Chapter 2Views on the bill
2.1The Australian Universities Accord interim report states that 'by around 2050, approximately 55 per cent of all jobs will require higher education qualifications'. This equates to an additional 5.8 million people needing a tertiary qualification in 2052. To achieve this, Australia will require 'an additional 300 000 Commonwealth supported students in 2035 and an additional 900 000 Commonwealth supported students in 2050'.
2.2Despite the quality of Australia's higher education system—we risk falling short of this target. The interim report of the Australian Universities Accord (Universities Accord) Panel found there are currently too few Australians going to university, with first bachelor degree completions at their lowest since 2014. The interim report also found that higher education participation and completion rates are impacted by geographical location and persistent social inequity.
2.3The Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023 (bill) responds to these issues by implementing Priority Actions 2 and 3 of the Universities Accord interim report—that is, removing the cap on Commonwealth supported university places for First Nations students and ceasing the requirement for students to pass 50 per cent of their units of study to remain eligible for a Commonwealth supported place. The bill would also require higher education providers to have, and comply with, a policy that details how students will be supported to successfully complete their studies.
2.4The remainder of this chapter explores participant support for the bill and canvasses views on further reforms that could be pursued as part of the Universities Accord process.
General views on the bill
2.5There was widespread support for the policy aims of the bill, which seek to improve access and equity for underrepresented groups at higher education institutions. For example, Universities Australia (UA) conveyed its 'strong support' for the bill and highlighted its long-standing calls for 'the extension of the demand driven system to all Indigenous students', as well as its concerns over the '"punitive" fifty per cent pass rule'. Similarly, the Australian Technology Network of Universities (ATN) welcomed action on the Universities Accord priority areas and noted that 'the two actions implemented by this bill have been long called for by ATN and rectify key flaws in the Job‑ready Graduates package'.
2.6In a similar vein, Per Capita called for the bill to be passed and described it as a 'necessary step' towards the creation of a more equitable higher education system by ensuring all First Nations students are eligible for Commonwealth supported places in demand-driven courses and repealing 'the punitive 50percent pass rule inserted into the [HESA] … by the Coalition Government's 2020 Job-ready Graduates Package'.
2.7Further, the Australian Industry Group (Ai Group) argued that the amendments would improve opportunity and equity by addressing 'the plight of Indigenous students as well as the high proportion of students from low socio-economic groups that has been adversely affected by the Job-ready Graduates Package requirement for 50 per cent of units to be passed'.
2.8While supportive of the aims of the bill, some participants, including UA, the Group of Eight (Go8), the ATN, and the Regional Universities Network (RUN) put forward additional recommendations and/or amendments to either the bill or the Explanatory Memorandum in order to address their concerns about potential unintended consequences.
2.9In addition, the University of Sydney (USYD) and the Independent Tertiary Education Council Australia (ITECA) raised concerns about a lack of consultation on the content of the bill. However, ITECA also acknowledged that the bill's 'overarching and broad concepts … have been raised with the sector through the prism of the Universities Accord process'—a process described by other submitters as 'visionary' and the 'first meaningful review of higher education in more than 15 years'.
2.10Moreover, participants such as Ms Bailey Riley of the National Union of Students (NUS) spoke of the improvements to Government consultation evidenced during the Universities Accord process and revealed that it had 'seen more consultation with this government this year than we had in the past three or four years with the previous government'.
2.11Some participants, such as the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) and the Australian Council of Heads of Social Work Education (ACHSWE), while advocating for further reform, still called for the bill to be passed.
The need for action
2.12A range of participants highlighted the importance of the Universities Accord process to meeting Australia's current and future skills challenges. For example, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) noted its engagement with the Accord process and argued that a 'vibrant, quality and sustainably funded post-secondary education sector as it is vital to meeting our knowledge and skills needs, now and in the future'. Likewise, the Australian Council of Deans of Health Sciences (ACDHS) supported the aims of the Universities Accord to meet Australia's future skills needs, including its goal of 'rapidly increasing university places'.
2.13In addition, Ai Group also pointed to the need for a larger higher education system and warned that 'major shortfalls are predicted across professional occupations unless participation is increased'. Consequently, the Ai Group argued that the amendments proposed in the bill would help Australia to develop its 'broadest and highest talent potential' and respond to the 'desperate increase needed to the numbers of students commencing and graduating from higher education'.
2.14According to the Universities Accord interim report, the answer to meeting Australia's knowledge and skills needs 'lies in large part in increasing the higher education participation of Australians from underrepresented groups,' as well as 'removing disincentives to higher study'.
Increasing First Nations participation in higher education
2.15According to the Universities Accord interim report, First Nations people 'remain underrepresented in universities, comprising 2 per cent of the domestic undergraduate student population in 2021, despite making up 3.8 per cent of the total Australian population at the 2021 Census'. This point was underscored by the Australian Government Department of Education (department), which stated that while 'First Nations participation in higher education is increasing, it remains about 40 per cent below population parity'.
