Category: Government and bureaucracy

The National Student Ombudsman and bureaucratic overreach

Andrew Norton3 Comments

With so much going on in higher education policy at the moment, the National Student Ombudsman legislation has not received much attention. But university submissions to the Ombudsman bill Senate inquiry raise important issues. I also put in a submission.

Academic judgement versus academic matters

University submissions make similar academic freedom objections to the bill as one of my blog posts on the National Student Ombudsman.

One issue is the scope of ‘exercise of academic judgement’, which is an ‘excluded action’ that the Ombudsman cannot investigate. The bill’s explanatory memorandum seeks to distinguish ‘academic judgement’ from ‘academic matters’, such as claims for special consideration and discipline for academic misconduct, which it thinks should be within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The QUT, Monash, University of Melbourne, ATN, Gof8, UA, UTS and UQ submissions all raise concerns about this aspect of the bill. As UQ says:

Read More »

Making the international student caps bill less bad

Andrew NortonLeave a comment

Today is the likely final day of public hearings for the international student caps bill, ahead of a report due on 8 October.

Despite the strong campaign against this bill the political reality is that the Opposition supports provider-level caps. This gives scope for a compromise that will see the bill pass in some form.

In my final submission to the Senate inquiry I focused on ways to make the bill less bad, while still letting the government and alternative government achieve their migration-related policy objectives.

Remove the course caps provision

80%+ of international students do not stay in Australia permanently. In this context, the government’s position that international students should be stopped from taking courses that don’t align with Australia’s skills needs borders on the absurd.

With over 25,000 courses registered on CRICOS regulating at the course level is also beyond the government’s administrative capacity. As Claire Field has been reporting, there are numerous errors in the much smaller task of imposing about 1,150 provider-level caps.

Read More »

Should ‘student-led organisations’ get a guaranteed share of student amenities fee revenue?

Andrew Norton2 Comments

Senate hearings this week will examine the Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill. This bill includes the changes to HELP indexation, the FEE-FREE Uni Ready Places, the Commonwealth Prac payment, and a requirement that 40% of student amenities fee revenue be directed to student-led organisations. My submission to the inquiry is here.

The status quo on student amenities fees

The current law on student amenities fees is a compromise on the long-running compulsory versus voluntary student unionism debate. Prior to 2006, universities could charge an unregulated, upfront fee for student amenities. In an a reversal of normal political positions, left-wing activists supported the unregulated status quo (because it funded their activities), while Liberal students and eventually Liberal governments moved to regulate the market and abolish the fee (also because it funded left-wing activities). In 2005 the Howard government finally legislated away the compulsory fee, with effect from 2006.

In 2011, Julia Gillard legislated to restore a compulsory amenities fee, with effect from 2012. But the fee was price capped ($351 in 2024), funded by the income contingent SA-HELP loan instead of being upfront, and the revenue could only be spent on a list of specified activities. The legislation specifically prohibits the money being spent on on a political party or the election of a person to local, state or Commonwealth office.

Under guidelines derived from the Gillard-era compromise, universities must ‘provide adequate and reasonable support, resources and infrastructure for democratically elected student representatives to carry out their functions’. However there is no specific share of amenities fee revenue that must go to student-led organisations.

In practice the amenities fees is mainly relevant to Commonwealth supported places and the fixed, relatively low amount of money universities receive for them. With no CSP funding for non-academic services the student amenities fee fills this financial gap. Although universities often charge full-fee students a separate amenities fee, reflecting institutional history and politics, this is not necessary. The cost of amenities can just be bundled into the overall fee, as it typically is outside the universities. Only 5 non-university higher education providers use SA-HELP.

Changes under the bill

The Universities Accord (Student Support and Other Measures) Bill specifies that at least 40% of amenities fee revenue must go to student-led organisations: section 19-39(1). An organisation is student led if a) the majority of people on the governing body are currently enrolled or have been enrolled in the previous three years; and b) the majority of persons on the governing body have been democratically elected by students; and c) the organisation satisfies requirements specified in government-set guidelines: section 19-39(3).

