Chapter 2 - Issues arising from the Bill
1.1
Submissions and evidence before the Committee
raised a number of issues in relation to the bill. In broad terms, the
Committee considered whether public funds to support degree programs were
satisfactory; and whether such funds would, if the bill is enacted, be used to
support institutions with selection procedures which may have a discriminatory
effect. The Committee concluded that the degree programs in the four
institutions are satisfactory, and that their selection procedures are not
discriminatory.
1.2
Specific issues raised included:
- whether public funds should be used to support
private higher education institutions;
- why these four institutions had been selected
for PELS eligibility ahead of other, similar institutions;
- whether private, self-accrediting institutions
should be treated differently to private institutions which are not
self-accrediting;
- whether there are sufficient safeguards to
ensure the academic standards of the four institutions;
-
whether the four institutions should meet a
higher standard of administrative accountability; and
- whether any of the institutions have admission
selection procedures which may result in discrimination;
1.3
This chapter deals with the concerns raised in
respect of each of these matters.
Public funding of private
education providers
1.4
Some evidence before the Committee expressed a
view that public funding should not be used to fund private higher education
institutions. Some organisations take a consistent philosophical view that the
public higher education sector should be primarily state funded, and that no
public funding should be extended to private or religious institutions. Those
organisations would oppose the purpose of this bill.
1.5
Other evidence argued that the extension of PELS
to students at the four institutions does not primarily constitute funding to
private institutions. The Christian Heritage College, for instance, stated
that ‘PELS is primarily a benefit to the student rather than a subsidy to the
institution.’[1]
Similarly, Bond University stated that ‘we are not talking about a public
subsidy to the university, we are talking about access to loans for the
student.’[2]
Finally, the Department of Education, Science and Training stated that ‘the
subsidy goes to the students, not the institutions.’[3]
1.6
The PELS scheme is designed to provide a benefit
to the student. It enables some students – those who would otherwise be unable
to pay the fees associated with a course – to enrol at the institutions. The
institution is then paid fees which, in the absence of PELS, it would not
receive. PELS therefore removes a barrier to entry for some students. Dr
Bruce Chapman noted that ‘You would expect that the number of students
interested in undertaking these courses will go up because they do not need to
find the money up front.’[4]
Dr Chapman claims that this is likely to increase demand and therefore deliver
two benefits to the institutions: the benefit of increased enrolments and
therefore increased revenue from fees; and the capacity to raise prices,
because as demand increases, the price at which the education ‘market’ will
clear, also increases.
1.7
Put simply, while PELS is a subsidy to the
student, it is a subsidy provided for the specific purpose of transacting
business with the education provider. The Committee majority agrees that the
institution is likely to obtain an economic benefit as a result, but it notes
also the response of the Australian Council of Private Education and Training
(ACPET) to the implication that private institutions would raise their fees in
line with the practice of public universities. ACPET stated that increased
access to PELS would help to contain fees by increasing the choices available
to students.[5]
The Committee majority takes the view that the philosophy of the religious
institutions subject to this bill makes it unlikely that large fee rises would
occur. These institutions seek to pursue a religious mission rather than to
generate a profit, and are therefore less likely to react to market circumstances
by increasing their fees.
1.8
While the Committee understands the
philosophical position expressed by CAPA, the Committee majority considers that
there is nothing inherently wrong with the provision of public funds for
private higher education institutions. The Government’s Higher Education at
the Crossroads review discusses the issue of public funding of private
institutions.[6]
1.9
The Committee majority also notes evidence that
these institutions are expected to provide teachers, counsellors, clergy and
members of other vocations of public benefit. Providing funding to these
private education providers provides:
... the opportunity for the government to expand higher education
places at marginal cost. It also addresses areas of need such as teacher and
nurse provision. As such, it looks like a very good piece of public policy to
encourage private provision, to encourage additional places and free up the
pressure on the public sector.[7]
1.10
The Committee majority supports this view, and
supports the use of these funds to assist institutions which train teachers and
nurses who then spend their careers providing services to the community.