2.16While the department noted that First Nations participation in higher education had increased following the introduction of demand driven funding for regional and remote First Nations students, it also pointed out that 79 per cent of First Nations people live in urban areas.
2.17This disparity in access was recognised by participants such as the ATN, which pointed to 'the significance of education in reducing disadvantage in a long-term, sustainable and targeted way' but noted that the current arrangements exclude First Nations students who do not live in regional or remote locations.
2.18To this end, the department argued that the proposed amendments to the HESA would address the current 'geographical disparity' in eligibility for demand driven Commonwealth supported places.
Removing the 50 per cent pass rate requirement
2.19Concerns about the 'overly punitive' 50 per cent pass rate requirement featured in a 'large number of submissions' to the Universities Accord review, with the interim report finding that more than 13 000 students at 27 universities have been affected by the requirement. According to the department, this 'disproportionately affected students from … under-represented or educationally disadvantaged cohorts,' with the result that 'many at-risk students have withdrawn from higher education entirely'.
2.20This appeared to be borne out by the experience of submitters such as the University of Newcastle (UoN), which stated that more that 1000 of its students have been impacted by the requirement since it was introduced. More than 75percent of the affected students were 'enrolled in enabling pathways, with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, first in family, and male students disproportionately impacted'. According to the UoN, the requirement prevented many students from 'pursuing a university pathway and put in place a new significant barrier for access and equity for the cohorts who most needed support'.
2.21As a result of its consultations, the Universities Accord Panel 'recommended abolishing the pass rate measures and instead strengthening the accountability and reporting requirements on providers'.
Support for uncapping demand driven places for First Nations students
2.22There was overwhelming support for the proposal to remove the cap on demand driven places for First Nations students, with some participants referring to their long-standing support for this change. For example, both the NTEU and USYD noted they had proposed this change in their submissions to the Universities Accord process. Similarly, the ATN stated they had advocated for removal of the cap for metropolitan First Nations students 'since the release of the Job-ready Graduates proposals in 2020', while UA reported that it had called for the amendment 'for a number of years'.
2.23Further, the ATN stressed that this policy change—in conjunction with the removal of the 50 per cent pass requirement—would have 'an immediate impact for some of our most disadvantaged students'. Professor Harlene Hayne of the ATN indicated this measure would also benefit universities that currently accept all First Nations students, whether Commonwealth supported or not:
… the problem that we're facing is that we are a university that is above cap. We are very happy to warmly embrace any Aboriginal student who comes to Curtin, but it does mean that we are teaching students with only their tuition component and we don't get additional Commonwealth support … We're continuing to do what we consider to be the right thing… but it would be really great, from the university's perspective, if we were actually funded to do that.
2.24A similar view was expressed by the department, which suggested that this measure 'could double the number of First Nations students at university in a decade', which would impact positively on First Nations student participation rates and 'lead to a significant increase in First Nations people with higher education qualifications over time'.
2.25Although supportive of the change, both Independent Higher Education Australia and ITECA questioned the logic behind restricting the Commonwealth supported places to public higher education providers. Asimilar point was raised by Dr Sharlene Leroy-Dyer of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Postgraduate Association (NATSIPA), who argued for the measure to be extended to Table B providers. Under the HESA, Table A and B providers are listed in sections 16-15 and 16-20 respectively.
2.26Some participants also advocated for more to be done to address other barriers to First Nations students undertaking higher education courses, such as providing additional support for First Nations students at secondary school level, funding universities to undertake outreach activities and provide additional support toFirst Nations students (including culturally appropriate support), boosting the funding available via the Indigenous Student Success Program and ensuring all First Nations students are eligible for ABSTUDY.
2.27Further, the Go8 cited the need for care in design and implementation of this measure to ensure 'it delivers outcomes in success, retention, attainment and (career) employment outcomes for participating students'.
2.28To this end, the department noted that the effectiveness of this amendment would be assessed via a planned review in 2026.
Support for removing the 50 per cent pass rate requirement
2.29There was significant support for the removal of the 50 per cent pass rate requirement. For example, the ATN described how it had 'led the call for the removal of the 50 per cent pass rule' since the release of the Job-ready Graduates (JRG) package in 2020. The Go8 indicated it was also a long-standing advocate for the removal of the requirement and noted that during consultations on the JRG package it had described the rule as 'poorly thought through and likely to put substantial pressure on students'.
2.30The NTEU also supported removal of the rule, which it described as a 'harmful' and 'unnecessary' policy that 'unreasonably and unfairly target[ed] students who were First Nations … students with carer obligations … those from low socio-economic backgrounds and students who are from underrepresented or educationally disadvantaged cohorts'.
2.31Similar views were expressed by other participants such as the University of Canberra, which described the 50 per cent pass rule as a 'blunt' policy instrument that had the greatest impact on students from disadvantaged groups. USYD concurred and noted that the rule disproportionately affected disadvantaged students while allowing students from affluent backgrounds to continue in their chosen course by paying fees upfront.
