister may make guidelines in
relation to these new grants and indicates when a particular matter may be
dealt with in the guidelines.
- The Bill inserts provisions into relevant welfare legislation
reflecting the impact on potential welfare benefits.
- The Bill also addresses the use and disclosure of HELP information,
as well as tax file numbers, to improve the administration of the HELP scheme.
Why the Bill has been introduced
- The Indigenous student support measures relate to a 2016–17
Budget measure.
- The HELP information sharing provisions appear to be a technical
improvement.
Purpose of
the Bill
The purpose of the Higher Education Support Legislation
Amendment (2016 Measures No. 1) Bill 2016 (the Bill) is amend the Higher Education
Support Act 2003 (HESA) by inserting a new Part which will
provide for grants to higher education providers to assist Indigenous students.
In addition the Bill makes an administrative amendment to
the HESA to ensure that the Department of Education and Training can
collect tax file numbers to improve the administration of the VET FEE-HELP
scheme.
Structure of the Bill
The Bill comprises two Schedules.
Schedule 1 of the Bill deals with the Indigenous
higher education changes set out in two Parts:
Schedule 2 of the Bill deals with Higher Education
Loan Program (HELP) information changes as set out in two parts:
- Part
1 amends the HESA to insert new rules for the disclosure and use of
information for the HELP program
- Part
2 contains application and transitional provisions.
As the amendments in Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of the Bill
are different in nature this Bills Digest will set out the background, key
provisions and key issues to each of the Schedules separately.
Committee consideration
Senate Standing Selection of Bills Committee
On 15 September 2016, the Committee reported
that it had resolved to defer consideration of the Bill until its next meeting.[1]
At the next meeting on 13 October 2016, the Committee resolved to again
defer consideration of the Bill.[2]
Policy position of non-government parties/independents
Public statements in relation to this Bill from the
non-government parties or independents could not be found at time of
publication.
Position of major interest groups
The National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Higher
Education Consortium (NATSIHEC), an advocacy group for Indigenous higher
education, has given support for the proposed change in commentary to the
press.[3]
The Chairman of NATSIHEC believes the proposed changes are an improvement over
the Indigenous Advancement Strategy model of amalgamated funding, as it allows
for quarantined funding to be reserved for indigenous higher education
students.[4]
Public statements from other higher education peak bodies
and representative groups in relation to the proposed changes to Indigenous
student assistance or HELP information measures could not be found at time of
publication.
Financial implications
According to the Explanatory Memorandum, the Bill has no
financial impact.[5]
Special appropriations
There are no special appropriations associated with this
Bill.
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
As required under Part 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary
Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth), the Government has assessed the Bill’s
compatibility with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the
international instruments listed in section 3 of that Act. The Government
considers that the Bill is compatible.[6]
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights considers
that the Bill does not raise human rights concerns.[7]
Schedule 1
Policy development—Indigenous student assistance
A fair chance for all
The participation of Indigenous students in higher education
has attracted Australian Government interest since 1990, when the Hawke
Government introduced its discussion paper on higher education, A Fair Chance
for All.[8]
This framework listed five specific groups of students facing disadvantage in
higher education, of which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people were one
grouping.[9]
It encouraged higher education institutions to meet a 1995 target of ‘doubling
of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander enrolments in higher education and an
improvement in the graduation rate of Aboriginal people to a rate comparable
with the rest of the population.’[10]
This led to the development of appropriate statistical
measures to track the participation and success of the defined equity groups in
higher education – the Department of Education and Training publishes equity
data as part of its higher education student statistics collection on an annual
basis.[11]
The categories of student disadvantage are still based on those listed in A Fair
Chance for All.
Bradley Review
The next key review of participation and performance of
Indigenous students in higher education emerged out of the final report of the Review
of Australian Higher Education (the Bradley Review). Commissioned by then
Minister for Education, Julia Gillard, the Bradley Review attempted to examine
and report on ‘the future direction of the higher education sector, its fitness
for purpose in meeting the needs of the Australian community and the options
for ongoing reform’.[12]
The Bradley Review found that Indigenous students continued
to be ‘vastly underrepresented in higher education’.[13]
No specific recommendations were made regarding what improvements should be
made to higher education funding, structure, or regulation to better support
Indigenous higher education students. Rather, Recommendation 30 of the Bradley
Review urged the Australian Government to:
Regularly review the effectiveness of measures to improve
higher education access and outcomes for Indigenous people in consultation with
the Indigenous Higher Education Advisory Council [an advisory body to
government at the time].[14]
Behrendt Review
The Review of Higher Education
Access and Outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People
(the Behrendt Review) was conducted across 2011 and 2012. In relation to
specific programs, Recommendation 13 of the Behrendt Review specified:
... the Australian Government reform funding for supplementary
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander support programs, including the
Indigenous Support Program and the Indigenous Tutorial Assistance Scheme –
Tertiary Tuition (ITAS-TT), in time for the 2013 academic year, based on the
following design principles:
-
Allow
universities greater flexibility to provide locally relevant, tailored support
for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and staff.
- Target
available funding to achieve an improvement in current enrolment levels but
also with a greater emphasis on retention and completion rates.
- Ensure
that funding would be simple to administer.
- Ensure that funding would
support clear outcome-focused accountability for universities.[15]
It is unclear from the recommendation as to whether this
more flexible approach to funding was meant to extend to a redesign of the
Commonwealth Scholarships Program as well. These recommendations were not
implemented prior to the 2013 federal election.