Selection of the four
institutions
1.11
The Committee notes that there are at least 89
private higher education institutions in Australia. A small number of these
are already included under the Higher Education Funding Act 1988, but
the majority are not. This bill proposes to extend PELS to students of just
four of the remaining private education institutions. The Department of
Education, Science and Training gave the following rationale for this
limitation:
The government made that commitment in response to some
anomalies and priorities that had been brought to their attention. The need for
self-accrediting universities or institutions to be on a level playing field
was one aspect. To provide access to teaching for the Christian school sector
was another one. They were the priorities that the government settled on and
committed to in their election platform.[8]
1.12
MCD and Bond University are the only two
self-accrediting institutions not recognised by Commonwealth legislation. CHC
and Tabor College are providers of Christian teacher education and training.
This bill, if enacted, would address some anomalies in this sector while assisting
to assure the supply of suitably qualified teachers in schools with a religious
mission.
1.13
The relevant element of the government’s
election platform, to which the Department referred, was the following
statement by then Education Minister, Dr David Kemp MP, prior to the 2001
federal election:
In addition, the Coalition is announcing two new initiatives.
We will [...] provide the same arrangements as apply currently to the University
of Notre Dame to Bond University, the Melbourne College of Divinity, Christian
Heritage College and Tabor College by including them within the framework of
the Higher Education Funding Act 1988 (HEFA) while maintaining their ability to
have fee paying students.[9]
1.14
The Committee noted that the Government
responded to the strong case put, prior to the election, for supporting the
work of these institutions. The Committee noted evidence that other private
higher education institutions may also wish to obtain access to PELS. For
instance, the Australian Council for Private Education and Training stated:
We see [the extension of PELS to the four institutions] not as
the end of the process but as the establishment of a very important principle,
because we think that all students enrolled or who wish to enrol in higher
education private providers should have the opportunity of accessing such
schemes.[10]
1.15
The Australian College of Theology, in its
submission, called for PELS to be extended to its students in the same manner
as for students at the four institutions:
We believe that the extension of the scheme represents an
incremental change to funding of higher education in Australia that in time
should be extended to the other duly accredited higher education providers in
the private sector like the Australian College of Theology.[11]
1.16
The Committee recognises that the terms of this
bill relate specifically to the promise made by Dr Kemp prior to the last
election. The Committee notes that any extension of PELS to students of other
institutions would require further amendment of the Higher Education Funding
Act 1988 and would therefore be likely to be subject to close consideration
by the Senate, and by this Committee. These matters are being debated in the Crossroads
review.
1.17
Finally, the Committee notes the progress of the
Government’s Crossroads review. While the Committee hopes that the
evidence which this inquiry has placed on the public record will be useful to
the Crossroads review, the Committee does not intend that its
recommendations should be regarded as precedents for the Crossroads
review. In this report, the Committee has considered the current bill on its
merits. This report relates to the four institutions listed in the bill, and
not the funding of private higher education institutions generally.
Institutional categories
1.18
Two of the institutions named in this bill, Bond
University and the Melbourne College of Divinity, are self-accrediting
institutions. That is, they are established under Acts of Parliament (the Bond
University Act 1988 (Qld) and the Melbourne College of Divinity Act 1910
(Vic) respectively), are able to accredit their own degree programs and
other courses, and are audited by the Australian Universities Quality Agency
(AUQA) in the same way that public universities are audited.
1.19
The other two institutions, Tabor College (South
Australia) and the Christian Heritage College, are not self-accrediting
institutions. Their courses are accredited by the relevant state authority
under protocols established by the Ministerial Council on Employment,
Education, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA).
