Committee Report
1.1
The Senate referred the provisions of the Higher Education Legislation
Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007 (the bill) to this committee on 21 March 2007 for inquiry and report by 1 May 2007. The bill will primarily amend the Higher
Education Support Act 2003 (HESA), although amendments will also be made to
the Higher Education Funding Act 1988 (HEFA) and the Higher Education
Support (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2003
(TCA). The committee called for submissions and received seven.
National Protocols
1.2
The main provisions of the bill give effect to changes to the National
Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes (the national protocols)
agreed by the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth
Affairs (MCEETYA) at its July 2006 meeting. The key changes aim to increase the
number of universities and university colleges engaged in teaching and research,
to allow authorised institutions other than universities to accredit their own
courses, and to apply the national protocols to all higher education
institutions. These changes will take effect from 31 December 2007 and are also to be incorporated into state and territory legislation.
1.3
Legislative implementation of the revised national protocols implements
the Commonwealth's policy to encourage a more diverse higher education sector.
The revised national protocols allow for the emergence of specialist
universities which concentrate teaching and research efforts in one or two
broad fields of study, and for provisional 'university colleges' to develop
into new universities under the sponsorship of established universities. These
new institutions will serve new and varying community requirements. The
government's intention is for more diverse and quality higher education to respond
to international markets and to promote choice for students, and encourage
competition.
1.4
Submissions to the committee unanimously supported the objectives of the
national protocols but expressed some reservations regarding various provisions
of the bill. These concerns essentially revolved around maintaining and
protecting the quality and standards of higher education.
Assurance
1.5
The Group of Eight (Go8) applauded diversity in the higher education
sector and stated that the revised national protocols will be beneficial 'so
long as the government remains vigilant about ensuring that the quality
assurance mechanisms contained in HESA are rigorously enforced'.[1]
1.6
The National Tertiary Education Industry Union (NTEU), while generally
agreeing with the Go8, was more critical and identified particular provisions
of the bill as posing a significant risk to the higher education industry and consequently
requiring further consideration and monitoring.
1.7
One such provision was the expanded definition of the term 'university'
to include 'specialist universities' and 'university colleges'. A specialist
university will offer higher education awards (such as research masters and
PhDs) in only one or two broad fields of study and a university college may
offer the same awards in only one field of study for the first five years after
establishment.[2]
1.8
The NTEU submitted that the modified term could produce a reduction in
discipline breadth and depth if higher education providers were to compete on a
range of 'profitable' courses. Market driven rivalry could undermine the
revenue basis of established universities and lead to the break-up of some current
universities as profitable disciplines or faculties split away to set up their
own operations. The reduction in discipline breadth could also constrain the
development of high quality curricula and innovation, narrow research capacity
across the higher education sector, and undermine research quality by
diminishing the capacity for inter-disciplinary collaboration.
Discipline breadth enables universities to provide a range of inter-disciplinary links that create the necessary
synergies between research, teaching and learning that is required in
the production and advancement of knowledge. It is this characteristic that
distinguishes universities from other higher education providers.
The introduction of different types of universities, including
overseas universities and their awards, accredited in their country of origin
but being offered within Australia, risks confusing students about exactly what
type of education they are enrolling in and the nature and quality of our
system.[3]
1.9
The NTEU believed that the ultimate effect of this amendment might be a
diminution of the national and international reputation of Australia’s
universities and the quality of higher education they deliver.
1.10
The Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
(FASTS) strongly supported the objectives of the national protocols though it queried
whether the current model provides for sufficient diversity in a dynamic higher
education system. In an argument similar to the NTEU, FAST was concerned that
implementation of the revised national protocols might result in private
providers 'cherry picking' lucrative areas, and that it might result in stratification
of higher education institutions characterised by a large rump of low quality
bulk provision of mediocre education and training.[4]
1.11
FASTS recommended that the operation of the revised national protocols
be reviewed in five years time to gauge the effects on the higher education
sector and to assess how rigorously quality assurance and evaluation mechanisms
have been applied.[5]
1.12
Amongst submitters only the NTEU even partially considered the position
of foreign universities in terms of the bill. The NTEU submitted that overseas higher
education providers, accredited through their country of origin and seeking to
operate in Australia, should be subject to more rigorous scrutiny, including
public consultation. Not only was this required for transparency,
accountability and confidence, but also equality as Australian applicants
seeking to operate as universities will be subject to such processes.
Implementation
1.13
The second major argument presented in relation to the revised national
protocols was that of consultation and implementation.