Reform proposals from 2014 to the present day
Since the election of the Coalition government following the
2013 Federal election, Indigenous policy has continued to attract significant
interest and effort. The National Commission of Audit’s recommendation in
relation to Indigenous programs was that the Australian Government should
undertake the following:
- significantly consolidating
and rationalising Commonwealth Indigenous-specific programmes, bodies,
committees, councils and boards, and ensuring programmes and reporting are
focussed on outcomes. The existing 150 or so Commonwealth Indigenous programmes
and activities should be consolidated into no more than six or seven
programmes;
- redirecting funds from
administrative savings or the termination of less effective programmes to a new
means-tested and needs-based voucher programme to assist Indigenous children
with the costs of attending accredited education and training from early
childhood through to primary school and tertiary education, including fees,
travel and boarding costs;
- establishing over the
next two to three years a new, separate agency for Indigenous Affairs reporting
to the Prime Minister, with responsibility for Commonwealth Indigenous specific
programme delivery, development of a robust evaluation strategy and
coordination with mainstream and specific providers at the Commonwealth and
State levels;
- working directly with the
States to establish new bilateral agreements which clarify and delineate
responsibilities between jurisdictions, are outcomes based with clearly
measurable performance indicators and involve pooled funding where appropriate;
and
- reconfiguring mainstream
services to ensure they are designed and delivered in collaboration with
Indigenous people, with clear reporting requirements on access by Indigenous
people and associated outcomes.[16]
Indigenous Advancement Strategy
The overarching aim of consolidating and rationalising
Australian Government support for Indigenous Australians led to the development
of the Indigenous Advancement Strategy (IAS). Announced in the 2014–15 Budget,
this involved streamlining over 150 existing programs into five streams: jobs,
land and economy; children and schooling; safety and wellbeing; culture and
capability; and remote Australia strategies.[17]
The new IAS was intended to commence from 1 July 2014, soon after the release
of the 2014–15 Budget on 13 May 2014. The Department of the Prime Minister and
Cabinet (P&MC) would have responsibility for implementation and service
delivery following changes to administrative arrangements.
The implementation of the IAS was criticised by provider
groups, the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and the Australian Greens (the
Greens).[18]
In response to that criticism, the tendering arrangements for the IAS were
subject to an inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public
Administration.[19]
Current situation
In May 2016, the Australian Government announced that as
part of the 2016–17 Budget, it would:
consolidate three existing programs from 1 January 2017 to
create a new program to improve progression and completion rates for Indigenous
higher education students. The new program will replace the Commonwealth
Scholarship Program, the Indigenous Support Program and the Indigenous
Tutorial Assistance Scheme — Tertiary Tuition, giving universities more
flexibility to implement responses that best meet the needs of individual
students, for example, by providing scholarships, counselling, and tutorial
assistance.[20]
The news section of the PM&C website advised:
- The Government and
universities have worked together to develop reforms to improve Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander university participation and attainment.
- From 1 January 2017,
universities will have greater capacity to design their scholarships, tutorial
support and other assistance to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
students are on the pathway to success.
- Funding will be provided
to universities through a flexible and outcomes-based model. A special loading
will also recognise the extra needs of the many students coming from remote and
regional Australia.
- Universities will be more
accountable for ensuring that students are not only enrolled, but also
progressing and completing university studies in greater numbers.
- The measure cuts red tape
while promoting the involvement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
in university decisions.
- Special
assistance to the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Territory Education will
also be consolidated through the Department of Education and Training under
this measure. [21]
Key provisions
Existing Indigenous higher education assistance framework
The HESA sets out the funding framework for higher
education in Australia. Chapter 2 of the HESA details who are higher
education providers, and the three kinds of grants that may be made. In
particular, Subdivision 16–B of the HESA deems that those providers who
are listed providers are automatically entitled to receive grants
for higher education assistance. They are categorised into three tables: A,[22]
B[23]
and C.[24]
Other higher education providers must be specifically approved by the Minister
in order to be eligible for funding.
The three types of grants that may be made to higher
education providers are:
- the
Commonwealth Grant Scheme, which provides for subsidised places at public
universities[25]
- a
series of Other Grants, largely designed to support specific needs such as
research, equality of opportunity and student support, capital and
infrastructure provision,[26]
and
- Commonwealth
Scholarships.[27]
As well as being authorised under the HESA,
guidelines exist to further specify the eligibility and conditions associated
with these grants.
The HESA does not currently make specific provision
for assistance to Indigenous students. Separate legislation exists to provide
support for Indigenous students across a variety of education settings. This is
the Indigenous
Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 (IETA).
The key programs designed to support Indigenous students in
higher education operate under both the HESA and the IETA. These
programs are all discretionary and there is no requirement for the Australian
Government to make payments under these programs. Typically each program has a
maximum grant amount authorised by the Minister, which also allows for funding
reductions dependant on government policy of the day.
The programs are as follows:
- the
Indigenous Support Program (ISP) is authorised by the Other Grants Guidelines
(Education) under HESA, and allows for grants to be made directly to
higher education providers to assist with the support they provide to their
Indigenous students[28]
- the
Commonwealth Scholarships Program (CSP) is authorised by the Commonwealth
Scholarships Guidelines (Education) under HESA and allow for payments to
be made to eligible Indigenous students to assist them with the costs of higher
education.[29]
There are two main types of scholarship: Commonwealth Education Costs
Scholarships, and Commonwealth Accommodation Scholarships. Non-Indigenous
students are not currently eligible for Commonwealth Scholarships
- the
Indigenous Tutorial Assistance Scheme – Tertiary Tuition (ITAS–TT), authorised
under the IETA, does not appear to still exist, as there is no public
information on the departmental website and the latest edition of the program
guidelines that could be recovered date from 2012.[30]
Proposed framework
The announcement on the PM&C website and the Minister’s
speech both indicate that consultation with the university sector and with
Indigenous higher education staff assisted in developing these amendments. A
record of this consultation process could not be found on the relevant
departmental websites, and the current Government abolished the Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Higher Education Advisory Council, the formal advisory
body on Indigenous higher education, in the 2015–16 Budget.[31]
The amendments set out key parameters for the operation of
the proposed Indigenous grants. Item 7 of Part 1 in Schedule 1 to the
Bill inserts proposed Part 2–2A into the HESA. The new
Part sets out eligibility for grants,[32]
the approval by the Minister[33]
by way of notifiable instrument,[34]
the conditions that are imposed on a grant by the Minister,[35]
and the limits on the amount of a grant.[36]
In addition, proposed Part 2–2A provides that if a higher education
provider fails to spend an amount of an Indigenous student assistance grant and
the Secretary determines, by notifiable instrument, that proposed section 38–40
is to apply to that provider, then the unspent amount of money is taken to be
granted to the provider under Part 2–2A for the next following year. These
provisions are consistent with those in Part 2–3 of the HESA which deal
with Other Grants.
