Introductory Info
Date introduced: 26 August 2020
House: House of Representatives
Portfolio: Education, Skills and Employment
Commencement: 1 January 2021.
Purpose of
the Bill
The purpose of the Education
Legislation Amendment (Up-front Payments Tuition Protection) Bill 2020
(the Main Bill) and Higher
Education (Up-front Payments Tuition Protection Levy) Bill 2020 (the Levy
Bill) is to extend the Tuition Protection
Service (TPS) to domestic higher education students who pay their course
fees upfront.
The Main Bill proposes to:
- amend
the Tertiary
Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (TEQSA Act) to
include compliance with tuition protection requirements for domestic students
who pay their fees upfront as a condition of registration as a higher education
provider—the proposed tuition protection requirements are in similar
terms to those currently in place in relation to students covered by the TPS,
but include some extensions of provider responsibilities and
- amend
the Higher
Education Support Act 2003 (HESA) to consolidate higher
education TPS arrangements for domestic students, and provide consistency of
TPS provisions between the TEQSA Act and HESA.
The Levy Bill proposes to create the Higher Education
(Up-front Payments Tuition Protection Levy) Act 2020, which provides for,
and details the arrangements for calculating, the Up-front Payments Tuition
Protection Levy.
A number of minor consequential amendments to the Education Services
for Overseas Students Act 2000 (ESOS Act), Higher Education
Support (HELP Tuition Protection Levy) Act 2020, Student Identifiers
Act 2014, and VET Student Loans
Act 2016 (VSL Act) are also proposed in the Main Bill. These are
not covered in the Bills Digest.
Background
The Tuition Protection Service
The TPS is a provider-funded, Australian Government
service to assist students whose education provider is unable to deliver their
course as planned, ensuring that eligible students either continue their
studies with a different provider, or have the unused portion of the tuition
fee reimbursed or re-credited to their loan balance.[1]
The TPS began operating under the ESOS Act in 2012
as a service for overseas students studying in Australia on student visas.[2]
Participation in the TPS, and payment of the associated levy, is a condition of
registration on the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and
Courses for Overseas Students (CRICOS), the record of all Australian
education providers approved to offer courses to people studying in Australia
on student visas.[3]
In 2019, the TPS was extended to domestic students who pay
their tuition fees using student loans, replacing a range of provider-managed
tuition assurance arrangements that provided similar protections to the TPS.[4]
Providers are required to participate in the TPS, and pay associated levies, as
a condition of continuing approval as a provider of VET
Student Loans (VSL) under the VSL Act, or certain Higher Education Loan Program
(HELP) loans (HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP) under HESA.[5]
These changes did not extend to domestic students who pay their fees up front.
As a consequence of the 2019 changes, the TPS is now formally
three separate services funded by levies on providers, governed by a single TPS
Director and Advisory Board:
- the
TPS under the ESOS Act, for overseas students
- the
VSL TPS under the VSL Act, for students using VSL and
- the
HELP TPS under HESA, for students using HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP.[6]
Table A providers (essentially public universities) and
other providers specified in the VET Student Loans
Rules 2016 (VSL rules) and Higher Education
Provider Guidelines 2012 (HELP Guidelines) are exempt from the VSL TPS and
HELP TPS requirements, except those requirements related to providing
information about replacement courses and providing replacement courses.[7]
The TPS Director
The TPS Director appointed under the ESOS Act is
the head of all three services.[8]
The primary functions of the TPS Director are to:
- place
and/or provide refunds to international students, and re-credit loans for VSL
and HELP students
- report
to the Minister on the operations of the TPS and the financial status of the
Fund for each service (discussed below)
- manage
the TPS to ensure it meets its liabilities and
- make
TPS levy legislative instruments each year.[9]
The TPS levies
TPS operations are funded by education providers through a
levy for each service. Levy revenue for each of the three services is paid into
a separate special account: the Overseas Students Tuition Fund, the VSL Tuition
Protection Fund, and the HELP Tuition Protection Fund.[10]
Each levy is charged and calculated separately:
- the
TPS Levy for a registered CRICOS provider is the sum of four components: the
administrative fee, base fee, risk rated premium and special tuition protection
fee for the year[11]
and
- the
VSL Tuition Protection Levy and HELP Tuition Protection Levy are each the sum
of three components: the administrative fee, risk rated premium and a special tuition
protection fee for the year.[12]
The administrative and (for the TPS Levy) base fee
components are responsive to fluctuations in student numbers, and are set by
legislative instruments by the Minister.[13]
The risk rated premium and special tuition protection components are calculated
based on factors set each year by legislative instrument by the TPS Director,
in response to provider risk factors and other relevant considerations.[14]
The Advisory Board
An Advisory Board is responsible for advising the TPS
Director on the levies—as with arrangements for appointment of the
Director, the Chair and members of each Advisory Board are those appointed
under the ESOS Act.[15]
The Advisory Board comprises a representative from each of the Department of
Education, Skills and Employment (DESE), Department of Finance, Department of
Home Affairs, Australian Government Actuary, Australian Prudential Regulation
Authority and up to seven other members appointed by the Minister on the basis
of skills and experience.[16]
Exemptions
The Minister may exempt classes of providers from paying components
of the levies.