1.14
The Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee (AVCC) expressed concern with
how existing higher education providers will demonstrate compliance under the
proposed Protocol Guidelines (the guidelines). The AVCC noted that the
available draft guidelines lack considerable detail, yet are expected to be
implemented in 2008. The amount of lead time will be extremely short and the
AVCC questioned whether higher education providers will be able to properly and
fully implement the guidelines by the beginning of 2008.[6]
1.15
The AVCC also submitted that unless stakeholders are able to assess and
contribute to the (complete) guidelines, the Higher Education Approvals
Processes might contain unintentional flaws or consequences. These could lead
to 'sub-optimal' outcomes for the higher education sector, the need for further
legislative amendment, and unnecessary burdens for universities.[7]
1.16
The NTEU went one step further in recommending that the bill be held over
till the guidelines are complete, noting that the bill should not undermine one
of the very purposes that it is designed to fulfil.[8]
Administration of funding
1.17
The bill also contains a number of measures to improve the
administration of the Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) and arrangements for
Commonwealth supported students. These amendments are directed toward
clarifying the requirements for assistance and support, and allowing providers
to advise students of Commonwealth support for cross-institutional study where
one or both of the higher education providers are not Table A providers. The
former measures primarily enable students to apply for OS-HELP assistance if
they are already overseas, and require Commonwealth supported students to
reside in Australia while undertaking their studies, unless part of their
course of study requires overseas residency. Permanent residents will not be
entitled to Commonwealth support or HECS-HELP or FEE-HELP assistance if they
undertake their entire course of study overseas. The latter measure provides more
flexibility for providers and extends the range of study options available to
Commonwealth supported students.
1.18
Most submissions described the administrative provisions of the bill as
'minor' and 'technical', however, at least one submission was wholly concerned
with the issue of student debt and fees.
1.19
The Students' Representative Council (SRC) specifically supported two of
the amendments but was critical of the bill for failing to address the issue of
fees remission or refund where a student has through special circumstances been
forced to discontinue study. The problem described was twofold. First, as the
application process is currently linked to the re-crediting of the Student
Learning Entitlement, the process applies only to subjects undertaken
subsequent to 1 January 2005. Second, under the act, a university can elect to
extend the application process beyond 12 months, otherwise that strict time
limit applies. The SRC pointed out that special circumstances, primarily
medical circumstances, can sometimes take considerable time to be known.
Consequently, the SRC argued that special circumstance students should be
allowed to apply for remission or refund in respect of subjects undertaken
prior to 1 January 2005 and irrespective of the time limit.[9]
It appeared that the SRC was suggesting that the bill be used to remedy a
perceived fault within the act.
Establishing entitlement to support
1.20
HESA, HEFA and TFA will be amended to limit the time for students to
claim an entitlement to Commonwealth support: HESA and TFA will allow students
six weeks from the census date to correct information to establish the
entitlement, and HEFA will clarify that students can no longer establish the
entitlement under that act. The amendments will be effective from 1 January 2008 to allow sufficient lead time to inform students and higher education
providers of these new time limits.
1.21
While a few submissions briefly noted these provisions of the bill, none
were critical of the amendments. This was in contrast to views on the
provisions regarding the Research Quality Framework (RQF).
Appropriation for the Research Quality Framework
1.22
This is partly an appropriations bill, which provides an additional
$40.8 million (in current year prices) for the period 1 July 2007 to 31 December 2010 to support the implementation of the RQF. In particular, the funding
will support the activities and systems required for participating institutions
to engage effectively and efficiently with the RQF, including the Australian
Scheme for Higher Education Repositories (ASHER) program ($24.9 million) and
the Implementation Assistance Programme (IAP) ($15.9 million).
1.23
Support through the ASHER programme will enable higher education
providers to place their research outputs (such as journal articles, digitised
artworks, x-ray crystallography images, et cetera) in an accessible digital
store. This digital store will first be made available to assessment panels for
the determination of the distribution of research funds. There are two key
assessment criteria, namely, that the research must be of the 'highest quality
and highest impact'.[10]
1.24
The RQF is intended to ensure that taxpayers' money is invested in high
quality research, which delivers benefits to the universities and the community,
and demonstrates the government's commitment to achieving excellence in
research. The major criticisms of the RQF were present in a number of
submissions which generally argued that the RQF is flawed in terms of achieving
its objectives, is poorly funded and not yet ready for implementation.
Resource allocation
1.25
The NTEU noted that to date there is no detail as to exactly how the
quality and impact assessment results will translate into funding outcomes. The
paucity of detail, it was argued, is critical as the details have the potential
to effect a considerable redistribution of the public research funds allocated
across the higher education sector. In the absence of information,
universities will not know whether it is in their best interests (in terms of their
funding) to be highly selective in the choice of which research groups and
staff to include in evidence portfolios or whether they should maximise the
number of research groups and staff included. There is also an issue as to
whether the various expert assessment panels will have sufficient time to
conduct a genuine peer review of submitted materials. This could 'force' the
panels to rely heavily on problematical research metrics (such as in the arts
and humanities). In view of these concerns, the NTEU recommended that the bill
not effect the RQF provisions until funding and assessment process details have
been finalised and agreed to by the higher education sector.[11]
1.26
FASTS expressed similar concerns detailing a number of issues which will
have major impacts on internal distribution and the profiles of institutions:
It is not possible to make any real assessment of the impact of
the RQF in terms of driving behaviours, including mobility or concentration of
resources at institutional or research group level until a preferred resource
allocation model is available.[12]
Research benefit
1.27
Several submissions adopted a different approach, instead questioning
the criterion of 'highest impact'.