2.32According to Mr Paul Harris of the IRU, in the last 12 months, 151 students at La Trobe University had lost their places as a result of the 50 per cent rule, with the data clearly showing that 'students from underrepresented and equity group backgrounds are disproportionately affected by that rule'.
2.33This view was supported by Professor Clare Pollock of Western Sydney University (WSU) who explained that over 2022 and 2023, WSU students 'from lower socioeconomic backgrounds were 40 per cent more likely to be excluded from the course of their choosing than students from higher socioeconomic backgrounds', with 'a similar pattern was seen for our Indigenous students'.
2.34To this end, Professor Harlene Hayne of the ATN highlighted the importance of supporting students who may be struggling, rather than withdrawing their funding:
Students from low-SES backgrounds and those from regional areas, and First Nations and first-in-family students all can struggle to adapt to university in the first year. In our view, challenging life circumstances should not be compounded by the removal of Commonwealth support for further study. … We want our students to succeed, but we must acknowledge that sometimes life intervenes. No-one is at fault, and second chances are important.
2.35Some participants saw the 50 per cent rule as an impediment to supporting struggling students. For example, ProfessorMargaret Sheil AO, Deputy Chair of UA, told the committee that it was 'very difficult to exempt students from a legislative requirement, so we have to comply with our obligations, whereas previously we would have been able to put measures in place to support those students to succeed or transition into another program'.
2.36Further, Dr Terri MacDonald of the NTEU pointed to the low rate of exemptions granted to students at Monash University (out of 331 students who triggered the 50 per cent rule, 18 were granted exemptions) and suggested that the exemption application process was, in itself, a barrier to students continuing their studies:
… a lot of these students … when faced with the hoops that they would have to jump through under the exemptions in order to get any kind of consideration, would just take a look at that and say, 'This is just too hard.' The previous system, where the universities had the ability to make these calls with the input of the staff, lecturers and student welfare services, was a far more equitable and ethical system. … So there is no need for this 50 per cent rule to be there. All it did was push students out.
2.37In supporting the repeal of the 50 per cent rule, a number of submitters questioned the rationale underlying its original introduction as part of the JRG package. For example, Per Capita argued that it was difficult to understand how the rule would have worked to prevent students from accumulating large debts given the increase in student fees arising from the JRG package:
It is hard to fathom how this could have honestly been the case, considering other elements of the JRG package resulted in an average increase to student fees of 7 per cent, and thus, the accumulation of larger student debts. In social sciences, humanities and communications student fees increased by a whopping 113 per cent, disproportionally affecting women and First Nations students.
2.38Likewise, the NTEU described opposition to removal of the rule on the basis of concerns over student debt as 'highly selective, given the impact of the JRG and other changes to HECS-HELP that the former Government enacted':
Unfortunately, it is difficult to accept this sentiment at face value when it was the former Coalition Government that increased average student fees by 8 per cent under the JRG. It was also the Coalition Government that particularly targeted HECS-HELP bands on humanities, arts, and social sciences … with the tuition fee increased to over 110 per cent for most courses, making it more expensive to get a degree in social work or journalism than a degree in medicine. Not content, the former Government also further shifted the cost of paying for education onto students directly, reducing the Commonwealth contribution perstudent place on average by 14 per cent. As a result, on average, students entering higher education supported by public places now contribute 51percent of the total cost of the cost of their place, versus 25 per cent in 1996.
Requirements around support-for-students policies
2.39While there was widespread support for the removal of the 50 per cent pass rate requirement, views were more mixed in relation to the support-for-students measure. For example, the Ai Group supported inclusion of this measure in the bill and contended it would 'provide the scaffolds needed to underpin successful outcomes' as well as 'a structure for adherence by higher education providers'. Similarly, Ms Riley argued that 'universities being held accountable for supporting students through any method is really good and would lead to better outcomes for students in the end'.
2.40Some participants, such as the NTEU, IRU, the UoN and Murdoch University were supportive of the requirement for universities to have a support-for-students policy but raised some concerns about the operation of the proposed measure. Others, such as USYD and RUN argued that the measure should be delayed until further stakeholder consultations have been completed, while ATN opposed the inclusion of the support-for-students policy in the bill.
2.41Evidence provided to the committee suggested that the majority of concerns raised about the support-for-students policy requirement related to:
the level of detail provided about the support-for-students policy requirement;
the potential for increased administrative burden and overlapping regulatory responsibilities; and
the timeframe for implementation.
Level of detail provided about the support-for-students policy requirement
2.42Some stakeholders raised concerns about the level of detail the bill provides in relation to the support-for-students policy requirement. For example, ITECA described the bill as 'vague about the specifics' of what may need to be incorporated in an institution's support-for-students policy.
