Coalition Senators' additional comments

1.1The Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024 (bill) was introduced into the House of Representatives on 15 August 2024. The following day the bill was referred by the Senate to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee (committee) for inquiry with a report due on 30 September 2024.

1.2On 19 August 2024, the Senate agreed to extend the committee's reporting date to 3 October 2024.

1.3The committee held a public hearing on 24 September 2024. Answers to questions taken on notice by witnesses were due to the committee secretariat by 30 September 2024.

1.4On 2 October 2024, the committee was advised by the Department of Education and the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations that questions on notice resulting from the hearing would not be available until 11 October 2024 well after the inquiry reporting date which is unacceptable.

1.5The Senate inquiry process is meant to ensure that non-government senators and stakeholders can properly scrutinise government legislation.

1.6It is the responsibility of the government to ensure departments respond to questions on notice in the timeframe set out by the committee.

1.7The government also has a responsibility to ensure that any senate inquiry is managed in a timeframe which is realistic and transparent and reflects respect for the proper processes of the Parliament. The government has failed to meet these obligations.

1.8Coalition Senators are deeply concerned the inquiry report has been finalised in this information vacuum, which also reflects a lack of respect by the government for many key stakeholders impacted by this bill.

1.9We also continue to raise concerns about the long-standing failure of the Department of Education to furnish to this committee copies of the draft final report of the Universities Accord including all feedback and comments by the Minister for Education (Minister) and his office. In breach of the Senate's rules, we are left to believe these documents have not been approved by the Minister to be produced because they would reveal the Universities Accord final report and its recommendations have been substantially altered by the Minister for his own political purposes, undermining the integrity and independence of the work of the Universities Accord panel led by Professor Mary O'Kane.

1.10The bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (HESA) to give effect to government measures announced in the 2024–25 Budget by:

changing the way HELP indexation is calculated by using the lower of either the Consumer Pricer Index (CPI) or the Wage Price Index (WPI), backdated to the 2023 and 2024 indexation years;

introducing a Commonwealth Prac Payment (CPP) for teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work students from 1 July 2025;

creating FEE-FREE Uni Ready Courses for students to undertake preparatory courses from 1 January 2025;

requiring universities to provide 40 per cent of the Student Services and Amenities Fee (SSAF) to student-led organisations from 1 January 2025; and

listing Adelaide University as a Table A provider.

1.11In the absence of crucial information we are seeking in relation to this bill, we make the following observations.

HELP Indexation Changes

1.12By reason of Labor's home-grown high inflation, more than 3 million Australians with a student debt have been hit with crippling increases in HELP indexation totalling 16 per cent since the election of the Albanese government.

1.13In the face of Labor's cost of living crisis, the government's changes to HELP indexation as set out in this bill still result in an 11.1 per cent increase in student debt since June 2022.In contrast to the average HELP indexation rate of 1.7 per cent under the former Coalition government, this still constitutes a very significant increase in student debt.

1.14Mr Andrew Norton, Professor in the Practice of Higher Education Policy at ANU, but appearing before the inquiry in a personal capacity, highlighted continued vulnerability with the proposed changes to HELP indexation:

My concern is that this leaves us vulnerable to a period where the CPI and the WPI are both high simultaneously—kind of like we had in the 1970s. I don't think that's likely right now, but nor did we expect this kind of resurgence of inflation.[1]

1.15In response to questions on notice from Coalition senators, Mr Norton stated:

The function of a loan scheme like HELP is to help people achieve their educational and career goals, doing so in a way that balances managing their personal financial risks and the government’s fiscal position. All parts of the system – the original fees charged, the indexation arrangements, and the repayment system – need to work together in a coherent way to achieve these objectives.[2]

1.16Regional Universities Australia also highlighted a similar concern, stating:

These amendments will provide little to no cost of living/cost of study relief to those students enrolled at Australia's universities today, who face the immediate pressures of study during the current cost of living crisis. Nor will there be any substantial, immediate benefit to Australians currently paying off their HELP loan. If these students are already in the workforce, their ongoing HELP loan repayments remain fixed and unchanged under this amendment.[3]

Commonwealth Prac Payment

1.17While we recognise the benefits in theory, Coalition senators are concerned the government's proposed CPP provides no legal or permanent basis for this payment other than to establish a new grant bucket.

1.18Many higher education providers do not support a scheme where they are the decision makers or administrators of the payment, hence University Australia's submission that this scheme should be delayed and subject to further consultation.

1.19The bill does not include critical information such as the CPP eligibility criteria or means test requirements, which we believe reflects the government's rushed and chaotic approach to policy making in the education portfolio.