Eligibility will be restricted to Table A or Table B
providers under the HESA: being the major public and not-for-profit
universities.[37]
Non-university higher education providers and for-profit universities will not
be eligible for the funding. Grants will only be able to be used to assist
Indigenous students to undertake higher education. Proposed subsection
38–10(2) specifies that this assistance may be provided through a variety
of means, including scholarships, academic support and supplementary tuition,
pastoral care, and strategies to accelerate improvements to Indigenous student
outcomes in higher education and fostering culturally-safe learning
environments in higher education. These essentially cover the chief aims of the
existing Indigenous Support Program, Commonwealth Scholarship Program and
Indigenous Tutorial Assistance Scheme – Tertiary Tuition and should allow for a
relatively easy transfer of existing administrative arrangements and funding to
the new grant arrangements.
As with Part 2–3 and Part 2–4 of the HESA, the proposed
Part 2–2A makes these grants discretionary: it is within the power of the
Minister to determine the size of the grant, the grant recipient, and whether
grants will be approved at all.
The use of delegated legislation
Item 12 of Part 1 in Schedule 1 to the Bill amends
subsection 238–10(1) of the HESA to empower the Minister to make
guidelines in relation to Indigenous Student Assistance Grants. The guidelines
may specify particular types of grant, the relevant grant objectives, extra
conditions of eligibility, the maximum grant amount[38]
(and the indexation of that amount in succeeding years), the amount of a grant
(or the method by which the amount is to be determined), the years for which
the grants are payable, and grant conditions.[39]
It is likely these will be similar to existing grant guidelines under the HESA,
however the use of delegated legislation and the probable detail contained
within these resulting guidelines makes it difficult to assess the overall
effectiveness of the proposed grants.
Technical amendments
Items 13–29 of the Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Bill
amend the Social Security Act, the Social Security (Administration)
Act, the Student Assistance Act and the Veterans’ Entitlements
Act to enable Indigenous student assistance grants to be treated in
equivalent terms under those statutes as existing scholarships authorised by
Part 2–4 of the HESA.
Item 16 in Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Bill inserts proposed
subsection 23(24) into the Social Security Act to authorise the
Secretary, by legislative instrument, to specify a scholarship which is a disqualifying
accommodation scholarship or a disqualifying education costs
scholarship. Consistent with that provision, item 15
inserts two new definitions into the Social Security Act. A disqualifying
accommodation scholarship is a scholarship under proposed Part 2–2A of
the HESA and which has been specified by the Secretary under proposed
subsection 23(24). A Commonwealth Accommodation Scholarship is also a
disqualifying accommodation scholarship.
Similarly, a disqualifying education costs scholarship
is a scholarship under proposed Part 2–2A of the HESA and which has been
specified by the Secretary under proposed subsection 23(24). A Commonwealth
Education Costs Scholarship is also a disqualifying education costs scholarship.
Items 17–21 make consequential amendments to the Social
Security Act to replace existing references to Commonwealth Education Costs
Scholarship with references to disqualifying education costs scholarship and
existing references to Commonwealth Accommodation Scholarship with references
to disqualifying accommodation scholarship.
The remaining items in Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Bill
amend other statutes to make references to the two new definitions.
The amendments in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Bill are
contingent on the commencement of the provisions in Schedule 11 to Budget Savings
(Omnibus) Act 2016, which are due to commence on 1 July 2017.[40]
Schedule 11 of the Budget Savings (Omnibus) Act removes grandfathering
arrangements for current recipients of the Student Start-Up Scholarship,
terminating that benefit.[41]
While the substance of those amendments is not relevant to the Bill, the
structural changes they will make to provisions in the Social Security Act
and the Student Assistance Act (basically removing subsections from two
sections) mean that amendments to the same provisions by the Bill (to change
references to ‘Commonwealth Education Costs Scholarship’ to ‘disqualifying
education costs scholarship’) will need to be framed differently depending on
whether the changes to provision structure proposed by Schedule 11 of the Budget
Savings (Omnibus) Act have been made.
As set out above, Part 1 of Schedule 1 will commence on a
proclaimed date or six months after Royal Assent, whichever is earlier. If Part
1 of Schedule 1 commences before 1 July 2017, such that the amendments made by
Schedule 11 of the Budget Savings (Omnibus) Act have not been made, then
the Bill’s amendments can refer to the provisions of the Social Security Act
and the Student Assistance Act as they currently stand (as above, with
the relevant sections divided into subsections). In this circumstance, the
amendments set out in Division 2 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 are in the correct
format and will commence at the same time as Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Bill.
In that situation, the amendments in Division 1 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 will
not be needed and will not commence.
On the other hand, if the Budget Savings (Omnibus) Act
commences before Schedule 1 to the Bill, the subsections will have been removed
from the relevant sections of the Social Security Act and the Student
Assistance Act and the amendments set out in Division 1 of Part 2 of
Schedule 1 are in the correct format and will commence at the same time as Part
1 of Schedule 1 to the Bill. In that situation, the amendments in Division 2
of Part 2 of Schedule 1 will not be needed and will not commence.