2.43In a similar vein, QUT and the RUN raised concerns about these details being placed in the Higher Education Provider Guidelines (Guidelines), rather than the bill. According to the RUN:
Placing specific information in the Act, rather than in the Guidelines will provide universities, students and the Department of Education with additional certainty and surety. There is a real risk that putting the measures to which universities will be held accountable in the Guidelines could result in the measures being changed to suit political need rather than driving the policy reform they seek to achieve.
2.44However, other participants such as the IRU, suggested that the bill was 'appropriately broad in its specification of a support-for-students policy, with further detail on identifying at-risk students and appropriate support interventions to be contained in Guidelines following a public consultation process'. In addition, both the NTEU and ATN also noted that drafting regulations and guidelines either alongside, or following, the passage of legislation was common practice, with the NTEU noting that this process also 'applied to some of the funding associated with JRG in 2020'.
2.45At the same time, the IRU warned that, without additional funding, the Guideline requirements could extend beyond what is feasible, particularly for universities with campuses in disadvantaged communities. This view was shared by UoN, which raised concerns about the potential additional burden on those universities who enrol greater numbers of students from underrepresented backgrounds.
2.46To this end, Professor Mary O'Kane AC, Chair of the Universities Accord Panel, also indicated that this was a key focus for the Panel, which was 'spending a lot of time on 'understanding the role support services play in ensuring students' success—this included 'not only what they should be but to what level they should be provided'.
2.47In addition, the department noted that the consultation on the Guidelines is underway, with stakeholder feedback sought to ensure that what is being proposed is both practical and implementable. In addition, the department noted that the diversity of the higher education sector means that there is no expectation for a one-size-fits all response to the policy requirements.
2.48Mr Ben Rimmer, Deputy Secretary of the department, spoke to the robustness of the feedback being provided:
I would say that the accord process and the consultation process and the discussion paper, and for that matter this Senate inquiry process, are all extremely useful sources of feedback to us as a department as we work to finalise the policy and the guidelines and to support the minister in that task. I would say that there is good, healthy and robust feedback coming to us about this topic, as there should be.
2.49Ms Renee Carr of Fair Agenda supported the department's process and said that while her organisation would need to see the final document before endorsing it, she was 'encouraged by engagement with the Department of Education and the working group so far'. A similar view was expressed by Ms Sharna Bremner of End Rape on Campus Australia, who also required further detail before endorsing the Guidelines but was 'so far pretty confident and happy with how things are going'.
2.50Some participants also welcomed Minister Clare's commitment that the consultation would be finalised—and draft Guideline amendments prepared for release—before the bill is debated in the Senate.
Potential administrative burden and overlapping regulatory responsibilities
2.51There were mixed views about the potential administrative burden arising from the new support-for-students policy requirement. For example, some participants voiced concerns about the potential burden of the policy, as well as the cost of compliance. The Go8 noted the already high cost of compliance-based reporting within the university sector and suggested that implementing the support-for-students measure could result in resources being diverted away from supporting students.
2.52Similarly, USYD contended that the bill would 'exacerbate administrative burdens and workloads by mandating new policy, systems, and reporting obligations' and may result in the need to duplicate or rewrite existing university policies. Likewise, ITECA argued that the bill would impose 'significant financial, staffing and regulatory burdens on higher education providers'.
2.53However, other submitters such as the University of Canberra, agreed with the statement in the Explanatory Memorandum that implementing the policy would not be onerous and that 'support for student success and monitoring of student progress is expected of a modern, quality higher education provider'. Further, the University of Canberra anticipated that such a policy would 'not replace existing policies and procedures but would be an over-arching document to draw these together'.
2.54This view was shared by the IRU, which stated that its members already have academic progression policies—as well as a range of student supports—and that reporting these to the department was 'unlikely to be onerous'. Likewise, Professor Ian Anderson of the University of Tasmania indicated he was not worried about having an appropriate support-for-students policy in place by 2024:
We think it's mission critical for us. We expected that there would be some immediate actions coming out of the accord interim panel report. This is a good one, and we'll be working with our colleagues to review our policy framework going forward.
2.55This position was also supported by Murdoch University, which went further and argued that student support practices across the tertiary sector could be enhanced by documenting and sharing universities' support systems.
2.56Despite this, the NTEU raised concerns that the support-for-students requirement will be undermined by insecure employment at universities, 'including the use of external "contractors" to deliver core teaching, learning, student support and other academic and welfare services'. For this reason, the NTEU 'strongly recommended' that compliance with the support-for-students requirement should not rely on self-reporting and pointed to the 'plethora of positive sounding policy that … is either partly implemented or not implemented at all—for example, their policies around sexual harassment and staff and student safety on campuses'.
2.57Self-reporting was also criticised by Ms Bremner, who said that it was 'absolutely not something we can rely on … We wouldn't let students mark their own papers and we shouldn't let universities do the same'.
2.58Instead, the NTEU argued that institutions should be required to demonstrate that 'sufficient resources—both in staff being qualified and in appropriate numbers—are available and accessible to students' and that 'democratically elected bodies' representing student and staff interests should play a role in compliance.