TPS Levy exemptions
For the TPS Levy, exemptions can be applied to the base fee
and/or risk rated premium component of the levy.[17]
The Education
Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Act 2012 (Levy exemptions)
Determination 2012 (No. 1) specifies that Table A providers, government
schools, and state or territory VET institutions, are exempt from the risk rated
premium component of the levy.[18]
The specified percentage, which determines how much special
tuition protection component providers must pay, has been set at zero every
year since 2012.[19]
The effect of these combined arrangements is that
Australian public universities, government schools, and state or territory VET
institutions are only paying the administrative fee and base fee parts of the
TPS Levy each year, while other providers are paying an additional risk rated
premium component.
VSL Tuition Protection Levy and
HELP Tuition Protection Levy exemptions
Exemptions can be applied to any or all of the components
of the VSL Tuition Protection Levy and HELP Tuition Protection Levy.[20]
Table A providers and other providers specified in the VSL
rules and HELP Guidelines are exempt from the bulk of TPS requirements,
including levy liability.[21]
The VSL rules and HELP Guidelines extend the exemption to all providers owned
by the Commonwealth, or a state or territory, or established under the various
state and territory technical and further education (TAFE) Acts.[22]
Financial viability of the TPS
The latest TPS annual report is for 2018–19, before
the VSL TPS and HELP TPS commenced operations. Based on an analysis of annual
reports from 2012–13 to 2018–19, over the term of its operation the
TPS had responded to 62 provider closures affecting 9,215 students to June 2019,
and levy revenue has consistently outstripped expenditure.[23]
The ability to shift levy charges in response to changing circumstances is a
key component of the TPS design, and is intended to maintain the balance of the
respective special accounts.[24]
Extending the TPS to domestic
students who pay upfront fees
In 2019, 9.1 per cent of domestic Commonwealth
supported students (56,159 of 614,596, measured in equivalent full-time
student load (EFTSL)) and 24.9 per cent of domestic full fee-paying students
(23,355 of 93,694 EFTSL) paid upfront fees with no HELP assistance.[25]
In the vocational education and training (VET) sector, the
proportion of students paying upfront fees is much higher. In 2019, measured in
full-year training equivalents (FYTEs), there were approximately 548,900
domestic government-funded and 396,700 domestic fee-for-service VET enrolments.[26]
In the same year, 53,892 students were assisted by VSL.[27]
In part, this reflects a greater diversity of study options in the VET sector,
with large proportions of students studying shorter and lower level courses,
which are not eligible for VSL.[28]
The omission of students who pay their fees upfront from the
2019 expansion of the TPS was considered as part of the Senate Inquiry into the
Education Legislation Amendment (Tuition Protection and Other Measures) Bill
2019.[29]
The Inquiry heard from a number of key interest groups with concerns that these
students would not be covered.[30]
DESE advised that students paying fees up-front were able to seek a refund through
the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), or, if the fee was
$1,500 or more, the provider was required to have other tuition protection
arrangements in place for students.[31]
The Committee was convinced that these protections, and other regulatory
protections to ensure provider quality, were sufficient.[32]
It did not recommend extending the TPS to cover domestic students who pay their
fees upfront.[33]
However, the planned closure of the main independent tuition protection scheme
for higher education students, the Independent Tertiary Education Council
Australia (ITECA) Australian Student Tuition Scheme (ASTAS) was flagged as a
concern.[34]
ASTAS closed at the end of 2019, and ITECA has advocated for an extension of the TPS to
cover the gap left by the cessation of this service.[35]
Committee
consideration
Senate Selection of Bills
Committee
The Senate Selection of Bills Committee has recommended the Bills not
be referred to committee for inquiry and report.[36]
Senate Standing Committee for the
Scrutiny of Bills
The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
has considered the Bills and requested additional information from the Minister
in respect to the necessity of leaving significant elements of the proposed TPS
expansion to delegated legislation, and why high-level guidance could not be
included in the primary legislation.[37]
The Committee raises particular concerns about the Levy Bill, stating:
One of the most fundamental functions of the Parliament is to
impose taxation (including levies). Consequently, the committee's consistent
scrutiny view is that it is for the Parliament, rather than the makers of
delegated legislation, to set rates of tax. The committee therefore considers
that it is more appropriate for the rate of levies and charges to be prescribed
in primary legislation.[38]
However, ultimately:
The committee draws its scrutiny concerns to the attention of
senators, and leaves to the Senate as a whole the appropriateness of allowing
the Higher Education Tuition Protection Director to determine core elements of
the up-front payments tuition protection levy in delegated legislation, with
only limited guidance as to the amounts of levy that may be imposed.[39]
In relation to the Main Bill, the Committee outlines its
broader concerns in relation to the approach taken to the TPS:
The committee has consistently raised concerns about framework
bills, which contain only the broad principles of a legislative scheme and rely
heavily on delegated legislation to determine the scope and operation of the
scheme. The committee considers that such an approach considerably limits the
ability of Parliament to have appropriate oversight over new legislative
schemes. Consequently, the committee's view is that significant matters, such
the details of a scheme to implement tuition protection measures, should be
included in the primary legislation unless a sound justification for the use of
delegated legislation is provided.