Key issue— performance of Indigenous students in higher
education
Measuring performance in higher education
The performance of disadvantaged groups in higher
education can be measured against five different criteria: participation,
access, retention, success and completion/attainment.[42]
These are the terms used in the departmental data on disadvantaged students in
higher education, such as Indigenous students, and are current throughout
research on higher education student performance:
- participation
refers to the numbers of students in higher education and is measured by
ascertaining whether there are more members of the given group than there were
in the previous year. It allows a comparison with the broader population. For
example, if only 1.5 per cent of the overall higher education student cohort
was Indigenous, but three per cent of the Australian population was Indigenous,
it could be argued that Indigenous students were underrepresented in higher
education
- access
refers to the numbers of commencing students in higher education and is
measured by ascertaining whether there are more members of the given group
starting higher education than there were in the previous year. It allows a
better understanding of whether certain policies or programs may be changing
whether new students can access higher education
- retention
refers to the students who continue their studies from the previous year.
Retention metrics are fairly crude as students may take a year off formal
study, undertake cross-institutional study (but only be ‘enrolled’ at one
institution), or transfer to another university
- success
measures academic performance by comparing the effective full time student load
of units passed to the number of units attempted
- completion/attainment
refers both to the number of completions (of qualifications) in a given year,
as well as to the rate attained by the equity group. For example, one per cent
of all completions at a given institution may be from Indigenous students: this
is their attainment rate. This also allows for an examination of whether this
amounts to an underrepresentation compared with the broader cohort of
completions, but it does not take cohort effects into account.
Much of this data can be expressed in rate (percentage) or
ratio forms, as well as raw figures. Ratios are particularly useful as they
compare the performance of the equity group with the performance of the overall
cohort: an Indigenous success ratio of 1.0, for example, indicates that
Indigenous students are just as likely to pass their units of study as
non-Indigenous students. A ratio of less than 1.0 indicates comparative
underperformance, and a ratio of greater than 1.0 indicates comparative
over-performance.
Assessing Indigenous performance in higher education
A key difficulty in assessing the benefit of the
amendments proposed in Schedule 1 to the Bill is that there is no clear metric
against which to judge success. Indeed, as discussed above, there are multiple
ways of assessing performance in higher education. Importantly, there have been
two major policy reviews, each with different proposed indicators for
Indigenous performance, and each without a clear and coherent relationship to
government policy.
As part of its findings, the Bradley Review suggested a
series of benchmarks for Indigenous students in higher education:
proportionality for Indigenous student access rates, through comparison
with the broader Indigenous population aged between 15 to 64 years; for
Indigenous students to reach at least 95 per cent of the success rates as those for non-Indigenous
students; and for Indigenous students to reach at least 90 per cent of the retention and completion
rates as those for non-Indigenous students.[43]
As these were findings rather than recommendations, they fell out of the scope
of the formal government response to the Bradley Review.[44]
The Behrendt Review provided Indigenous views on ‘what
works’ and also recommended a national participation target for Indigenous
staff and students in higher education, based on the 2.2 per cent of the
population aged between 15 and 64 years that identified as Aboriginal or Torres
Strait Islander at the time of the Review, with this figure to be updated in
line with new census data.[45]
Rather than require hard targets to be set by the Australian Government, the
Behrendt Review recommended that individual universities adopt their own
targets for retention and completion, based on the ideal of parity between
Indigenous and non-Indigenous students, but recognising the demographics of
their own institutions and the makeup of specific disciplines where Indigenous
students may currently be underrepresented.[46]
The then Minister referred to the Review as a ‘roadmap’ but did not appear to
formally accept the recommendations.[47]
So what can we say about the performance of Indigenous
students in higher education? The higher education statistics collection,
maintained by the Department of Education and Training provides a guide.
Table 1: Access rates, Australia-wide, for Indigenous
domestic students in higher education, 2009 to 2015
|
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
Access rate (%) |
1.61 |
1.58 |
1.63 |
1.65 |
1.69 |
1.75 |
1.88 |
Source: Adapted from Department of Education and Training (DET),
‘2015 appendix 5 – equity
performance data’, DET website, published 23 August 2016.
The access rates can be contrasted with Australian Bureau
of Statistics (ABS) data. While a strict comparison is not possible (higher
education data runs on an academic year basis, and ABS statistics are on a
financial year basis) it does provide some grounds to assess whether the
proportional representation of Indigenous students has increased, decreased, or
stayed the same.
Table 2: Estimated and projected population rates, for
Indigenous Australians between 15–64 years, 2010–11 to 2014–15
|
2010–11 |
2011–12 |
2012–13 |
2013–14 |
2014–15 |
Indigenous Australians, as proportion of total
population aged between 15 and 64 (%) |
2.7 |
2.8 |
2.8 |
2.8 |
2.9 |
Source: Adapted from Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Estimates and projections, Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Australians, 2001 to 2026, cat. no. 3238.0, ABS,
Canberra, 2014; and ABS, Australian demographic statistics, Mar 2016,
cat. no. 3101.0, ABS, Canberra, 2016.
Though there has been improvement in access rates since
2009, it can be seen that the proportion of Indigenous students commencing in
higher education as given by the access rate remains lower than the proportion
of Australians aged between 15 and 64 years who identify as Indigenous. This
indicates that Indigenous Australians continue to be underrepresented in higher
education.
Ratios also allow a quick understanding of whether parity
has been achieved, as a ratio of 1.0 will indicate that the Indigenous cohort
performs as well as the non-Indigenous cohort.
Table 3: Ratios for Retention and Success, Australia-wide,
for Indigenous domestic students in higher education, 2009 to 2015
|
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
Retention ratio |
0.85 |
0.86 |
0.85 |
0.87 |
0.89 |
0.89 |
- |
Success ratio |
0.79 |
0.82 |
0.81 |
0.83 |
0.84 |
0.84 |
0.84 |
Source:
Adapted from DET, ‘2015 appendix 5 – equity performance data’, DET website, published 23
August 2016. Retention ratios for 2015 are not available as the 2016 academic
year is not yet complete.