2.59In relation to student safety and wellbeing more specifically, Ms Carr advocated for 'specific standards on sexual violence prevention' that are accessible and effective for students, as well as 'oversight of compliance' and 'enforcement for breaches as they relate to sexual violence'.
2.60While views about the potential administrative burden varied, there was greater consensus about the potential for the bill to create overlapping regulatory responsibilities between the department and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA).
2.61Various participants, including UA and USYD pointed out that the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021 already require universities to have processes to identify students at risk of unsatisfactory progress and provide support. According to the IRU, any duplication between the Threshold Standards and Guidelines could leave to regulatory overlap between the department TEQSA. The ATN went further and argued that inclusion of the support-for-students policy in the bill would 'introduce a separate duplicative set of arrangements which confuse responsibilities, reduce efficiency and are wasteful of Commonwealth and university resources'.
2.62To this end, some submitters proposed alternative approaches. For example, both UA and UoN suggested that the support-for-students amendment be implemented through TEQSA rather than the department. Similarly, the ATN proposed strengthening existing arrangements (noting the current review of the Threshold Standards was an appropriate first step). Further, the IRU recommended 'a systematic review of university regulation and reporting, with the aim of simplifying the existing regime and reducing duplication'.
2.63In response, the department explained that while the bill and the Threshold Standards appear to cover a number of the same matters, they do so from different but complementary perspectives—that is, TEQSA from an accreditation and regulatory standpoint and the department in relation to ensuring the appropriate use of Commonwealth funding. As Mr Rimmer explained:
… it's very common for there to be funding arrangements that sit alongside those accreditation and regulation arrangements that are about the use of Commonwealth funding. That's where the role of the department is and has been; the department has always been in the space of making sure there's good value for money on behalf of parliament and to support the minister's accountability to parliament for the expenditure of Commonwealth funds. They're quite different tasks. Sometimes, in the detail, they end up talking about similar things for universities, as they do for hospitals, aged care and early childhood—that's something we work through. But the perspectives are very different and quite complementary.
Implementation timeframe
2.64Various submitters raised concerns about the timeline for implementation of the support-for-students policy requirements in the bill, which would commence immediately upon receiving Royal Assent. For example, UA observed that 'this does not allow universities enough time to develop, implement and then report on measures that have been put in place to support students'.Likewise, QUT asserted that ' there is no plausible prospect that providers will be able to comply immediately with all of the requirements … without a minimum reasonable preparation time'.
2.65In addition, participants such as USYD submitted that the implementation timeframe would preclude assessment of any potential unintended consequences of the policy requirement, including its implications for student privacy.
2.66Accordingly, ITECA urged the Government to work with the sector to agree a 'reasonable timeframe for implementation', while the ACCI suggested there be a six-month transition period to allow providers to prepare for the changes. Other participants, including the RUN, University of Canberra, and QUT advocated for the requirements to commence from early 2024.
2.67In response, the department acknowledged that while the support-for-students requirements would take effect from Royal Assent, the detailed requirements to be specified in the Guidelines would not apply until January 2024, to allow providers time to prepare for implementation.
2.68Further, in relation to investigation and compliance activity, Mr Damian Coburn, Assistant Secretary with the department, stressed that—as with the department's existing compliance powers—a graduated approach would be employed. MrCoburn explained that rather than being a 'policing function', the 'goal of compliance is to return regulated entities back into compliance, and things like revocations or civil penalties are only for the most serious cases or, potentially, as a last resort'.
Views on further Universities Accord reforms
2.69In parallel with support for the policy aims of the bill, a number of participants provided feedback on broader issues they believed should be addressed via the Universities Accord process. Three of the key issues raised by participants were:
the impact of the JRG package on student fees;
university staffing and the impact on student support services; and
the impact of student living costs, including compulsory placements, on participation and completion rates.
Impact of the JRG package on student fees
2.70Various submitters raised concerns about the impact of the JRG package on student fees. For example, Dr Alison Barnes of the NTEU described the 'perverse' impact of shifting a greater proportion of the cost of higher education onto students:
The Job-ready Graduates changes saw a reduction in government funding on student learning of $1 billion per year, while student contributions have increased by $414 million per year. Perversely, it is now more expensive to undertake a journalism or arts degree than a medical degree.
2.71A similar point was raised by Ms Riley, who described the JRG package as 'very terrible for students and universities':
There seems to be pretty clear evidence across the board that it didn't succeed in any of its marks. Obviously, it has just left students with higher student debt. The government pays less in contributions for most degrees now, and students pay more.
2.72The Australian Academy of Humanities (AAH) also highlighted concerns about the level of debt being carried by students—particularly humanities students—given the role of higher education in addressing socioeconomic disadvantage:
We are increasingly concerned for current and future generations of students carrying higher levels of student debt, particularly humanities students who, since the introduction of Jobs Ready Graduates (JRG), will pay 113 per cent more for their degrees.