While the committee notes the explanation provided in the
explanatory memorandum and acknowledges that some of the matters may be
administrative and technical in nature, the committee has generally not
accepted a desire for administrative flexibility to be a sufficient
justification for leaving significant matters to delegated legislation.
Additionally it is unclear to the committee why it would not be possible to set
out at least some high-level requirements in relation to the operation of this
scheme in the primary legislation.[40]
Policy
position of non-government parties/independents
At the time of writing, no non-government parties or independents
have commented specifically on the Bills.
During the Senate Inquiry into the 2019 expansion of the
TPS to cover HELP and VSL students, Labor Senators expressed concern that the
expansion did not include students who pay fees upfront, potentially leaving
these students vulnerable and with little practical protection from the ACCC.[41]
The Bills appear to address these concerns.
Position of
major interest groups
ITECA has
advocated in favour of the extension of the TPS.[42]
Financial
implications
The Explanatory
Memorandum to the Main Bill states that the measure is expected to generate
$0.1 million over the forward estimates.[43]
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
As required under Part 3 of the Human Rights
(Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth), the Government has assessed
the Bills’ compatibility with the human rights and freedoms recognised or
declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of that Act. The
Government considers that the Bills are compatible.[44]
Parliamentary Joint Committee on
Human Rights
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has
considered the Bills and has no comment.[45]
Key issues
and provisions—the Main Bill
Schedule 1—amendment of the TEQSA
Act
The TEQSA Act provides for the operation of the
higher education regulator, the Tertiary Education
Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA).[46]
TEQSA is responsible for the registration of higher education providers, and
some higher education courses, in accordance with the TEQSA Act and the
Threshold Standards (currently the Higher Education
Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2015).[47]
There are currently no TPS provisions in the TEQSA Act, as these are
dealt with in the funding legislation, HESA, alongside the HELP
provisions.
Schedule 1 of the Main Bill proposes to amend the TEQSA
Act to add compliance with tuition protection requirements to the
conditions of registration for higher education providers.[48]
The proposed requirements are in largely similar terms to current TPS
arrangements for overseas, VSL and HELP students under the ESOS Act, VSL
Act, and HESA, but will apply to domestic higher education students
who pay their fees up-front.[49]
Various exemptions are included in the Bill, with the effect that the tuition
protection requirements will only apply to private providers, unless a public
provider is specifically included by the Minister.[50]
The Bill’s proposed TPS arrangements under the TEQSA
Act differ from existing TPS arrangements for HELP and VSL students in one
key way: under the existing TPS arrangements, a provider obligation
period, during which time the provider is required to provide a student
with a suitable replacement course or unit or refund, only applies under the ESOS
Act.[51]
Schedule 1 of the Bill proposes to introduce a provider obligation period
to the TEQSA Act.[52]
Schedule 2 then proposes to duplicate these arrangements in HESA, as
part of a larger consolidation of higher education TPS provisions.[53]
No similar changes to duplicate these arrangements in the VSL Act are
proposed in the Bill.
The Higher Education Tuition
Protection Director
Item 3 amends section 5 of the TESQA Act to insert
a definition of Higher Education Tuition Protection Director, as
the person referred to in section 167-15 of HESA—that is currently
the HELP Tuition Protection Director, who is the person who holds the position
of TPS Director under section 54A of the ESOS Act. Schedule 2 of the
Bill includes changes to repeal and replace section 167-15 of HESA,
effectively renaming the HELP Tuition Protection Director as the Higher Education
Tuition Protection Director, and ensuring their remit covers the TPS for both
students who use HELP and those who pay fees upfront.[54]
For clarity, the Higher Education Tuition Protection
Director is hereafter referred to as the TPS Director.