There has been some increase in the retention and success
ratios, indicating that a greater proportion of Indigenous higher education
students are continuing with their studies year on year at the same
institution, and completing their units of study. In a broader context of
increased access rates (more Indigenous students in the higher education
system) that may be expected. However, contrasted against the aspirations of
the Bradley Review, retention rates do not quite meet the 90 per cent
benchmark, which would be represented by a 0.9, nor do success rates meet the
proposed benchmark of 95 per cent (0.95).
The main issue is that the causes of the (admittedly
small) improvements in Indigenous higher education performance over the last
few years are unclear. While not using the same set of statistics, the Review
of the Demand Driven Funding System in 2014 found that what improvements
there were to Indigenous participation between 2002 and 2012 were likely
attributable to both the removal of caps on the number of undergraduate places,
and higher education programs designed to support Indigenous, low
socio-economic status students, and regional students.[48]
Working out the attribution of this mix of policies and their effect on
Indigenous higher education performance is challenging.
Rationale for program consolidation
As per the Assistant Minister’s second reading speech, the
stated rationale for the proposed amendments is the 2016–17 Budget measure, Indigenous
Student Success in Higher Education.[49]
The original recommendation of the Behrendt Review to consolidate Indigenous
programs and encourage more flexibility in how the funding was used is not
acknowledged in the speech.
It is also unclear what relationship exists between the
existing Indigenous programs and Indigenous performance in higher education to
date: the Behrendt Review refers to an internal departmental analysis of
selected Indigenous higher education programs, prepared to support the Behrendt
Review’s deliberations, but this internal review remains unpublished.[50]
If existing higher education performance cannot be clearly traced back to the
current Indigenous programs, it is difficult to know if program consolidation
will achieve anything different.
Schedule 2—HELP information management
The nature of student loans
The Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) has received
significant scrutiny from government, think tanks and media outlets in recent
years. HELP consists of five types of income-contingent loans, allowing
students in higher education and vocational education and training to defer
costs associated with their studies. The Australian Government instead pays the
relevant cost, and the student repays the debt to the government through the
taxation system when they reach a set income threshold.
The Australian Government lists HELP debt as an asset as
part of the budget papers, as there is an assumption that a HELP debt will be
repaid. The budget papers give the fair value of HELP debt, a figure which aims
to take into account bad and doubtful debts and deferral costs. The estimated
fair value of HELP debt in 2015–16 was given as $37.1 billion at 30 June 2016,
with it expected to increase to $69.2 billion by the end of the forward
estimates (2019–20).[51]
As the doubtful debt increases (that is, debts unlikely to be repaid) this has
an impact on the assumed underlying cash balance, as there will be fewer
repayments made to government and the value of the HELP debt will continue to
be downgraded.
Concern about the debt profile of income-contingent loans is
not a new phenomenon.[52]
However, there are structural reasons why some HELP debt will never be repaid,
as compulsory repayment is based on an individual’s given income. Repayment may
not occur because the debtor spends significant time outside of the workforce,
due to unemployment, parenting or other caring responsibilities, or leaving the
Australian taxation system by going overseas. A student debt arises as soon as
a student takes out a loan in order to access higher education: outstanding
student debts are written off at death.[53]
Improvement of the structure of the scheme
In a 2014 analysis, the Grattan Institute identified that
due to the structure of the HELP scheme, certain professions (and female
workers) were less likely to repay their student loans, as their typical
earnings would be less than the threshold at which loans were repaid.[54]
In order to address these design issues, the Grattan Institute recommended
three key reforms to the HELP scheme:
- lowering
the repayment threshold so as to capture more students with outstanding HELP
loans
- collecting
HELP debt from overseas debtors and
- ending
the HELP debt write-off that occurs upon death.[55]
Lowering the repayment threshold was first proposed by the
Australian Government as part of broader changes to higher education in the
2014–15 Budget.[56]
The other HELP reforms proposed at that time were to increase the interest rate
on outstanding debts to better reflect the costs to government of underwriting
student loans, and to remove the HECS-HELP benefit, which provides an incentive
for graduates of particular courses to take up related occupations or work in
specified locations by reducing their compulsory HELP repayments. These reforms
would have had the result of requiring students to pay more to service their
outstanding debts over time and to pay off their debts at a lower wage point
than currently. The overall package of reforms was twice rejected by the
Parliament.[57]
Extending the HELP scheme to overseas debtors was first
flagged in the 2015–16 Budget and resulted in legislative reform in late 2015.[58]
Two of the original 2014–15 Budget reforms, lowering the repayment threshold
and removing the HECS-HELP benefit, were subsequently included in the Budget
Savings (Omnibus) Bill 2016, which was enacted following agreement between the
Government and the Opposition.[59]
These changes essentially mean that more students will be required to repay
their HELP debts earlier in their working lives.
Problems arising from program administration
While these reforms addressed structural aspects of the
scheme’s design that would otherwise increase outstanding HELP debt, analysis
undertaken by the Parliamentary Budget Office in April 2016 found that the
largest increases to the underlying cash balance were driven by policy
decisions in 2009 and 2012 to expand HELP loans to a greater pool of students
and providers.[60]
These policy parameters are still in place, meaning outstanding HELP debt will
likely continue to increase.
The Parliamentary Budget Office pointed to the implications
of policy decisions in assessing the sustainability of HELP debt. While not
directly connected to the budgetary impact of student debt, in May 2016 the
Australian National Audit Office released a review of the performance of the
Department of Education and Training and the Australian Taxation Office in
administering the HELP scheme.[61]
The performance review concluded:
The Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) is a mature program,
based on a solid foundation of collecting student loan debt through the income
tax system. Nevertheless, there is scope for the ATO and Education to make
meaningful improvements to important aspects of the program’s administration.