2.73According to the AAH, the JRG fee structures for humanities impacted 'regressively' on low SES and First Nations students, for whom the humanities are 'important first access points to higher education'.Dr Leroy-Dyer also told the committee that First Nations students will most often choose courses of study that are relevant to their communities, such as education, health and social sciences. Accordingly, Dr Leroy-Dyer argued that the focus should be 'ensuring that we have the best interests of the students and their communities at heart and not what is best for industry'.
2.74Mr Errol Phuah of the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations(CAPA) explained how the JRG fee structures worked to deter First Nations students and those from low socioeconomic backgrounds from studying these subjects:
… those who fall for the price-signalling … are those of lower socioeconomic backgrounds, because they look at the cost of degrees, and they think, 'This is too much.' A lot of middle-income students probably saw the change in prices and didn't really care that much, but Indigenous students and those from low socioeconomic backgrounds were probably more likely to be affected.
2.75In addition, the Australasian Association of Writing Programs noted that, in addition to the financial impact borne by students, the JRG package also financially penalised universities who enrolled these students.
2.76To this end, the AAH argued that improving access and inclusion in higher education would require the dismantling of the JRG policy as 'an urgent priority':
The JRG legislation was based on discredited assumptions about employability and workforce needs; disproportionately impacted women; made it far harder for many students from low SES backgrounds, including in the regions, to aspire to university in their areas of strength and interest; and made the study of Indigenous culture and history more expensive than medicine. In revisiting funding clusters post-JRG, there needs to be a clear logic to the differentials.
2.77This view was supported by the NTEU, which described JRG as 'an appalling piece of legislation' that 'clearly needs to be unscrambled'.
2.78Other submitters such as the Australian Council of Deans and Directors of Creative Arts and the Australian Council of University Art and Design Schools, the Australian Screen Production Education and Research Association (ASPERA), and Per Capita also called for the JRG changes to be reversed.
University staffing and the impact on student support services
2.79Some participants, including NATSIPA and CAPA, highlighted the unstable nature of university employment, including high levels of wage theft and increasing casualisation in the sector. For example, ASPERA noted that 'university work has become precarious and exploitative'. This view was shared by Dr Barnes, who observed that 'rampant casualisation, short-term contracting, excessive workloads, gig style work and widespread wage theft are now characterised as permanent arrangements in our universities'.
2.80Further, Dr Barnes submitted that university staff are 'at breaking point', following up to 35 000 job losses during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic without any commensurate reduction in workload:
… staff are at breaking point because workloads are damaging their wellbeing and damaging their physical health. … We've seen and heard anecdotally about a rise in things like staff suicides. I think it's because people are really at breaking point.
2.81The impact of staff shortages and outsourcing on student support services was highlighted by the NTEU, which explained that many of the staff who interact directly with students are insecurely employed, given minimal direction, and often lack access to professional development and training. In addition, DrBarnes observed that student support staff had often borne 'the brunt of the COVID related job losses', with further consequences for student support services:
… for students the understaffing and the under-resourcing of those support units is absolutely diabolical. We see students with significant problems being unable to receive help in a timely fashion. We see generic email addresses given to students to seek help, which are inaccessible. They don't take into account the different ways that students who are struggling might seek to engage with support units.
2.82A similar view was expressed by Ms Riley, who spoke of the poor quality of student support services, as well as cuts to both staff and student jobs in these services:
… student support services are at a very terrible level of quality ... Students are not able to access support for simple things such as changing subjects or looking at their degree structures. … At many universities, we're seeing cuts to staff and student jobs at these services which are an essential pathway for many students to work and study.
2.83The impact of staff shortages was also reflected in evidence from Ms Bremner, who told the committee about long wait times for support:
We are aware right now of extremely long wait times to access a meeting with somebody in the university's disability support office or academic support office ... We're also seeing across the board … students who are unable to speak to anyone within the counselling department unless it's a crisis situation, and then they're often referred to another external service. But we've seen really long wait times at counselling, as well.
2.84According to Dr MacDonald, the pressure on universities also increased in the wake of voluntary student unionism (VSU), which saw a reduction in services provided by student unions:
… pre VSU days, student organisations and student unions used to provide a lot of the academic and student welfare services, which would act as a backup to the university services when students were in trouble. There are many institutions now where those services are no longer available through student organisations because the student organisations themselves are not that functional.
2.85Ms Riley echoed concerns about the reduction in services following the introduction of VSU and noted the range of support services student unions have traditionally offered, including food bank services, access to lawyers, tutoring and, in some cases, therapists for mental health support. Further, MsRiley told the committee of the difference it makes when student unions 'are properly funded through legislation, like those in Western Australia':
… legal services and tutoring services … are big parts of the Western Australian universities, which the unions provide because they have the funding … they have consistent funding every year, so they know how many staff they can employ, what they can employ them at and how long they can employ them for … they are able to provide much more consistent food services and much more consistent just enjoyment, like socialising on campus … at a very consistent level that other student unions usually are not able to because of the funding.
