Category: Universities Accord

Gender-based violence legislation: Part 2, Processes for victims and perpetrators

Andrew NortonLeave a comment

My first post on the higher education gender-based violence bill and its draft code looked at how gender-based violence is defined and the broad obligations placed on higher education providers and their staff and students.

This post examines procedures for student victims of gender-based violence and for the accused perpetrators. The rules also apply to staff, but as there are existing laws on these matters for workplaces I will focus on students. There is a 2024 summary of university policies and practices on responding to sexual violence, but I have not attempted to compare them to the code.

The code includes reasonable measures to support student victims and, to a lesser extent, accused respondents. I am not convinced, however, that the latter will face a fair process in more serious cases if universities rely on the code alone to guide their policies.

Update 20/10/2025: The enacted legislation is here. The enacted code is here.

Student victims/disclosers

A common criticism of universities has been inadequate responses to student complaints regarding sexual misconduct. In a 2021 student survey on sexual harassment and assault most victims did not report their experience to the university, but of those who did over 40% were dissatisfied. The code includes an extensive list of things that providers must do in these cases: code section 4 (all legal references unless otherwise stated are to the draft code).

These required provider actions include implementing measures to ensure the safety of the discloser, prioritising urgent access to support services, minimising how often the discloser must repeat their story, providing translation and interpretation services where necessary, implementing academic adjustments, and where necessary discussing the investigation and disciplinary processes: code section 4.6.

The discloser must have the opportunity for a support person to be present: code section 5.11.

Read More »

Gender-based violence legislation: Part 1, Definitions and requirements for all higher education providers, staff and students

Andrew NortonLeave a comment

Legislation on ‘gender-based violence’ in higher education is back in Parliament. Its principal purpose is to provide a legal foundation for a National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence. This will be a legislative instrument made after the legislation is passed, but the minister has released its expected contents.

The code is scheduled to start on 1 January 2026 for universities and 1 January 2027 for other providers.

This post looks at the definition of gender-based violence, extension of the policy beyond higher education providers, and policies that will affect all staff and students. A second post looks at procedures for victims and perpetrators of sexual harassment or assault. A third post looks at reporting and penalties for higher education providers (apologies, but this is all much briefer than the 75-page original; 45 pages in the bill and 30 in the code).

Update 20/10/2025: The enacted legislation is here. The enacted code is here.

What is gender-based violence?

According to the bill, ‘gender‑based violence means any form of physical or non‑physical violence, harassment, abuse or threats, based on gender, that results in, or is likely to result in, harm, coercion, control, fear or deprivation of liberty or autonomy’: section 5 (legislative references, unless otherwise specified, are to the Universities Accord (National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender‑based Violence) Bill 2025).

Read More »

Update on Accord student funding policies

Andrew Norton7 Comments

With a break between jobs and other things going on I did not comment in December on the Accord-related MYEFO student funding announcements. Compared to last year’s consultation papers, the announcements included a policy change on over-enrolments, more detail on how under-enrolments will be handled, and funding amounts.

Over-enrolments

One of the worst ideas in the June 2024 managed growth consultation paper was a hard cap on Commonwealth supported places. Currently the main CSP category has a soft cap – once a university enrols CSPs valued at its maximum basic grant amount it gets only the student contribution for additional students. These student contribution-only places are known as ‘over-enrolments’. Under a hard capped system over-enrolments would receive zero funding. I explained why hard caps are a bad idea in this post.

In its MYEFO summary the government backed off a little from the hard cap idea. Now universities ‘will continue to receive student contribution amounts for a small proportion of additional students’. The reason given was the practical difficulty of hitting a precise enrolment target. [Update: At a Senate estimates hearing on 27/2/25 the Department said that ‘the overenrolment buffer will be between two per cent and five per cent’.]

Read More »

Big proposed changes to the HELP repayment system – a higher first income threshold & a marginal rate of repayment

Andrew Norton6 Comments

Today the government announced big changes to the HELP repayment system. Its proposal involves several interconnected conceptual and practical considerations.