In particular, the program does not have a robust program of evaluation and
review based on rigorous analysis of sound data. Program performance measures
and reporting reflect a primary focus on access and there is limited
measurement of the sustainability of the program despite Education’s projection
that HELP debt will total almost $200 billion in 2024–25 and almost one-third
of this debt will not be collected. In addition to a lack of focus on examining
the growth in HELP debt to support policy design, there is no risk-based
strategy to target compliance efforts; the ATO and Education are not fulfilling
their broader program risk management responsibilities; and the controls for
recording students’ HELP debts need to be improved.[62]
Two key recommendations were made about the information
available to support program monitoring, including public transparency of HELP
outcomes:
Recommendation No. 4: To support the design of HELP and
better inform key stakeholders in the higher education sector, the ANAO
recommends that Education and the ATO expand the information provided publicly
to include a broader range of information such as the growth in HELP debt and
collection of repayments, overall and for the separate HELP programs.
Recommendation No. 5: To enable informed decision making
regarding HELP, the ANAO recommends that Education more fully analyses
characteristics of debt and repayments, and consider this information to inform
program design.[63]
In response to both these recommendations, the Department
of Education and Training indicated that the Australian Government had approved
the creation of an enhanced HELP database in November 2015, allowing for
records held by the Department of Education and Training, the ATO and the
Australian Government Actuary to be matched.[64]
The Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill states that the proposed amendments are
designed to enable a HELP data improvement project, likely the enhanced HELP
database referred to above.[65]
Improving the administration of the HELP scheme
The existing information sharing regime
Existing Part 5–4 of the HESA relates to the
management of information, including the disclosure and use of Higher
Education Support Act information for certain purposes. The definition
encompasses personal information for both higher education and VET students, as
well as information received through surveys of students, and information obtained
or created by a Commonwealth officer for the purposes of the HESA in
certain circumstances.[66]
Existing Part 5–5 of the HESA requires students to
notify the appropriate officer of their higher education provider, or Open
Universities Australia, and the Secretary of their tax file number. Within Part
5–5 of the HESA, section 190–1 authorises the Commissioner of Taxation
to give written notice of the tax file number of a student to a higher
education provider, Open Universities Australia and the Secretary. Essentially
then, there is a flow of information to ensure that information which is
relevant to the recovery of a HELP debt is available. However, under the HESA
as it currently stands, the treatment of tax file number information is dealt
with differently depending on whether the student is in higher education or
vocational education and training. Unlike the provisions of Part 5–4 and 5–5, Schedule
1A of the HESA, which deals with loans for students in vocational
education and training, does not include a requirement that VET students are to
provide their tax file number to the Secretary of the Department of Education
and Training, nor allow the Commissioner of Taxation to provide tax file
numbers to the Secretary. As the student loans schemes are based on repayment
through the taxation system, ensuring the adequate exchange of information
between the Australian Taxation Office, policy and regulatory agents would
likely support better administration of the scheme and improved repayment of
outstanding student debt.
Key provisions
The proposed amendments aim to expand and improve the
existing information disclosure regime under the HESA. Item 2 of
Schedule 2 to the Bill inserts proposed section 180–28 into the HESA.
In particular proposed subsection 180–28(6) defines the term HELP
program. This definition provides clarification that the amended
information disclosure regime is intended to assist in the development of the
Commonwealth Grant Scheme (authorised under Part 2–2 of the HESA), and
the various student loan programs (authorised under Chapter 3, Chapter 4 and
Schedule 1A). As these are the most significant financial outlays under the HESA,
the focus on these programs is not surprising.
Proposed subsection 180–28(5) specifies that
the purposes of information disclosure or use now cover policy formation,
financial planning and projection, program design and conducting research. Item
1 amends existing paragraph 180–5(d) to ensure that the current information
sharing regime under the HESA, referred to above, takes into account
these purposes.
So now that the definition of what information sharing may
be allowed under the HESA and the purposes for which information can be
shared have been clarified by these amendments, the new definition of the HELP
program Commonwealth officer in proposed subsection 180–28(7)
provides clarity about who is authorised to undertake the sharing. As a whole, proposed
section 180–28 enables the Secretary, Commissioner of Taxation,
or other Commonwealth officer specified by the Minister to disclose information
under the newly expanded section 180–5 for the purposes set out in proposed
subsection 180–28(5). In addition, the provision allows the Secretary to
disclose a student’s tax file number to the Commissioner of Taxation, and for
the Commissioner to use this tax file number for the relevant purpose. Section
184–1 provides a simplified outline of Part 5–5 of the HESA, which deals
with tax file numbers. Item 3 replaces the part of section 184–1 that
sets out bodies to which the Commissioner may disclose tax file numbers.
Currently, section 184–1 provides that the Commissioner may notify higher
education providers or Open Universities Australia of matters relating to tax
file numbers. The amendment made by item 3 will also provide for disclosure to
the Secretary.
Items 5–17 of Schedule 2 to the Bill amend Schedule
1A of the HESA, which deals with the VET FEE-HELP Assistance Scheme. Items
5 to 7 deal with the tax file requirements in relation to vocational
education and training student loans. These amendments ensure the tax file
requirements for this type of loan are consistent with other student loans
under the HELP scheme. Items 9–17 make consequential amendments to
various clauses in Schedule 1A of the HESA to allow disclosure of tax
file numbers to the Secretary.
Key issue: whether there is a problem with HELP
As noted previously, there are no clear outcomes associated
with student loan programs.[67]
The fair value of HELP debt is increasing, but questions remain as to whether
that is an issue: an income-contingent loan program such as HELP will always
involve some debts remaining unpaid, as some debtors will invariably be
underemployed, unemployed, or employed in low wage professions.
