Hiccups plague Universities Accord ‘priority’ measures

Stuttering progress in the rollout of “priority” reforms has raised fresh doubts about the sweeping overhaul promised by the Australian Universities Accord panel.  

Opposition parliamentarians have objected after a Senate committee requested a second two-week extension on its report on a bill enacting two of the reforms.

The government-controlled committee had initially proposed an “unreasonably short timeframe” for the inquiry into the bill, shadow education minister Sarah Henderson and a fellow Liberal Party MP complained. Now, with the committee due to report on 11 October rather than 13 September as originally planned, senators would have insufficient time to digest its findings before debating the bill.

“It is clear that the minister for education has not undertaken the requisite work, including sector consultation, before introducing the bill into the parliament,” Ms Henderson declared.

The bill seeks to abolish the “50 per cent fail rule”, which removes students’ access to government subsidies if they do not successfully complete at least half of their subjects, and to introduce demand-driven university places for Aboriginal people in urban areas.

While these measures are wholeheartedly supported by universities, they are less enamoured of clauses requiring them to develop new student support policies, with A$18,780 (£9,935) fines for those that fail to deliver.

Universities Australia (UA) told Ms Henderson that it had not been consulted about these requirements before an associated discussion paper was released.

In a letter to education minister Jason Clare, UA had asked to see the draft guidelines – which specify how the requirements will operate – before anything was decided. “We are concerned that the bill is likely to have made its way through the parliament before [our] feedback can be considered,” the letter says.

UA also asked that the provisions be delayed until 2024. “This bill will create…additional monitoring and reporting requirements…that universities will need time to understand and implement,” it said.

The concerns were shrugged off by Mr Clare’s office. “It is expected that higher education providers will be able to meet the requirements in the bill,” his chief of staff told UA.

Ms Henderson told Department of Education officials that they had “put the cart before the horse”. Grilling them during a Senate committee hearing, she asked why the guidelines had not been prepared before the legislation was introduced. “How can the sector make decisions on the legislation when most of the provisions are in the guidelines?”

She also berated the education department for not answering her questions on notice by deadline.

The committee also heard that the department, which had issued only about 10 compliance notices to higher education institutions over the previous five years, handed out 79 of them in a single day in early September.

An education department assistant secretary told Ms Henderson that the reprimands had been about late reporting of student loan data.

Australian National University policy analyst Andrew Norton said the compliance notices were part of a “a very strong pattern” of intensified requirements and punitiveness. “It shows a very low level of trust in the institutions and a determination to bend them to the will of the department and the government,” he said. “The vibe is definitely better than the previous government, but in many ways the substance is worse.”

Professor Norton said it was “a bit rich” for the department to chastise universities for late reporting when it had not yet published last year’s enrolment data. “A department…incapable of even routine tasks [is] being totally unrealistic about what [is required] to make changes quickly,” he said.

The department has now invited university administrators to a 5 October “webinar consultation” on the student support policy proposals. “We are particularly interested to hear from you in relation to any practical and technical concerns or comments you may have identified,” it told them.

Professor Norton said the accord’s final report, which is due in December, should be delayed. “I don’t believe it’s possible to get a good report in the time available,” he said.

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com