Read More »

A National Student Ombudsman – how would this new student complaints mechanism work?

Andrew Norton1 Comment

Last week the government introduced legislation for a National Student Ombudsman.

This post outlines key provisions of the bill. A government summary is here. A subsequent post looks at the potential impact of the bill on academic life.

Statutory references are to the Universities Accord (National Student Ombudsman) Bill, using the sections as they would appear in the Ombudsman Act 1976 if the bill passes.

Which students can complain?

All students of higher education providers, except those enrolled in VET courses, can complain to the National Student Ombudsman (abbreviated to Ombudsman from now). Apart from the VET exception, non-higher education students are included. Enabling, microcredential and professional development course students will be covered. In some cases prospective or former students can also make complaints: sections 3(1) and 21AD(1)(a).

Another person can make a complaint on behalf of the student: section 21AD(1)(b).

Read More »

More detail on international student caps

Andrew Norton5 Comments

This week the government announced the overall international student cap for 2025, of 270,000 new commencing students, with some student types not counted towards the cap. I have a high-level summary in The Conversation. This post explores the capping announcement in more detail, noting additional problems with this deeply flawed policy.

The power – or lack thereof – to exempt particular types of students

On Tuesday the government announced three new exemption categories:

  • students who are part of “twinning” arrangements, taking some of their course offshore before coming to Australia
  • students with Australian government or “key partner” foreign government scholarships
  • students from the Pacific and Timor-Leste.

On my reading of the bill, the last two exemptions are not supported by its current wording and the twinning exemption is probably not within the bill’s existing scope.

Read More »

Counting international students – the method is critical to what effects caps have

Andrew NortonLeave a comment

The debate on international student caps is mostly at the level of principle. But the capping bill‘s wording is also critical to its effects. A key issue is whether the cap is based on a cumulative total of enrolled international students through a year or the total on specific dates during the year. A cumulative count will have much more serious effects on students and education providers.

The cumulative count wording of the bill

The most natural meaning of the current bill, copied in below, is that the count is cumulative – ‘a limit’ (singular) on the ‘total’ number of overseas students enrolled in one or more years. This means that the cap is driven by the peak number during the year.

Read More »

Accord implementation proposals, part #5: Needs-based funding that is not aimed directly at needs

Andrew Norton1 Comment

The Accord implementation consultation paper on need-based funding for equity group members was released late last week, although students with disability will be discussed in a later consultation document. That leaves low SES, Indigenous and students at regional campuses for this paper.

When the Accord interim report came out I rated the principle of needs-based funding as one of its better ideas. But turning it into policy faces significant conceptual, practical and ethical issues. The consultation paper does not resolve these issues.

Funding based on needs versus equity group membership

The basic conceptual problem, in the Accord reports and this consultation paper, is that it remains unclear why needs-based funding should apply only for students designated as equity group members. With the exception of people with disabilities that require adjustments for them to participate in higher education, none of the equity group categories identify personal disadvantage. As the Accord report itself notes, groups other than the equity four are ‘under-represented’ in higher education.

The higher education system should help all its students achieve success, not just those that for historical reasons are included in the equity group list.

Many of the outcome differences we observe are the by-product of mass higher education, which brings a wide range of people into the system. There are more people who were not especially ‘academic’ at school, more people who have trouble financing their education, more people who have major responsibilities other than their studies. In a mass higher education system these students are core business.

Read More »

The government’s own agencies doubt that international student caps are feasible & fear the consequences

Andrew NortonLeave a comment

Submissions to the Senate inquiry into the government’s international student caps bill are now appearing online. The House of Representatives has also started debating the bill.

My submission

The online scanned pdf version of my submission is not a sharp copy, the Word version is here.

It expands on the arguments I made in my series of blog posts on the caps, starting with this one in May.

Government agency submissions – implementation and enforcement

Submissions from government agencies raise questions about what internal processes – or rather lack of internal processes – led to the bill being presented in its current form.

The Department of Home Affairs submission leaves its key point to the last two sentences:

Read More »