The proposed technical changes are intended to allow for
better monitoring of HELP debt levels, but do not answer the fundamental
question as to what level of HELP debt is deemed acceptable by government. That
question will need to be answered before the long-term benefit of these
amendments can be truly ascertained.
Concluding comments
What can the Australian Government do to increase the
performance of the higher education sector? Indigenous students are not reaching
parity in terms of their participation in the system, or their outcomes.
Student loan debt is increasing. Administrative reforms such as those contained
in this Bill often fail to address the fundamental connections between that
question and the measures proposed. The relationship between the current system
settings (three different Indigenous support programs, existing HELP scheme
design) and current system performance is unclear, so methods to improve on
existing performance are equally unclear.
Further, without greater clarity and transparency such as
a stated target for Indigenous higher education student performance, or a
benchmark for student loan debt, it is difficult to know what the government is
aiming for. The proposed amendments will very likely improve administration of
the relevant programs, but there is no obvious method to test their success in
the longer-term.
[1]. Senate
Standing Committee for the Selection of Bills, Report,
6, 2016, The Senate, 15 September 2016.
[2]. Senate
Standing Committee for the Selection of Bills, Report,
7, 2016, The Senate, 13 October 2016.
[3]. J
Hare, ‘Equity
funding model devolves’, The Australian, 26 October 2016,
p. 30.
[4]. Ibid.
[5]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (2016 Measures
No. 1) Bill 2016, p. 1.
[6]. The
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights can be found at pages 36 to 47 of
the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill.
[7]. Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report,
7, 2016, The Senate, Canberra, 11 October 2016, p. 99.
[8]. P
Baldwin (Minister for Employment and Education Services), A
fair chance for all, media release, 16 May 1990.
[9]. Ibid.
[10]. Ibid.
See Department of Education, Employment and Training, A
fair chance for all: national and institutional planning for equity in higher
education: a discussion paper, Canberra, AGPS, February 1990 for
background to the development of the announced policy.
[11]. See
Department of Education and Training (DET), ‘2015 appendix 2 – equity groups’
DET website, published 23 August 2016; and DET, ‘2015 appendix 5 – equity
performance data’, DET website, published 23 August 2016, for the
latest dataset.
[12]. D
Bradley, Review
of Australian higher education: final report, (the Bradley Review),
‘Appendix I: terms of reference’, Department of Education, Employment and
Workplace Relations, Canberra, December 2008, p. 205.
[13]. Ibid.,
p. 32.
[14]. Ibid.,
p. xxiii.
[15]. L
Behrendt, Review
of higher education access and outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander people: final report, (the Behrendt Review), Department of
Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education, Canberra, July
2012, p. 78.
[16]. National
Commission of Audit, Towards
responsible government: phase one, ‘Part B: recommendation 35: Indigenous
programmes’, National Commission of Audit, Canberra, February 2014, p. 177.
[17]. Australian
Government, ‘Part 2: expense measures’, Budget
measures: budget paper no. 2: 2014–15, p. 185. See also Department of
Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C), ‘Indigenous
advancement strategy’, PM&C website.
[18]. See
P Karvelas, ‘Minister
denies funding furore’, The Australian, 6 November 2014,
p. 4; S Neumann (Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs) and W Snowdon (Shadow
Parliamentary Secretary for Indigenous Affairs), Confusion
around indigenous funding, joint media release,
10 November 2014; R Siewert (Australian Greens spokesperson on
Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islander issues), Prime
Minister needs to reflect on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues
following Social Justice Commissioner’s report, media release,
27 November 2014.
[19]. Senate
Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration, ‘Commonwealth
Indigenous Advancement Strategy tendering processes’, Inquiry homepage.
[20]. Australian
Government, ‘Part 2: expense measures’, Budget
measures: budget paper no. 2: 2016–17, pp. 136–7.
[21]. PM&C,
‘2016
–17 budget: Indigenous student success in higher education’, PM&C
website, 6 May 2016.
[22]. HESA,
section 16–15.
[23]. HESA,
section 16–20.
[24]. HESA,
section 16–22.
[25]. HESA,
Part 2–2.
[26]. HESA,
Part 2–3.
[27]. HESA,
Part 2–4.
[28]. See
PM&C, ‘Indigenous
Support Program,’ PM&C website for explanatory material. The program is
authorised under sections 1.15 through 1.35.10 of the Other Grants
Guidelines (Education) 2012.
[29]. See
PM&C, ‘Commonwealth
Scholarships Programme (for university students)’, PM&C website for
explanatory material. The program is authorised under Chapter 2 of the Commonwealth
Scholarships Guidelines (Education) 2010.
[30]. The
latest Indigenous
Tutorial Assistance Scheme – Tertiary Tuition (ITAS–TT) program guidelines
relate to the 2009–2012 funding cycle, with a placeholder page available on the
Department of Education and Training website. Subsequently, the program would
have been transferred to the then Department of Industry, Innovation, Science,
Research and Tertiary Education and its successor departments under the Gillard
and Rudd governments from late 2011 to late 2013. Responsibility for Indigenous
higher education was subsequently transferred to the Department of the Prime
Minister and Cabinet but no reference to the ITAS–TT scheme can be found on the
departmental website.
[31]. M
Cormann (Minister for Finance), Smaller
government – transforming the public sector, media release,
11 May 2015. For a listing of the work of the Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Higher Education Advisory Council, see DET, ‘Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Higher Education’, DET website, last modified 11
December 2015.
[32]. HESA,
proposed section 38–10.
[33]. HESA,
proposed section 38–20.
[34]. Under
section 7 of the Legislation
Act 2003, notifiable instruments are not subject to Parliamentary
scrutiny. Nor are they subject to automatic repeal 10 years after registration.
[35]. HESA,
proposed section 38–25 and proposed section 38–45.
[36]. HESA,
proposed section 38–30.
[37]. HESA,
proposed subsection 38–10(1).