The tuition protection requirements
The proposed tuition protection requirements
are imposed under proposed section 26A (inserted at item 7). They
include:
- an
up-front payment tuition protect levy (the Levy) and, where applicable, a late
payment—the Levy is to be imposed by the Higher Education (Up-front
Payments Tuition Protection Levy) Act 2020 once made, as outlined later
in this Bills Digest
- requirements
for defaulting providers, the TPS Director and placement service, and
replacement providers, which are set out in proposed Part 5A (inserted
at item 8) and
- administrative
arrangements set out in Up-front Payment Guidelines.[55]
Tuition protection requirements
under proposed Part 5A
Consistent with the arrangements currently in place for
the HELP and VSL TPS, the tuition protection requirements set out in proposed
Part 5A will not apply to Table A providers, providers owned by
Commonwealth, state or territory governments, providers operating under various
state and territory TAFE Acts, or those specified in the Up-front Payment
Guidelines.[56]
However, the Minister will be able to specify by written notice that a provider
is or is not exempt, subject to considerations set out in proposed subsection
62(3), such as riskof provider default, their financial status
and capacity, compliance issues, advice from TEQSA or the TPS Director.[57]
The central concept underpinning the TPS arrangements is
that a registered higher education provider’s failure to provide a unit
of study to a student on the day it was scheduled to start, or cessation of a
unit after this date but before completion, is considered a default,
providing the student was still enrolled on the relevant day, and an upfront
payment was made for the unit on or before that day, or in the case of
non-payment, the student could not have deferred the cost using HELP.[58]
The Main Bill sets out various arrangements that will
arise in response to a default.
Within 24 hours of a default, the provider must notify the
TPS Director and the affected students in writing.[59]
Further detailed information must be provided within three business days—this
includes information about the student, their unit(s) and course of study,
their related tuition fees at the time of the default, how the provider intends
to deal with the default in relation to the student, and the student’s
records if requested.[60]
From the date of the default, a 14 day provider
obligation period applies, during which time the provider is required
to discharge their obligation to the student.[61]
This is a two-step process. First, the provider must identify whether or not
there are one or more suitable replacement units or suitable replacement
courses for the student.[62]
If there are, the provider must inform the student that they can choose to
either continue their studies in one of these courses or units, or receive a
refund.[63]
If there is no suitable replacement unit or suitable
replacement course, or if the student elects to receive a refund, the provider
must pay the student a refund equal to the amount of any up-front payments made
for the affected unit.[64]
The provider must then notify the TPS Director of the outcome of their
discharge of obligations within seven days of the end of the provider
obligation period.[65]
These arrangements continue to apply to a person as if they were a registered
higher education provider, even if their registration is no longer current.[66]
If the TPS Director determines that the provider has
failed, or is likely to fail, to discharge its obligations to the student
within the provider obligation period, the TPS student placement service will
instead assist the student, in which case the TPS Director performs the
functions described above in relation to deciding whether there are suitable
replacement courses.[67]
In determining the availability of suitable replacement courses, or carrying
out any other functions under the TEQSA Act, the TPS Director can
require any registered higher education provider to provide information to
assist with this assessment.[68]
Following the TPS Director’s determination, the student can then choose to
enrol in a suitable replacement course identified by the TPS Director, or
another course, or receive a refund equal to the amount the provider would have
been liable to pay.[69]
If the TPS Director makes arrangements in place of the provider, any payments to
replacement providers for replacement courses, or refunds to the student, are
paid from the Higher Education Tuition Protection Fund. [70]
If there is a difference between the cost of a replacement
course and the amount the student would otherwise receive as a refund, the TPS
Director is afforded some discretion to pay for a more costly replacement
course, providing it is in the best interest of the student and would not
jeopardise the sustainability of the Fund.[71]
In the case of a less costly course the TPS Director is required to pay the
difference to the student.[72]
However, if the right to a refund under these arrangements is cancelled,
revoked, terminated or varied by or under later legislation, no compensation is
payable.[73]
If the TPS Director pays the cost of a refund or
replacement course from the Fund, the student ceases to have any claim against
the provider, but the provider then becomes liable to repay the amount spent to
the TPS Director—the TPS Director must give the provider written notice
of the amounts owning.[74]
Certain obligations are also imposed on providers of
replacement courses. If the student accepts an offer of a place in a
replacement course or unit (either organised by the defaulting provider or the