The first issue is where to set the first repayment threshold – how much should a HELP debtor earn before they start repaying? The government proposal is for a higher first threshold.

The second issue is annual repayment amounts, which affect the disposable income of debtors and how long it takes them to repay their debt. The government proposal is for most debtors to repay less HELP debt each year, increasing their annual disposable income but also their repayment time.

The third issue is the method of repayment. Should it be – as we have had since 1989 – a system which levies a % of all income when income reaches a threshold, or should we have a marginal rate system, which is a levy on income above the threshold (like the current income tax system). The government has decided on a marginal rate system.

All three issues intersect with the public finance element of HELP – the cash flow implications of the changes for the Commonwealth, and the costs in interest subsidies and bad debt. These will all be negative for the government.

In this post, I will look at the annual repayment implications for debtors, effective marginal rates of repayment, and make some initial comments about selling this reform to debtors and voters.

What the government proposes

The first threshold for repayment will go to $67,000, from $54,435 for 2024-25, and approximately $56,000 after CPI indexation for 2025-26 (I have assumed 3% indexation, which seems to be around what the government has estimated).

From this first threshold of $67,000 we will move to a marginal rate of repayment, at two levels – 15% from $67,000 to $124,999 and 17% from $125,000. These rates would replace the current whole-of-income rates ranging from 1% to 10%.

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 »

The National Student Ombudsman and academic life

Andrew NortonLeave a comment

A previous post outlined the contents of the Universities Accord (National Student Ombudsman) Bill introduced into parliament last week. This post examines its implications for academic life.

Although the bill generally exempts curriculum content or assessment methods from review by the Ombudsman, the minister will be able to over-ride these exemptions with a legislative instrument.

Students will use the Ombudsman to pressure academics for special consideration and to avoid discipline for misconduct. This creates an incentive for academics to accept questionable claims and overlook likely cheating rather than risk wasting time on an Ombudsman investigation.

The post’s section references are to the bill.

Academic judgment

The Ombudsman legislation does not permit student complaints ‘to the extent that the action involves the exercise of academic judgment’: section 21AD(3)(c).

The bill’s explanatory memorandum gives as examples of excluded complaints (p. 23) ‘decisions about the academic merit of a grade awarded, the content of a curriculum, and teaching and assessment methods.’

But section 21AD(4) undoes this by stating that exceptions can be over-ridden by the National Student Ombudsman Rules.

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 »

The underexplained and insecure Commonwealth Prac Payment

Andrew NortonLeave a comment

The planned Commonwealth Prac Payment aims to help students finance mandatory practical training, such as clinical training or teaching rounds. Initially teaching, nursing and midwifery, and social work students in higher education and VET will be eligible.

According to the government, the Prac payment will be means-tested and is ‘intended to support learning outcomes, where the financial impacts of placements may have otherwise influenced students to defer or withdraw from study‘ (emphasis added).

The payment will be matched to the single Austudy rate, $319.50 a week as of today.

The policy is due to start on 1 July 2025, with part of the legal framework in a bill introduced into the House of Representatives last week.

Bureaucratic and intrusive eligibility criteria

Read More »

How attractive will the FEE-FREE Uni Ready places be to universities?

Andrew Norton6 Comments

Last week the government introduced legislation that would, among other things, create a new funding category for what we now call enabling courses, which will be redesigned and rebadged as FEE-FREE Uni Ready places. These courses help prepare students for higher education study.

The current system

Under the current system, Commonwealth supported enabling places are funded at the Commonwealth contribution rate for the relevant discipline.

Enabling places are not capped but the financial incentives to enrol enabling CSP students are weak because no student contribution can be charged.

An enabling loading is paid in lieu for universities with an allocation of enabling funding, but many universities have no enabling loading or a low amount.

The government does not seem to update the enabling loading in a public place, but indexing a previous rate I think it is $3,886 per EFTSL in 2024.

Job-ready Graduates affected the financing of enabling places in fields with Commonwealth contribution cuts. Nearly 40% of enabling places are in the lowest Commonwealth contribution field, $1,236 for 2024. That plus the enabling loading = $5,122 per place.

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 »