[38]. Item
11 of Part 1 in Schedule 1 to the Bill amends subsection 238–5(1) of the HESA
so that the Minister’s power to determine maximum payments for grants
cannot be delegated to the Secretary or an APS employee.
[39]. HESA,
proposed section 38–15.
[40]. Budget Savings
(Omnibus) Act 2016.
[41]. N
Gupta, K Swoboda, D Weight, P Pyburne, A St John, D Arthur, A Biggs, L
Buckmaster, D Daniels, A Grove, M Harrington, M Klapdor, M Thomas, Budget
Savings (Omnibus) Bill 2016, Bills digest, 7, 2016–17, Parliamentary
Library, Canberra, 2016, pp. 11 and 37–40.
[42]. See
DET, ‘2015 appendix 5–equity performance data’, op. cit., for an example of how
these concepts are used in the official departmental statistics. The
definitions in this section are also adapted from the departmental notes
provided in that spreadsheet. For a broader discussion of these criteria and
the issues involved in assessing the performance of disadvantaged students see
A Harvey, ed., Student
equity in higher education: twenty-five years of a fair chance for all,
Springer, Singapore, 2016.
[43]. Bradley,
Review of Australian higher education, op. cit., pp. xxvi–xxvii.
[44]. For
the government’s response to the Bradley Review, see Department of Education,
Employment and Workplace Relations, Transforming
Australia’s higher education system, Department of Education,
Employment and Workplace Relations, Canberra, 2009. Appendix 3 lists the
Bradley Review Recommendations and the Government’s position. Note the
findings, including potential benchmarks for Indigenous participation in higher
education, were not included.
[45]. Behrendt,
Review of higher education access and outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander people, ‘Recommendation 1’, op. cit., p. 13.
[46]. Ibid,
‘Recommendation 2’, p. 14.
[47]. C
Evans (Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research), Higher
education blueprint to boost Indigenous graduates, media release,
14 September 2012.
[48]. Prior
to 2012, universities were allocated a set number of undergraduate places, as
per agreements between the Australian Government and individual institutions.
These caps were removed through the introduction of what was termed ‘the demand
driven system’, which allowed universities to accept as many students as they
wanted, in line with their own individual applications processes and academic
standards. For more information, see D Kemp and A Norton, Review
of the demand driven funding system, Department of Education, Canberra,
2014. The finding in relation to improvements in Indigenous higher education
performance is on p. 43.
[49]. K
Andrews, ‘Second
reading speech: Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (2016 Measures
No. 1) Bill 2016’, House of Representatives, Debates, 15 September
2016, p. 1041.
[50]. Mentioned
in Behrendt, Review of higher education access and outcomes for Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander people, op. cit., at endnote DEEWR (2011k), p.
264. Excerpts are used throughout the Behrendt Review.
[51]. Australian
Government, ‘Statement 6: debt statement, assets and liabilities’, Budget
strategy and outlook: budget paper no. 1: 2016–17,
pp. 6–22 and 6–23.
[52]. For
policy history on HELP design and debt issues, see J Griffiths, Education
Legislation Amendment (Overseas Debt Recovery) Bill 2015 [and] Student Loans
(Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Bill 2015, Bills digest, 43, 2015–16,
Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 10 November 2015.
[53]. Higher Education
Support Act 2003 (Cth), section 137–20.
[54]. A
Norton, Doubtful
debt: the rising cost of student loans, Grattan Institute, Melbourne, April
2014.
[55]. Ibid.
[56]. Australian
Government, ‘Higher
education’, Budget 2014–15, 13 May 2014, p. 1.
[57]. For
analysis of the relevant legislation, please see C Ey, Higher
Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014, Bills digest, 33,
2014–15, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 8 October 2014, and J
Griffiths, Higher
Education and Research Reform Bill 2014, Bills digest, 69, 2014–15,
Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2014.
[58]. Australian
Government, ‘Part 1. Revenue measures’, Budget measures: budget paper no. 2:
2015–16, p. 9. For background information on HELP reform in the previous
Parliament see J Griffiths, ‘Sustainability
of HECS–HELP’, Budget Review 2015–16, Research paper, Parliamentary
Library, Canberra, May 2015, pp. 54–55; and J Griffiths, Education
Legislation Amendment (Overseas Debt Recovery) Bill 2015 [and] Student Loans
(Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Bill 2015, Bills digest, 43, 2015–16,
Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 10 November 2015.
[59]. Parliament
of Australia, ‘Budget
Savings (Omnibus) Bill 2016 homepage’, Australian Parliament website.
[60]. Parliamentary
Budget Office (PBO), Higher
Education Loan Programme: supplementary analysis, ‘Figure 1’,
Supplement to report, 2, 2016, PBO, Canberra, 2016.
[61]. Australian
National Audit Office (ANAO), Administration
of Higher Education Loan Program debt and repayments, Report, 31,
2015–16, ANAO, Canberra, 5 May 2016.
[62]. Ibid.,
pp. 7–8.
[63]. Ibid.,
p. 10.
[64]. Ibid,
paragraph 5.29, p. 65.
[65]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (2016 Measures
No. 1) Bill 2016, p. 27.
[66]. HESA,
Division 180, Part 5–4 of Chapter 5.
[67]. This
section echoes previous analysis in J Griffiths, Education
Legislation Amendment (Overseas Debt Recovery) Bill 2015 [and] Student Loans
(Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Bill 2015, Bills digest, 43, 2015–16,
Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 10 November 2015.
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.
Disclaimer: Bills Digests are prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament. They are produced under time and resource constraints and aim to be available in time for debate in the Chambers. The views expressed in Bills Digests do not reflect an official position of the Australian Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion. Bills Digests reflect the relevant legislation as introduced and do not canvass subsequent amendments or developments. Other sources should be consulted to determine the official status of the Bill.
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 Enquiry Point for referral.