TPS student placement service), the replacement provider must:
- advise
the TPS Director within 14 days of the acceptance
- ensure
the student is granted credit for units already completed, if the student has
enrolled in a replacement course
- ensure
the student is not charged tuition fees, if they have already paid through the
original course
- ensure
the student is enrolled in the replacement course or unit as soon as
practicable and
- keep
up to date records in relation to the student.[75]
Fee arrangements for jointly provided units or courses are
also clarified. If a provider makes an agreement with another provider to
provide a unit or course jointly, student fees must be either paid to the
original provider or the agreement must be in writing and provide for the
receipt and disbursement of any fees to other providers.[76]
Offences and penalties
A number of penalty provisions are included in proposed
Part 5A to ensure provider compliance with the tuition protection
requirements. These are summarised in Table 1 below. In each case, both a civil
penalty and an offence of strict liability is proposed, with a maximum penalty
of 60 penalty units (PU), being the equivalent of $13,320 at the time of
writing.[78]
Table 1: Proposed new
penalties—TEQSA Act
Offence/Civil penalty provision |
Provision |
Maximum penalty (PU) |
Failure of a provider to give notice of default to the TPS
Director |
62D |
60 |
Failure of a provider to give notice of default to
affected students |
62E |
60 |
Failure of a provider to discharge obligations to students
in case of default |
62G |
60[79]
|
Failure of a provider to give notice of discharge of
obligations to the TPS Director |
62H |
60 |
Failure of a provider to comply with a notice to provide
information about replacement courses |
62N |
60 |
Failure of a replacement provider to meet their
obligations as a replacement provider, including giving notice of acceptance
of a replacement course or unit to the TPS Director, and in respect to
granting the student credit, not charging fees, and ensuring enrolment is
completed as soon as practicable |
62P |
60 |
Failure of a replacement provider to meet their
obligations as a replacement provider in respect to enrolment information |
62Q |
60 |
Failure of a higher education provider to adhere to the
requirements for payments between providers |
62R |
60 |
Failure of a provider to comply with a notice to provide
information relevant to the TPS Director’s functions under the TEQSA
Act |
62S |
60 |
Up-front Payment Guidelines
In addition to arrangements proposed to be set out in the TEQSA
Act, the Up-front Payment Guidelines, made by the Minister under proposed
section 26B, may cover:
- the
issue of notices setting out the Levy amounts owed by a provider
- when
Levy payments are due
- issues
related to payment extensions
- penalties
for late payments
- who
the Levy and any late payments are payable to
- refund,
remission, or waiver arrangements
- review
of decisions in relation to the collection or recovery of Levy payments
- any
other matters relating to the collection or recovery of the Levy
- payments
made in connection with the tuition protection requirements in relation to costs,
expenses or other obligations incurred through the TPD Director’s
functions, including managing the HELP Tuition Protection Fund, under paragraph
167-10(1)(b) of HESA and
- the
information and documents a provider must keep and give to the Secretary, in
the time period and manner specified by the Secretary, for the purposes of the
tuition protection requirements—this can include, but is not limited to:
- information
related to the enrolment, progression, units of study and results of the
provider’s domestic students
- their
tuition fees and any amount received up-front
- identifying
information including names and contact details of the students and
- any
other matter related to tuition protection requirements.[80]
Regulatory powers
Item 15 in Schedule 1 to the Main Bill inserts
provisions in Part 7 of the TEQSA Act, which deals with enforcement, to
apply the Regulatory
Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014 (the Regulatory Powers Act)
to provisions in proposed Part 5A. This approach is consistent with that
already in place under the VSL Act and HESA.[81]
The Regulatory Powers Act provides for a framework of standard
regulatory powers exercised by agencies across the Commonwealth. It applies to
regulatory schemes which trigger its provisions through primary legislation.
Proposed sections 131A and 131B of the TEQSA Act
provide that the provisions of proposed Part 5A are subject to monitoring
and investigation under Parts 2 and 3 of the Regulatory Powers Act. Parts
2 and 3 create a framework for monitoring whether provisions of an Act have
been or are being complied with and for gathering material that relates to the contravention
of offence and civil penalty provisions.[82]
Parts 2 and 3 allow entry to premises by consent or under warrant, and powers
of search and inspection.[83]
Part 3 also allows seizure of evidential material.[84]
Proposed section 131C provides that each civil
penalty provision in proposed Part 5A is enforceable under Part 4 of
the Regulatory Powers Act, which provides for an authorised applicant
(in this case the TPS Director) to apply to a court for an order that a person
who is alleged to have contravened a civil penalty provision pay the
Commonwealth a pecuniary penalty.[85]
Part 4 also provides for the interaction of civil and criminal penalties and
the state of mind needed to establish a contravention of a civil penalty provision,
among other things.