2.86Further, Ms Riley emphasised the importance of student bodies to university governance and accountability, particularly in terms of student safety:
Without [independent student bodies], you would not have seen so many of these reporting mechanisms and general issues around sexual assault come out. Student bodies are essential to keeping the university accountable and essential to making sure the students have a voice, especially when they're being locked out of university governance. When you put a mining boss instead of a student on a board, it's a bit of a weird system.
2.87To this end, participants such as the NTEU, NATSIPA and CAPA welcomed the Government's commitment to engage with state and territory governments to improve university governance, which will include a focus on student and staff safety, as well as universities being good employers.
The impact of student living costs, including compulsory placements
2.88Participants such as Professor Christine Morley of ACHSWE noted that student living costs, including the cost of compulsory placements, were affecting successful completion of university studies. For example, Professor Hayne stated that 'the pressure to earn money to live contributes to academic failure and attrition', while Mr Isaac Wattenberg of Students Against Placement Poverty concurred and explained that 'the symptoms of prolonged poverty are causing students to not receive an adequate educational experience'
2.89This view was reflected in evidence from Professor O'Kane AC, who told the committee that support for student living costs—the support they need to live, the support they need to find jobs, the support they need to be able to afford housing—had emerged as an issue in the Universities Accord review process.
2.90To this end, ACHSWE stated that 'student poverty is a critical factor which needs to be addressed in any serious attempt to enable students to succeed in higher education'. UA also contended that student poverty, particularly 'placement poverty', would need to be addressed 'if wider student participation and completion in higher education is to succeed'.
2.91While ACHSWE recognised the range of supports provided by universities, it also noted that 'they are not in a position to provide the level of financial support which many students require to study', particularly those who need to undertake 'lengthy compulsory placements as part of their studies'. This view was also supported by UA, which argued that government intervention would be required.
2.92This point was underscored by the Australian Council of Deans of Health Sciences (ACDHS), which argued that increasing the participation of underrepresented groups in higher education would require efforts to address 'placement poverty'. The ACDHS explained that for allied health students, practical placements can last for five to ten weeks, with students often having to suspend the regular part-time employment that supports their living expenses. For placements away from their usual residence, students may also incur additional travel and accommodation costs. According to the ACDHS, 'the placements required to complete degrees as per accreditation requirements can place students in a position of financial hardship'.
2.93The extent of this hardship was described by ProfessorMorley, who referred to the results of an ACHSWE survey that found more than 60 per cent of respondents lost three-quarters of their income as a result of their placement, while a further 25 per cent lost their entire income. Professor Morley elaborated:
Some students are reporting losing tens of thousands of dollars in wages. Astaggering 96 per cent of students said they did not have money for food. Students are … choosing between food and petrol. They are disconnecting their phone and internet ... They're having to give up their rental properties and go and live with parents, even as mature-age students with their own children. … Students also reported going into massive debt, maxing out their credit cards and taking out big loans in order to survive.
2.94Professor Morley also told the committee that students who cannot afford to give up paid employment while on placements were working up to 80 hours a week 'cleaning rooms before placement, doing night-fill in supermarkets or driving Uber at night on top of their placement'.
2.95Accordingly, participants such as Professor Linda Briskman of ACHSWE, MrWattenberg and Ms Riley argued that students should be paid for placements, particularly as many placements were not 'purely educational' but were used to fill labour shortages and included 'tasks such as transportation, cleaning and office administration'. Other proposed solutions included allowing students to complete placements in their existing workplaces, reducing the number of required placement hours, and increasing recognition of prior learning.
2.96The issue of unpaid placements was also recognised by Professor O'Kane AC, who noted they affected a wide range of courses including engineering, medicine, dentistry and veterinary studies, as well as teaching and nursing, which have large cohorts of students and 'particularly long placement requirements'. To this end, Professor O'Kane AC indicated that the Universities Accord Panel was looking at how the issue might be addressed—'what form it might take and who might pay, or how much can you do without payment—what is a sensible system and what actually gets the best professional and educational outcomes out of it'.
Committee view
2.97The committee would like to thank the organisations and individuals who engaged with this inquiry by providing written submissions or giving evidence at the committee's public hearings (or both). The committee would also like to acknowledge many of the participants for their ongoing engagement with the Australian Universities Accord (Universities Accord) process. The Universities Accord involves the biggest and most comprehensive review of higher education in over 15 years and the committee is heartened by the commitment and goodwill demonstrated by participants during this process.
2.98At the outset, the committee would like to acknowledge that a significant part of the evidence it heard during this inquiry related to broader reforms that should be considered as part of the Universities Accord process. While this report is necessarily focused on the provisions of the Higher Education Support Amendment (Response to the Australian Universities Accord Interim Report) Bill 2023 (bill), the committee values the consideration participants have given to these wider issues. The committee also acknowledges there is further work to be done to address issues such as unpaid student placements, ensure staff and student safety on campus, and to unwind the damage done by the previous government's Job-ready Graduates (JRG) package, which was roundly criticised by a number of inquiry participants.
