Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Hansard source

Yes, the minister is correct: Universities Australia, as they are now calling themselves. Universities Australia has written to Labor, and I am sure also to the minister, requesting a change to section 23 as it is currently before the parliament. The letter that we received from Universities Australia said:

Timely payment by universities or any other provider is contingent upon early receipt of notification from the Department of Education, Science and Training regarding the rules and calculation of the ARC for the period, which should include time to discuss any discrepancies between DEST and provider calculations.

The AVCC wishes to insert a clause into the legislation stating that providers must receive the ARC notification from DEST at least 28 days before the due payment date. Labor’s amendment seeks to address those concerns expressed by the AVCC.

The amendment that we have proposed relating to the annual registration charge—among other things—requires that the secretary give written notice to providers stating the amount of the charge. That notice is to be given to providers by the last business day of January of the year. As happens under current arrangements, the ARC must then be paid by the provider by the last business day of February of the year. If the notice was not given by the last business day of January then payment has to occur within 28 days of the day on which the notice was given to the provider. We believe that this is an entirely reasonable amendment and can see no reason why the government would not support it.

I notice that the department’s information sheet on these changes to ESOS refers to enforcement action which is currently possible. It talks about the fact that, according to the department, the enforcement provisions are administratively cumbersome for an annual obligation that is a clear and regular legal requirement. That claim by the department has to be weighed against the seriousness of the repercussions for late payment. It occurs to me that surely DEST would have to reconcile in some way the payments received from providers against DEST’s figures anyway. When the payment is received on the last day of February, surely DEST has to look at the figures and look at the numbers of students that they have on their records and do that reconciliation of those figures against the payment that they receive from the providers. How hard can it be to work those amounts out and notify providers before the due date as our amendment suggests and as the vice-chancellors have put to us in requesting that amendment?

The sanction being proposed for non-payment on the new date is quite harsh—automatic suspension of CRICOS registration—and that has major repercussions for providers and students. In those circumstances, we believe that our amendment is fair and reasonable and reflects the partnership approach that should underpin the administration of ESOS by both DEST and the provider. It is a way of DEST showing that it is prepared to do its bit to uphold the compliance regime, along with the expectations that they place on providers.

See this speech in context