Proposed section 131D provides that civil penalty
provisions under Proposed Part 5A may be enforced through an infringement notice
under Part 5 of the Regulatory Powers Act. If an infringement officer
(in this case the TPS Director) believes on reasonable grounds that a person
has contravened a civil penalty provision in proposed Part 5A of the TEQSA
Act, they may give the person an infringement notice.[86]
A person who is given an infringement notice can choose to pay an amount as an
alternative to having court proceedings brought against them for the civil
penalty contravention. If the person chooses not to pay the amount, proceedings
can be brought against them in relation to the contravention.[87]
The maximum penalty that may be imposed under an infringement notice relating
to a breach of a civil penalty provision in proposed Part 5A of the TEQSA
Act is 12 penalty units.[88]
Proposed section 131E provides that the
provisions of proposed Part 5A of the TEQSA Act are enforceable under
Part 6 of the Regulatory Powers Act, which allows an authorised person
(in this case the Secretary of DESE) to accept an undertaking (referred to as
an enforceable undertaking) that the person will take, or refrain from
taking, specified action in order to comply with a relevant provision.[89]
Such an undertaking is enforceable by a court, which may make an order
directing compliance, an order requiring any financial benefit from the failure
to comply to be surrendered and/or an order for damages.[90]
Finally, proposed section 131F provides that the
provisions of proposed Part 5A of the TEQSA Act are enforceable using injunctions
under Part 7 of the Regulatory Powers Act. Under Part 7 an authorised
person (in this case the Secretary of DESE) may apply to a court for an
injunction restraining a person from engaging in conduct that would contravene
a provision of Part 5A, or requiring a person to do a thing.[91]
Items 16 and 17 propose to amend section 154L of
the TEQSA Act in relation to delegation by the TEQSA Chief Executive
Officer (CEO), to allow the CEO to delegate, in writing, any or all of their
powers under the Regulatory Powers Act in relation to proposed Part
5A, to an Executive Level 2 or above employee of TEQSA. Before making such
a delegation, the CEO must have regard to whether the office or position to
which the power will be delegated is sufficiently senior, or whether the
employee has appropriate qualifications or expertise to perform the function or
duty or exercise the power.
Review of decisions
Items 18 to 20
insert provisions for reviewable decisions relating to
tuition protection, namely decisions about whether:
- Part
5A applies, or does not apply, to a registered higher education provider (this
decision is made by the Minister)[92]
- there
are one or more suitable replacement courses for a student (this decision is made
by the TPS Director)[93]
and
- there
is not a suitable replacement course for the student (this decision is also
made by the TPS Director).[94]
The person whose interests are affected by any of these
decisions may request that the reviewer reconsider the decision, in which case
the reviewer must reconsider the decision.[95]
Alternatively, the reviewer may independently decide to reconsider a reviewable
decision if they consider there is sufficient reason to do so.[96]
Proposed section 187B provides that the decision
will be reviewed by the original decision maker, unless it was delegated, in
which case, if it is to be reconsidered by a delegate (rather than the Minister
or TPS Director) it will be reconsidered by a delegate who was not involved in
making the decision and who occupies a position senior to the person involved
in making the original decision.
An application may be made to the Administrative Appeals
Tribunal (AAT) for the review of decisions under proposed section 62B of the TEQSA
Act as to whether Part 5A applies, or does not apply, to a provider, which
have been confirmed, varied or set aside after review under proposed
sections 187C or 187D (that is, decisions about suitable replacement
courses cannot be appealed to the AAT).[97]
Review of operation of tuition
protection
The 2019 expansion of the TPS included the requirement
that the Minister commence a review of the operation of the VSL TPS, HELP TPS, and
the existing TPS (to be conducted at the same time), before 1 July 2021.[98]
Item 23 in Schedule 1 to the Main Bill inserts proposed section 203A
to add the operation of proposed Part 5A of the TEQSA Act to that
planned review.
Schedule 2—amendment of HESA
Consolidation of higher education
TPS arrangements
Arrangements for the HELP TPS, including the HELP Tuition
Protection Fund, the HELP Tuition Protection Director, and the HELP Tuition
Fund Advisory Board, are currently dealt with in Part 5‑1A of HESA.
Like provisions are also included in the VSL Act, and the ESOS Act.
Rather than create another parallel structure under the TEQSA
Act, Schedule 2 of the Main Bill proposes to amend the TPS provisions in HESA
to replace the HELP TPS structures with a Higher Education Tuition Protection
Fund, Higher Education Tuition Protection Director, and Higher Education
Tuition Fund Advisory Board. Each of these would continue its existing functions
for HELP students, and also be extended to students who pay their fees upfront
as provided for under the TEQSA Act, according to the provisions in
Schedule 1 of the Main Bill. A large number of minor technical amendments are
included in this Schedule to update the names of the various components of the
TPS. Only the substantive amendments are outlined below.