1.20
Evidence before the Committee suggested that a
number of organisations are relatively satisfied with the extension of PELS to
the two self-accrediting institutions, but have reservations about the
extension of PELS to the two non-self-accrediting institutions. The Australian
Vice-Chancellor’s Committee, for instance, stated that ‘The AVCC believe that
the ability to accredit an institution’s own qualifications is the most
important criteria.’[12]
1.21
The National Union of Students did not support
the extension of PELS to Bond University and MCD, but indicated that this was
because of the precedent this might establish, rather than because of direct
concerns about self-accrediting institutions. The NUS stated:
With MCD, though, it is an autonomous self-accrediting
institution which has a close link with the University of Melbourne and with
Monash as well. However, we are concerned that with the extension of PELS to
MCD this might pave the way for not only the extension of PELS to other private
institutions but the ability of private providers to form relationships with
universities to enable access to PELS or to enable access to the benefits that
universities enjoy under the public arena. So it is those two precedents that
we are concerned about.[13]
1.22
The Committee noted the concerns of the NUS with
regard to the potential for other private institutions to establish links with
public universities in order to build a case for funding. However the
Committee also noted that the Victorian Parliament viewed the Melbourne College
of Divinity as an adjunct of the University of Melbourne. The Melbourne
College of Divinity Act 1910 makes it quite clear that as the University of
Melbourne did not offer courses in Divinity, Parliament established a complementary
institution to offer those courses. Although this relationship was formalised
in 1993, it has been implicit since the commencement of the MCD. It is
unlikely that these circumstances are replicated elsewhere.
1.23
The Committee majority considers that students
of Bond University and the Melbourne College of Divinity, as self-accrediting
institutions, should be able to access PELS, and therefore supports their
inclusion in the bill.
1.24
In establishing its view of the institutional
structures of Tabor College and the CHC, the Committee majority is guided by
the protocols established by MCEETYA, which clearly provide a secure base for
Commonwealth funding arrangements affecting these institutions. The Committee
majority has seen no evidence which suggests that the course accreditation of
these institutions by State authorities is in any way deficient.
Academic standards
1.25
Two issues were raised in evidence and
submissions before the Committee which related to academic standards at the
four institutions. The first of these related directly to the quality of
teaching programs, and the second related to the importance of research
activities within universities, and the relationship between high-quality
teaching and high-quality research.
1.26
Schedule 1, Item 10 of the bill, and subsection
98A(1) of the Higher Education Funding Act 1988 contain the provisions
designed to ensure the quality of degree programs for which students can obtain
PELS.
1.27
Under these provisions, if the bill is enacted,
an eligible course of study in a self-accrediting institution would be any
postgraduate course of study, approved by the institution, for which fees must
be paid, and which is not a research award course of study.
1.28
In an institution which is not self-accrediting
(that is, CHC or Tabor College), the above provisions would apply, and in
addition, the course would need to be ‘a course that is accredited by a State
or Territory Accreditation agency listed in the Australian Qualifications
Framework Register of Bodies with Authority to Issue Qualifications.’[14]
1.29
Under these provisions, PELS would not be
available for any course which is not appropriately accredited under the
MCEETYA protocols, to which the Commonwealth is a party.
1.30
The Committee noted the statement by the Council
of Australian Postgraduate Associations that ‘the quality of the postgraduate
course-work degrees at Bond University, Melbourne College of Divinity,
Christian Heritage College and Tabor College to which PELS is to be extended
cannot be guaranteed.’[15]
However, the Committee majority takes the view that if a course is duly
accredited under the MCEETYA protocols, it would be inappropriate for the
Commonwealth to conclude that it is not of an acceptable academic standard.
1.31
The Committee notes that, under the MCEETYA
protocols, the State and Territory accrediting agencies accredit courses rather
than institutions. The Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA), on the
other hand, accredits institutions rather than courses. During hearings for
this inquiry, the Committee Chair asked CHC and Tabor college whether, if the
bill were enacted, they would be prepared to undergo auditing by the AUQA.
