Category: Higher education finance

Possible marginal HELP repayment rates under Universities Accord reforms

Andrew NortonLeave a comment

The Universities Accord final report proposes changing how HELP repayments are calculated. It recommends abolishing our current system, which levies a % of all income once an income threshold is reached. It would be replaced with a system that charges a % of income above the threshold – a marginal rate system.

A major reason given for this change was to end the ‘unfair situation’ of some HELP debtors having very high effective marginal tax rates. These can exceed 100% in some cases, so that an increase in taxable income results in lower disposable income. In addition to the fairness issues, high EMTRs can lead to people working fewer hours and less income tax revenue.

Other Accord final report comments, however, suggest HELP repayment redesign with purposes beyond the EMTR issue. While not specifying thresholds or marginal rates, the report suggests a system in which the ‘majority of HELP debtors who make a repayment … would repay less in a given year’. They warn, however, that a ‘small number of higher income debtors (likely less than 10% of HELP debtors) [would] make higher repayments in a given year’.

Subsequent Jason Clare media interviews suggest that policy thinking on repayment systems has moved beyond a general preference for a marginal rate system. Referencing unpublished research by Bruce Chapman, Clare said on the day the final report was released that ‘someone on an income of $75,000 a year would pay every year about $1,000 less.’ He gave the same example again this week.

Speaking to the SMH, Chapman expanded on how the new system might work. He envisaged a multi-rate marginal HELP repayment system: ‘a person earning $86,000 would only be taxed the 5 per cent repayment rate on the income above the threshold at which the rate kicks in, being $84,430. All income below that threshold would be levied at the lower rates.’ A multi-rate marginal system is also consistent with the Accord final report reference to some HELP debtors repaying more each year than they do now.

Read More »

How would student places be allocated by the proposed Australian Tertiary Education Commission?

Andrew Norton2 Comments

Based on the Universities Accord interim report I was concerned that its proposed tertiary education commission would be highly interventionist, controlling university enrolments to meet the government’s equity, attainment and skills targets. I called it Job-ready Graduates 2.0.

The Australian Tertiary Education Commission proposed in the Universities Accord final report is – I think, a lot of detail remains to be seen – considerably better than the version of my policy nightmares last year.

The overall funding system would have more central steering than now, but on my reading ATEC probably will not routinely micromanage – that university A must offer B places in C course and fill them with students meeting criteria D, E or F. That was the approach of recent ad hoc student place allocations, such as the 20,000 new places for skills shortages and equity groups. The Accord final report admits that these places won’t be used. Even without recent soft demand, every condition added to a student place reduced the chance that a student could be found to fill it.

Read More »

Creating a better integrated education system – some notes on Rethinking Tertiary Education, a book building on the work of Peter Noonan

Andrew Norton1 Comment

Peter Noonan was a rare person with expertise across vocational and higher education, and an even rarer person who made significant policy contributions to both. Sadly he passed away in 2022 at the age of 67.

Rethinking Tertiary Education, co-edited by Peter Dawkins, Megan Lilly and Robert Pascoe, with sixteen others as co-authors, is billed as ‘building on the work of Peter Noonan’, and does so by exploring ways of making the component parts of Australia’s formal education sector – especially higher education and vocational education, but also schools – work together more smoothly than now. Pascoe also contributes an interesting biographical chapter on Noonan.

For historical and political reasons the vocational and higher education systems in Australia have quite sharp dividing lines in the nature of the qualifications they deliver, how they are funded, how they are taught, and with some exceptions the occupations they support. The book also looks at school credentials, especially the idea that they don’t measure all they should.

Read More »

What’s new in university and NUHEP funding agreements, part 2: Inappropriate use of the agreements to create a new equity program

Andrew NortonLeave a comment

In a previous post on the new funding agreements, I looked at the 2024 Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding for higher education courses and designated courses, along with the amended rules for course closures. In this post I look at a novel funding agreement section, which creates a new equity program financed by under-spends on the Commonwealth Grant Scheme. This program has legal and policy flaws. I also examine some paperwork problems with the agreements for non-university higher education providers and private universities.

What usually happens if universities under-enrol?

Due to weak student demand some, quite possibly many, higher education institutions will under-enrol in 2024 – that is, take Commonwealth-supported students valued at less than the maximum funding they can receive for higher education courses according to the funding agreements – this year a $7.24 billion pot of money.

By law, under-enrolment results in CGS grants being reduced – higher education providers are paid the lesser of the value of student places (on an EFTSL * relevant Commonwealth contribution formula) or their higher education courses maximum basic grant amount: section 33-5(2) of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 for Table A institutions and section 33-5(7), using the terminology of ‘total basic grant amount’ for other higher education providers receiving CGS funding.

Under section 164-10(1A) of HESA 2003 any overpayment is recovered by reducing grants paid to the under-enrolled provider or as a debt to the Commonwealth. Clause 4 of the funding agreements reiterates this requirement.

Read More »

What’s new in university funding agreements, part 1: Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding and course closure rules

Andrew NortonLeave a comment

The 2024 university and NUHEP funding agreements were released earlier this month. These documents are the legal basis of most funding from the Commonwealth Grant Scheme, the main tuition support program. I have created a spreadsheet with institution-level funding, available here.

Overall funding levels

Any total CGS comparison with 2023 is approximate at this point, as we don’t yet have estimated payments for demand driven funding – 2024 is the first year that metropolitan as well as regional Indigenous bachelor-degree students are financed on this basis. This creates disruptions to the time series for two of the three main CGS pots of money – demand driven and ‘higher education courses’, which covers all Commonwealth supported students except Indigenous bachelor-degree students and medical students.