Item 29 in Schedule 2 to the Billproposes
to repeal and replace section 167-15, which establishes the position of the HELP
Tuition Protection Director under HESA. Under the replacement version of
that section, the position is to be known as the Higher Education Tuition
Protection Director. The role remains otherwise unchanged and would
still be held by the person who holds the office of TPS Director under section
54A of the ESOS Act.[99]
Item 38 proposes to amend section 167-20, which
sets out the functions of the TPS Director under HESA, to include making
the legislative instrument each year under section 13 of the Higher
Education (Up-front Payments Tuition Protection Levy) Act 2020 (discussed in
the section below).[100]
Item 41 proposes to amend the same section to require the TPS Director
to consider how exercising any of their powers under the section will affect
the tuition protection requirements under both HESA and the TEQSA Act.[101]
Item 55 proposes to repeal and replace section
167-35 of HESA, which sets out the functions of the Advisory Board, to
include advising and making recommendations to the TPS Director in relation to
the legislative instrument under section 13 of the Higher Education (Up-front
Payments Tuition Protection Levy) Act 2020 (discussed in the section below)
each year.[102]
Proposed subsection 167-35(2) retains the Advisory Board’s powers
to make recommendations on either its own initiative or at the request of the
TPS Director, which are in current section 167-35.
Alignment of provider
responsibilities between the TEQSA Act and HESA
As part of the consolidation of higher education TPS
arrangements under a Higher Education Tuition Protection Director,
the TPS provisions included in Schedule 1 that do not currently appear in HESA
would be inserted in similar terms by Part 3 of Schedule 2 of the Main Bill.
As flagged in the introduction to this section, the Bill
proposes to insert provisions for a provider obligation period into
the TEQSA Act, which is consistent with provisions under the ESOS Act,
but not the VSL Act or HESA.[103]
Currently, HESA provides that once a higher education provider gives notice
of a default to the TPS Director and affected students, the student placement
service (with the TPS Director as decision maker) is responsible for
determining whether a course is a suitable replacement course, giving notice to
the student, and arranging re-crediting of the student’s HELP balance
where necessary.[104]
Item 90 proposes to repeal and replace section
166-25 of HESA, which deals with the student placement service. Proposed
section 166-25 outlines the obligations of providers in the case of a
default in similar terms to proposed section 62F of the TEQSA Act.
That is, following a default, the provider would have 14 days in which to
source suitable replacement units or courses, and their responsibility to the
student would be discharged once the student agrees in writing to a suitable
replacement, or the provider re-credits the student’s HELP balance and pays
the Commonwealth an amount equal to any HECS-HELP or FEE-HELP assistance to
which the person was entitled for that unit. Consistent with the proposed
provisions in the TEQSA Act, providers would be required to notify the
TPS Director of the outcome of their discharge of obligations within seven days
of the end of the provider obligation period, and in the event that the TPS
Director determines the provider has not, or is unlikely to be able to,
discharge its obligations, the student placement service will step in in
relation to replacement courses and re-crediting.[105]
Penalty provisions apply to these new requirements under HESA, and they
are identical to those proposed for the TEQSA Act.[106]
Item 97 also inserts additional provisions to
Part 5-1A of HESA to align with those proposed for the TEQSA Act,
namely:
- to
allow the TPS Director to require any higher education provider to provide information
relevant to the TPS Director’s functions under HESA—contravention
of this requirement is an offence of strict liability or subject to a civil
penalty of 60 penalty units[107]
- to
apply the provider’s obligations under Part 5-1A to a person who was previously
a higher education provider, even if they are no longer registered.[108]
The remainder of the proposed amendments to HESA
are minor technical and consequential amendments required to give effect to the
above changes.
Key issues
and provisions—the Levy Bill
The Levy Bill proposes to create the Higher Education
(Up-front Payments Tuition Protection Levy) Act 2020, which provides for,
and details the arrangements for calculating, the Up-front Payments Tuition
Protection Levy. Provisions are in near identical terms to the Higher Education
Support (HELP Tuition Protection Levy) Act 2020.
That is, the Levy Bill proposes to formalise the extension
of the existing TPS levy funding approach to include students who pay fees up
front through an Up-front Payments Tuition Protection Levy, to be calculated in
the same way as the existing HELP Tuition Protection Levy.
Clause 5 specifies that a leviable provider
is a registered higher education provider to whom Part 5A of the TEQSA Act
applies—that is, a private provider unless a public provider is specifically
included by the Minister. If a provider is a leviable provider at any time
during a year, the Levy is imposed under clause 6.