Neither institution held concerns about meeting this requirement.[16]
1.32
On the issue of research, the Committee
acknowledged the quality and relevance of the research activities of Bond
University and the Melbourne College of Divinity, and sought the views of Tabor
College and CHC as to how research fits into their programs. The CHC described
its research strategy, noting that research had to be conducted within the
available resources. Tabor college stated:
The College’s academics are keenly interested in research;
however until appropriate funding becomes available to the College it is
impossible for the College to compete with funded universities in the research
dimension. With full-time bachelor students paying only $3,920 to $4,880, and
full-time graduate diploma and masters students paying only $4,400 to $6,950
per annum, and no source of funding other than student fees and donations, despite
the extreme dedication and commitment of staff, extension of the College’s
research activities is seriously constrained. The College reiterates its
earlier point that it seems illogical to withhold support from an institution
because of the lack of a strong research profile when the very lack of funding
precludes the development of such a profile. [17]
1.33
Neither CHC nor Tabor College agreed that there
was necessarily a relationship between high quality research and high quality
teaching within a higher education institution. CHC stated that ‘we would
argue that we are primarily a teaching institution and we would contest the
view that there is necessarily a nexus between a particular kind of scholarly
activity, which is generally called research, and standard setting in relation
to our teaching.’[18]
Similarly, Tabor College argued that ‘active researchers are not necessarily
the best teachers and vice versa.’[19]
1.34
While the Committee majority agrees that
research is an important part of any higher education institution, and is
critical to the provision of high quality postgraduate degrees, it accepts the
view that coursework-based research is more relevant to the needs of students
likely to be attracted to Tabor College and CHC, whose focus is primarily vocational.
For this reason the Committee majority takes seriously the assurances that the
quality of teaching programs in Tabor College and CHC is of paramount
importance.
Administrative accountability
1.35
The Committee received evidence and submissions
in relation to the administration and governance of private education
institutions. In particular, the committee considered whether the private
higher education institutions which are included in the bill should be subject
to similar scrutiny as the public institutions whose students are eligible to
receive PELS.
1.36
At a level of general principle, three of the
four institutions – Tabor College, CHC and MCD – acknowledged that if they were
to receive public funding, they should be subject to the same processes of
accountability as apply to public universities in receipt of similar funding.[20] On the basis of their
evidence, the Committee majority was satisfied that Tabor College, CHC and MCD
were aware of their accountability obligations. Bond University is already
subject to stringent accountability measures.
1.37
The Committee notes that there are a number of
processes by which universities are accountable to government. One of these is
the process of discussing ‘Educational Profiles,’ where universities and the
Department of Education, Science and Training consider the university’s
performance according to six general themes:
- A statistical return covering teaching and the
number of student places;
- A research and research training management
report;
- A quality assurance and improvement plan;
-
An equity plan;
- An indigenous education strategy; and
- A capital management plan.[21]
1.38
For universities, the outcome of its profile
discussion assists in the determination of funding for the institution. While
the four institutions subject to this bill are ineligible for much of this
funding, the Committee considers that development of a profile, and
participation in a profiles discussion with the Department, could have
significant benefits for the institutions, while also providing a measure of
accountability for the government. Successive profiles which indicated
progress in the areas of research and equity, for instance, would allay some of
the principal concerns noted elsewhere in this report.
1.39
In addition, the institutions may also benefit from
audits by the Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA), whose role is to
audit the accreditation processes of all self-accrediting institutions
(including Bond University and MCD). The Committee considers that extension of
AUQA’a role to include audits of Tabor College and CHC may have benefits for
the institutions and for Government.
1.40
The Committee considers that this profiling
process need not be an instrument to control or direct the institutions, but
rather an annual opportunity for reflection on the institutions’ performance,
and an avenue for accountability in the expenditure of public funds.
1.41
Finally, the Committee noted the suggestion of
the NTEU that institutions receiving Government funding should have
‘transparent governance structures, including external representation which is
representative of the broad public interest.’[22]
The Committee majority notes that Bond University’s Council contains provisions
for significant outside representation. Tabor College, in evidence, stated
that it ‘would not have any problems’ with the inclusion of community
representatives and prominent citizens on its Board.[23]
1.42
The Committee considers that both the
institution and the community benefit from the inclusion on governing councils
of prominent citizens who can represent the community’s interest in a strong
and diverse education sector.