2.99Indeed, the committee heard from several witnesses concerning the critical issue of safety on university campuses. The committee is aware of the recent work done by the Senate Legal & Constitutional Affairs References Committee on the issue of current and proposed sexual consent laws in Australia, including its recommendations concerning responses to sexual assault and harassment on campuses.
2.100The committee also notes the recent communique of the Education Ministers Meeting on 5 October 2023, at which state and territory Education Ministers were briefed on the work of the Inter-jurisdictional Working Group into University Governance (Working Group). The Working Group was established by the Minister for Education in response to Priority Action Five recommended by the Universities Accord: to immediately engage with state and territory governments to improve university governance, including student and staff safety.
2.101To this end, the Minister for Education has tasked the Working Group with formulating advice on concrete actions to strengthen university governance before the end of 2023 in relation to ensuring student and staff safety through the prevention of gender-based violence and sexual harm, including on university campuses and in student residential settings.
2.102The committee notes that the Education Ministers Meeting has agreed to hold a special purpose meeting in November to consider the Working Group's advice. The committee also notes the ongoing work of the Universities Accord in reviewing the regulation of the higher education sector.
2.103At the same time, the committee recognises that the current bill will address issues identified by the Universities Accord Panel (Panel) as both significant and suitable for immediate action.
2.104Importantly, the committee notes that both the Panel and the Australian Government are continuing to consult with stakeholders on the approach to implementation of Priority Action 2, as well as the more wide-reaching and long-term actions that will be needed to strengthen Australia's higher education system and prepare us to meet the priorities and challenges that lie ahead. Importantly, this will include improving university governance, with a focus on student and staff safety, as well as universities being good employers. The committee encourages all stakeholders to continue to engage in this important work.
2.105In relation to the bill, the committee notes the near universal support for its objective of improving access and equity for underrepresented groups at tertiary institutions. This high level of support recognises that not only is improving access and equity for these groups the best way to meet Australia's growing skills challenge, but it is simply the right thing to do.
2.106Furthermore, the committee heard overwhelming support for removing the cap on demand driven placed for First Nations students. This measure has been long advocated for by the higher education sector and addresses the geographical disparity in access to tertiary education between First Nations students.
2.107In addition, the committee agrees with those participants who stressed that more work needs to be done to address other barriers to First Nations participation and completion. To this end, the committee notes that the Universities Accord Panel is investigating further reforms to increase participation and attainment for equity cohorts, including in the areas of building aspiration for higher education, increasing access to enabling programs, and exploring funding models that recognise the additional costs involved in teaching students from underrepresented communities.
2.108The committee also heard overwhelming support for the removal of the 50 per cent pass rate requirement, which was introduced as part of the former government's JRG package and was variously described by participants as blunt, harmful, poorly thought through and punitive. The committee was deeply concerned to hear that the introduction of the 50 per cent requirement had most greatly affected students from disadvantaged cohorts, with many of these students being forced to withdraw from their studies while students from more affluent backgrounds were able to continue in their courses by paying their fees upfront.
2.109The committee acknowledges that participants had mixed views on the new support-for-students policy, with some raising concerns about the potential administrative burden and regulatory overlap associated with the measure. However, on balance, the committee agrees with those submitters who argued that the requirement is unlikely to be onerous given that monitoring and supporting student success is something that quality higher education providers do already.
2.110Further, the committee is encouraged by the current review of the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021, as well as the consultation underway to ensure the requirements in the Higher Education Provider Guidelines are both practical and implementable. Importantly, the committee notes that the Minister has committed to finalise consultations on the Higher Education Provider Guidelines (Guidelines) prior to the bill being passed.
2.111In relation to potential regulatory overlap, the committee accepts the department's advice that its role—and the role of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA)—are different but complementary. Accordingly, the committee encourages the department, TEQSA and all affected stakeholders to continue working together to streamline student support requirements and minimise duplication.
2.112While the committee recognises that some inquiry participants were concerned about the timeline for implementation of the support-for-students policy, it notes that the requirements to be specified in the Guidelines will not apply until the start of the 2024 academic year. In the committee's view, this provides sufficient time for higher education providers to understand and comply with these new requirements. The committee also notes the graduated approach that will be taken to investigating and enforcing compliance with the Guidelines.
2.113Overall, by strengthening student support requirements, removing the cap on demand driven places for First Nations students, and abolishing the punitive 50 per cent pass requirement, the committee believes the bill will improve access and equity in higher education for underrepresented groups. As underscored by the Universities Accord Panel, 'there is simply no getting away from the stark fact that a high-quality and equitable higher education system is now essential'. In conjunction with the action already underway on the other three priority actions identified by Universities Accord Panel, the committee believes this bill represents an important first step to strengthening Australia's higher education system and meeting Australia's knowledge and skills needs now and into the future. Accordingly, the committee recommends the bill be passed.
2.114The committee recommends the bill be passed.
Senator Tony Sheldon
Chair