Higher education courses are by far the largest CGS category. In 2024 maximum higher education courses funding will be $7.24 billion, $452.2 million or 6.7% more than in 2023.

Table A providers (i.e. each government-created university plus ACU and Notre Dame) get 99.5% of this money, while nine other providers get the remaining $34.3 million.

For designated courses, currently medicine only, the 2024 total is $413.97 million up 8.1% on 2023.

Read More »

The 2003 Cabinet papers and Brendan Nelson’s higher education reforms

Andrew Norton3 Comments

In the history of Australian higher education policy Brendan Nelson, the Liberal minister for education from 2001 to 2006, is perhaps under-rated. Several student funding structural changes he legislated 20 years ago are still in place. These include:

  • Student contributions set by universities up to a legislated maximum and going to universities (previously HECS was a fixed government charge);
  • A per full-time equivalent student Commonwealth contribution based on subject field of education (previously universities received an overall operating grant, which although informed by an early 1990s costing exercise did not directly tie money paid to discipline-level enrolments);
  • Commonwealth-university funding agreements as a method of allocating student funding to institutions, which made funding arrangements more transparent (but also turned into a backdoor instrument of policy and regulation that bypasses Parliament);
  • Through FEE-HELP, extension of student loans to full-fee undergraduates and students in private higher education institutions (the more limited Postgraduate Education Loan Scheme, PELS, was already supporting university full-fee postgraduates).

The 2003 Cabinet papers

The annual National Archives release of 20-year-old Cabinet papers, with the 2003 papers released earlier this week, gives us a look behind the scenes as Nelson’s reform package was developed and debated. Three digitised Cabinet documents record proposals and decisions, but not the Cabinet discussion. Sometimes, however, Cabinet thinking can be inferred from requests for further work and contextual material in the submissions.

This post focuses on changes to income contingent student loans.

The loan scheme that did not make it through Cabinet

Read More »

The 16 universities signing up to subsidise the nuclear submarine program

Andrew NortonLeave a comment

Sixteen universities have, according to a media release today, been allocated places in 38 STEM-related courses intended to support the AUKUS nuclear submarine program. The government says it is investing $128 million over four years. In reality, however, universities will need to divert resources from other activities to support nuclear submarine training.

The 75% costing methodology

Universities will need to self-finance some AUKUS places due to what the program guidelines call ‘the standard 75 per cent costing methodology’. In the program’s second year its funding for the first year’s continuing students will be 75 per cent of their commencing year allocation, and so on in subsequent years until no money is left.

Some reduced funding to take account of student attrition is reasonable, but 25 per cent is not. Over the 2005 to 2020 period the proportion of domestic commencing bachelor students leaving their university after first year peaked at 18.4 per cent. Nearly half the nuclear submarine places went to Group of Eight universities, which have lower attrition rates than the national average.

Read More »

The dangers of single point of failure higher education systems

Andrew NortonLeave a comment

When the entire Optus network went down last week – knocking out mobiles, landlines and internet connections – my new paper Job-ready Graduates 2.0: The Universities Accord and centralised control of universities and courses was in the late stages of production. If the Optus incident had happened earlier I might have included more on the risks of the Accord interim report’s proposed Tertiary Education Commission as a single point of failure.

A Tertiary Education Commission’s role in allocating student places

My new report builds on my earlier explainer of the Accord interim report’s proposals for distributing student places, focusing on how this would affect the relationship between higher education and skills needs.

Read More »

Mapping Australian higher education 2023 – official release

Andrew Norton2 Comments

Update 20/12/2025: More recent data here.

Mapping Australian higher education 2023 is now available from the ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods website.

Update 30/10/2024: There is a later version of Mapping 2023’s data here.

Update 26/10/23: A reader has pointed out that list of FEE-HELP NUHEPs is incomplete. A column of names from the original Excel file was omitted during production. The full list is available here. This list also includes three non-FEE-HELP providers registered by TEQSA since the pdf version was finalised. A corrected version of Mapping with the full list of NUHEPs, as of mid-2023, is here.

If anyone has noticed other errors please let me know.

Should funding be partly based on student characteristics?

Andrew Norton3 Comments

Australia’s higher education teaching funding system is primarily based on subjects rather than students. Subjects taken are converted into ‘equivalent full-time student load’ (EFTSL), the amount of study a full-time student does in an academic year. The funding rate per EFTSL varies by field of education, assuming that subject characteristics drive costs.

Various supplementary programs calculate funding on headcount equity students, but with trivial resources compared to the subject-driven funding programs, the Commonwealth Grant Scheme and HELP.

Funding on headcount?

One interesting idea in submissions to the Universities Accord review, especially suggested by regional universities, was to base more funding on the student. For part-time study one EFTSL could be two or more individual students. While their combined classroom time matches one full-time student, a student with 50 per cent of an EFTSL could put similar or even greater demands on other university services as a student at 100 per cent of an EFTSL.

In RUN’s submission they report a member university’s finding that, on average, their part-time students utilised eleven services compared to five for full-time students.

Older students are more likely to enrol part-time (chart below). Given the high rates of upper ATAR students going to university soon after school older first-time students must disproportionately be people with weaker school results. They plausibly have above-average needs for academic support to complete their courses successfully.

Read More »