Identical to the HELP and VSL levies, under clause 7,
the new Levy will consist of:
- an
administrative fee component
- a
risk rated premium component and
- a
special tuition protection component.
The remainder of the proposed Act deals with a framework
for how the Levy components are to be worked out.
The administrative fee component
Clause 8 sets out how the administrative fee component
is to be calculated:
- for
new providers, it will be determined in a legislative instrument under clause
9 or
- for
other providers, it will be an amount determined in a legislative instrument
under clause 9, multiplied by the total upfront fee paying students
for the provider for the previous year.
Legislative instruments under clause 9 for the
purposes of clause 8 are to be made by the Minister. The Minister is
required, before 1 August 2021, to determine an amount for new providers, and
an amount for other providers. For later years the Minister may, but is not
required to, determine new amounts for new providers and/or other providers. Amounts
for later years may be indexed as set out in clause 10.
Subclause 9(3) imposes an upper limit of $325 on
the fee for new providers and $31 per upfront fee paying student on the fee for
existing providers.
Subclause 9(4) requires the Minister to have regard
to the sustainability of the Higher Education Tuition Protection Fund in making
the legislative instruments, and subclause 9(5) allows the Minister to
have regard to any other matter they consider appropriate.
Clause 10 sets out the way that the indexation
factor is calculated for 1 August 2022 and each subsequent year. The
indexation factor is based on a number of inputs including the All Groups
Consumer Price Index number from the original series (being the weighted
average of the eight capital cities) published by the Australian Statistician
for that quarter.
The risk rated premium and special
tuition protection components
Clause 11 sets out how the risk rated premium
component is to be calculated.
Under subclause 11(1), new providers will not pay
the risk rated premium component. For other providers, it will be
calculated according to the method set out in subclause 11(2). The
proposed calculation method is:
- the
sum of:
- the
number of upfront fee paying students for the previous year, multiplied by the
amount determined in a legislative instrument under clause 13 and
- the
amount of upfront payments received (directly or indirectly) by the provider in
the previous year for domestic students for units of study, multiplied by the
percentage determined in a legislative instrument under clause 13 (subclause
13(2) allows this percentage to be zero)
- multiplied
by the sum of each risk factor value worked out for the year in accordance with
a legislative instrument under clause 13, plus 1—under
subparagraph 13(1)(c)(i), the legislative instrument must determine one or more
risk factors that reflect the risk of payments being made out of the Higher
Education Tuition Protection Fund, and, for each risk factor, a risk factor
value or method for working out the risk factor value for leviable providers or
a class of leviable providers, and if a value is provided, under subclause
13(3) it must be a number between zero and 10.
Clause 12 sets out how the special tuition
protection component is to be calculated.
New providers will not pay the special tuition
protection component. For other providers, it will be calculated on the
amount of upfront payments received (directly or indirectly) by the provider in
the previous year for domestic students for units of study, multiplied by the
percentage determined in an instrument under clause 13 (subclause
13(2) allows this percentage to be zero).
Legislative instruments made under clause 13 for
the purposes of clause 11 or 12 are made by the TPS Director. Subclause
13(6) requires that before the Director makes this legislative instrument,
the Treasurer must approve it in writing.
In making the legislative instrument, under subclauses
13(4) and 13(5) the TPS Director:
- must
have regard to any advice from the Advisory Board in relation to the matters
dealt with in the instrument
- must
have regard to the sustainability of the Higher Education Tuition Protection
Fund and
- may
have regard to any other matter that the TPS Director considers appropriate.
Interactions with the HELP Tuition
Protection Levy
To avoid double counting students for the purposes of the
TPS higher education levies, the components of the new Levy that rely on
student number calculations will not include any students that fall within the
definition of total HELP students for the purposes of calculating
the HELP Tuition Protection Levy under the Higher Education
Support (HELP Tuition Protection Levy) Act 2020.[109]
Exemptions
Clause 14 provides for the Up-front Payment
Guidelines to prescribe one or more classes of leviable providers as exempt
from the requirements to pay one or more components of the Levy.
The Governor-General may make
Regulations
Clause 15 allows that the Governor-General to make
Regulations prescribing matters:
- required
or permitted by the proposed Act to be prescribed or
- necessary
or convenient to be prescribed for carrying out or giving effect to the
proposed Act.
Concluding
comments
These Bills extend the TPS to higher education students
studying at private providers, who pay their fees upfront. In doing so, they
address some of the concerns identified during the Parliament’s
consideration of the expansion of the TPS to VSL and HELP students in 2019.
The status of VET students who pay fees upfront is not
addressed in the Bill. However, given the relatively more complex range of
full-fee studies undertaken in the VET sector, the case for extending the TPS
to these students is less straightforward.