1.20Mr Andrew Norton highlighted the insufficient legal standing of the bill, stating:

The Commonwealth Prac Payment is a good idea in principle. However, unlike the Fee-FREE Uni Ready places, the Prac Payments are not being given a secure legal foundation. The Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill 2024 just allows the Commonwealth to fund Prac payments via a legislative instrument relying on the Other Grants provisions of the Higher Education Support Act 2003. This government or a future government could decide not to use this power. Apart from the Prac Payment’s insecure legal foundations, the decision to base the program on a legislative instrument rather than legislation means less debate about how the Prac payment will work…The government says that the prac payment will be means tested, but neither this bill nor the government’s public statements explain what ‘means’ will disqualify students or cause their payments to be reduced.[4]

1.21Regional Universities Network raised concerns in how the payment would be administered, stating:

… should universities be the administrating body for Commonwealth Prac payments, then inconsistencies may arise at a national level between the individual institutions within the sector (and potentially even between the faculties of the same provider), in terms of the outcomes of administrating student eligibility and verification, the timeframes for processing payments, and dispute resolution processes.[5]

1.22Additionally, many submissions expressed disappointment students studying in other disciplines with skills shortages such as veterinary studies, clinical psychology and occupational therapy were excluded.

1.23Students in these disciplines are required to undertake prac placements with durations of between 1000 to 2000 hours.

1.24Again, we reiterate our concerns about the lack of information provided by the government to this committee, including in relation to support payments to students provided by the states.

FEE-FREE Uni Ready courses

1.25The government has also failed to address concerns in relation to the FEE-FREE Uni Ready courses, which is effectively a re-brand of the existing enabling courses.

1.26Enabling courses exist to provide an alternate pathway into university for students who need to further their skills before entering higher education. It may be that these students have not completed year 12, did not achieve the marks required for entry to university, or are beginning study at a mature age.

1.27In 2022, 25 396 students undertook an enabling course, down from 30 828 in 2021.[6] Around 88 per cent of students undertook their studies in a Commonwealth Supported Place with no student contribution required.

1.28Coalition Senators note this measure fails to fund any additional places to support meeting this target.

1.29The Universities Australia submission stated:

… it is important to understand that the legislation does not provide for places in FEE-FREE Uni Ready Courses to be demand-driven. The new single rate of funding will be counted for the purposes of the MBGA and an enabling place provided in excess of that limit would receive no funding.[7]

1.30Whilst providers will receive a higher base funding rate per place being $18278 per place, the loss of enabling funding will mean an overall reduction of funding for students who need additional support.

1.31The Universities Australia submission stated:

The proposal in the Bill will set a single rate of $18,278 in 2025 for all Commonwealth enabling places, irrespective of discipline. The rate incorporates the enabling loading and there will be no student contribution. UA has estimated that the average Commonwealth supported place in 2022 received around $22,750 in funding, including the student contribution.[8]

Student Services and Amenities Fee

1.32The bill also implements the government's 2024-25 budget measure to require higher education providers to allocate at least 40 per cent of the SSAF revenue collected to student-led organisations which includes student unions, guilds and associations.

1.33Many providers raised concerns in their submissions about the likely unintended consequences of this proposal, including that student-led organisations do not have the capacity or expertise to deliver essential supports for students such as mental health assistance and food banks. Submissions also noted the changes may result in employment uncertainty for some staff.

1.34Universities Australia recommended that:

… changes to how the SSAF is used be deferred until the proposal has been further developed in consultation with the sector because of substantial concerns raised by its members.[9]

1.35Mr Andrew Norton also observed:

… the general issue raised by a fixed allocation of funds to third-party organisations is how this intersects with the legal obligations of universities regarding services of a non-academic nature. Specifically, if the university relies on student-run organisations over which it has limited direct control, is it risking on-compliance with other statutory requirements?[10]

1.36In 2023 more than $278 million in SSAF revenue was collected by 44 providers. The Department of Education submission noted more than $110 million of this amount was allocated by providers to student-led organisations, equating to 38 per cent of the collected revenue.[11]

1.37Even assuming this proportion of revenues was to continue to flow to student organisations, the proposed changes in this bill would result in an increase of approximately 2 per cent, or $5.56 million in revenue, directed to the existing 44 provider student-led organisations.

1.38Coalition senators also remain concerned about the lack of oversight and governance arrangements for student-led organisations.

1.39We further note that should this change proceed, there must be very clear rules about approved expenditure to ensure that only essential services which directly support all students are funded. It is abhorrent, for instance, that any such funds would be used to finance anti-Jewish or anti-Israel student protests, particularly given the antisemitism crisis which currently exists on Australian university campuses.

Senator Matt O'Sullivan

Deputy Chair

Senator for Western Australia

Senator Slade Brockman

Member

Senator for Western Australia

Footnotes

[1]Mr Andrew Norton, Proof Committee Hansard, 24 September 2024, pp. 41–42.

[2]Mr Andrew Norton, answers to written questions on notice, 25 September 2024 (received 27 September 2024), p. 5.

[3]Regional Universities Network, Submission 17, p. 9.

[4]Mr Andrew Norton, Submission 34, p. 18.

[5]Regional Universities Network, Submission 17, p. 9.

[6]Australian Government Department of Education, 2022 Section 5 Liability status categories, tab 5.5.

[7]Universities Australia, Submission 42, p. 3.

[8]Universities Australia, Submission 42, p. 3.

[9]Universities Australia, Submission 42, p. 2.

[10]Mr Andrew Norton, Submission 34, p. 20.

[11]Department of Education and the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, Submission50, p. 9.