Admission Procedures
1.43
The Senate Selection of Bills Committee has
suggested that this Committee consider ‘public support of discriminatory
selection criteria.’[24]
Three of the four institutions subject to this bill (Melbourne College of
Divinity, Christian Heritage College and Tabor College) clearly have a
religious mission. Theology and related studies are core elements in their
curriculum, and a number of their courses, for instance, the Master of Ministry
program, or the Bachelor of Divinity Program, are unlikely to appeal to those
who do not share Christian beliefs.
1.44
The Committee found that two of the four
institutions, the Melbourne College of Divinity and Bond University, have
explicit non-discriminatory practices written into their foundation Acts.
1.45
The Committee noted that Tabor College and the
Christian Heritage College retain policies which may, according to some
interpretations, have in a discriminatory result. In its submission, CHC
described a process of ‘informed self-selection’ where the College ‘seeks to
assist students to come to a decision as to whether CHC is the appropriate
institution in which to undertake their studies.’[25] Implicit in this process of
‘informed self-selection’ is the probability that non-Christian applicants will
look elsewhere for their education. The Committee majority views this as no
more discriminatory than, for instance, the Royal Military College refusing to
admit a candidate on the grounds of their declared pacifism. Should
non-Christian applicants undertake this process of ‘informed self-selection’
and still proceed with their application, the CHC would apply the following
provisions:
In its Business and Social Science programs, and in its
postgraduate Education programs, the College might give preference, all other
factors being equal, to applicants who provide evidence of their Christian
convictions, but the College does not exclude from consideration applicants who
do not provide such evidence.
[...] In relation to undergraduate teacher education programs and
to ministry programs, the College considers that this process of informed
self-selection is generally effective in informing potential applicants about
the institution and its courses, and assisting in decision-making. However the
College would assert both a right and a responsibility to differentiate more
actively; that is, not to accept an applicant on religious grounds in certain
circumstances.[26]
1.46
If the circumstances included a demonstrated
antipathy towards Christianity, or towards the philosophy of the institution as
manifested in the course content or the course objectives, exclusion would not
appear to be unreasonable.
1.47
In its response to a question on notice from the
Committee, CHC stated that this discrimination is not unlawful under Queensland
law. The Committee agrees that the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act 1991
provides:
An educational authority that operates ... an educational
institution wholly or mainly for students of a particular ... religion ... may
exclude ... applicants who are not of the particular ... religion.[27]
1.48
Tabor College includes, in the Tabor College
Australia Handbook, the following admissions policy:
For entry into a Tabor College course, an applicant is normally
required to have:
- at least twelve months' experience as a committed Christian;
- a satisfactory interview with a faculty member; and
- a minister's reference endorsing the entry application.
However, the Faculty Committee reserves the right to waive any
of the above entry requirements when it is satisfied that the ability,
experience and spiritual standing of an applicant are sufficient to give the
applicant a good chance of completing the desired course successfully.[28]
1.49
In evidence, Tabor College suggested that ‘if we
had non-Christian persons wanting to come into one of our programs, depending
on the nature of the program, we would be prepared to look at those situations
on an individual case basis ... We have taken in a handful of students over the
years who were not, as you would term it, Christians ...’[29]
1.50
The Committee also noted the evidence of Dr
Geoffrey Madigan, President of Avondale College, an institution already funded
under the Higher Education Funding Act 1988, in regard to discrimination
on the basis of religion:
In regard to some of the selection criteria you have been
suggesting this morning, for instance a religious test or a religious ethos of
an institution, if for some reason a whole lot of people who did not share that
ethos chose to enrol in it, that could change the nature of the institution
such that it was not what it had been set up to be.[30]
The Committee majority respects the desire of
religious institutions to retain their faith-based character. Further, the
Committee respects the contribution which various religious bodies have made,
and continue to make, in all levels of education in Australia. The Committee notes that the admission
procedures of the institutions have not resulted in the emergence of
discrimination as an issue for applicants. The Committee also notes the
continuing obligation upon institutions to comply with all relevant State and
Commonwealth equal opportunity legislation following the enactment of this
bill.
Recommendation
The Committee recommends that the
bill should proceed.
Senator John Tierney
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page