1.28
The Students' Representative Council (SRC) had reservations about the
increased funding on the basis of questionable benefit and cited the experience
of the UK and New Zealand suggesting that any benefit would have to be
substantial to offset significant administrative costs. The SRC was especially concerned
that the RQF will do little to support and stimulate humanities research and
suggested further consideration should be given to evaluating the quality and value
of research. It is possible that these concerns would be addressed by the
implementation of the Australian Technology Network of Universities (ATN) suggestion.[13]
1.29
The ATN submission described its recent study, conducted in conjunction
with Murdoch University, which concluded that research value can be credibly
defined, validated and assessed across many research fields. Accordingly, the
ATN advocated the inclusion of its processes for evaluating impact as an integral
part of the RQF, or any alternative national research assessment framework
which will consider publicly-funded research.[14]
1.30
While the SRC and ATN were concerned with research value, the Go8
continued to question the RQF model and its implementation. The Go8 does not
believe that the stated policy outcomes will be achieved and instead advocated a
preference for a validated metrics-based approach to the quality and impact
assessment. The committee could not say with certainty whether this type of
assessment was that proposed by the ATN. The committee noted that FASTS
endorsed giving higher priority to the contextual validation of research
metrics due to the relative absence of internationally recognised end-user
measures for evaluating higher education research, and the lag-time in end-user
impact.[15]
1.31
Despite the Go8's reservation, with the endorsed RQF model proceeding
from mid 2008, the Go8 welcomed the additional funding provided in the bill to help
offset the significant costs of the program.[16]
Compliance costs
1.32
The Go8 was the first submitter to comment on the costs of the RQF. The
Go8 advised that university block grants are under considerable pressure with
Go8 institutions shouldering most of the $500 million cost supplementation
burden due to their relative success under competitive schemes. The Go8
suggested that 'institutions are far more likely to accept the administrative
burden the RQF will place on them, if they know that there are likely to be
rewards for strong performance'. The Go8 therefore indicated that an increase
in the overall block grant envelope be further considered as a means of rewarding
high quality and high value research.[17]
1.33
These sentiments were echoed in the submission from the NTEU which was
generally supportive of the RQF objectives but thought that the government's
announced $87.3 million in funding over the three year period 2007 – 2009 would
be wholly inadequate to compensate universities for the real costs of RQF
compliance. It noted that only 16.4 per cent of the allocated funds (through
the IAP) will be available to universities to offset compliance costs. The NTEU
was concerned that universities will need to divert resources away from their core
activities of teaching, research and community service to effect RQF compliance.
1.34
The NTEU specifically recommended that the funding made available to
universities through the IAP be increased to a minimum of $40 million which has
been estimated by the AVCC as universities' realistic compliance costs. This
recommendation was strongly supported by FASTS as a means of enhancing
universities' capacity to set research missions and to 'ensure a robust and
credible RQF could become an effective instrument in terms of driving a more
strategic management of Australian research'. [18]
1.35
FASTS also addressed an issue created by the 2001 changes to resource
allocation. These changes introduced capping measures and compensation for
regional institutions with the intention of reducing significant increases and
losses to institutions. FASTS believes that limiting funding increases is an
inefficiency of the RQF model and counterproductive as it might discourage full
engagement with the process if the potential rewards are so constrained.[19]
1.36
The NTEU also took the opportunity in its submission to raise certain
issues beyond the scope of the inquiry but considered by the NTEU to
significantly and adversely affect the international reputation of Australian
universities and the professional and industrial rights of staff employed
within the sector. The committee has noted these comments in relation to higher
education research and will seek further information from the NTEU at an
appropriate time.[20]
Policy summary
1.37
The committee notes the criticisms made by higher education stakeholders
of the provisions of the bill. In the experience of the committee over the past
ten years, changes to the regulation of universities have involved a great many
iterations and considerable refinement of legislative provisions to achieve
desired outcomes. It is highly likely that criticisms made of the legislation –
bearing mostly on detail – will be addressed as implementation proceeds at
least to the extent that the current concerns of stakeholders require
alteration.
1.38
The committee
believes that this bill demonstrates the government’s strong commitment to
higher education and will enhance the quality and diversity of Australia's higher education system, and the
choices available to students. It reflects the government's commitment to
ensuring that the research and higher education sectors continue to play a
vital role in Australia's economic, cultural and social
development.
Recommendation
The committee majority commends this bill to the Senate and urges
its passage without amendment.
Senator Judith Troeth
Chairman
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page