Celia Hammond (Curtin, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Before I speak in favour of the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Provider Category Standards and Other Measures) Bill 2020, I want to address comments that have been made over the preceding weeks about universities' access to JobKeeper. Statements that universities were excluded from JobKeeper are actually a misunderstanding, a misinterpretation of what actually transpired. Universities are eligible to apply for JobKeeper if they, like all other organisations, satisfy the turnover tests. If a university with a turnover of under $1 billion has lost 30 per cent or more of their turnover, they can apply for JobKeeper. If a university with a turnover of more than $1 billion suffers a 50 per cent turnover loss, they can apply for JobKeeper. Charities, if they have suffered a loss of 15 per cent, can apply for JobKeeper.

Universities have been hit hard. At the present time, I don't think any university has actually applied for JobKeeper. To me, that is somewhat positive, because it means they haven't satisfied the 30 per cent turnover loss or the 50 per cent turnover loss. Universities are $100-million-plus businesses—some more than $1 billion. These are not small charities the likes of which satisfy the 15 per cent turnover test; they are multi-hundred-million-dollar organisations. They have boards. They have financial and accounting audit committees that advise them on investments and advise them on expenditure. They are big corporate entities, even though they're not for profit—big entities with access to experts and advice. They didn't need to be included within the definition of a charity. They are treated exactly like all other organisations of their size and with their capabilities. So, any statement that they were excluded from JobKeeper is actually a misconstruction of what actually happened and what is actually the case. That is not to say that universities are not hurting; they are hurting.

I note that this particular bill, which I'm pleased to speak in favour of, proposes to amend the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act, and it's going to do this in a number of ways—first of all, to give effect to the government's decision to implement the recommendations arising from the review of the Higher Education Provider Category Standards, about which I will speak more in a moment. It's also going to give effect to an outstanding recommendation from the review of the impact of the TEQSA Act on the higher education sector, otherwise known as the impact review, which is effectively going to join four threshold standards into one single, unified framework, which will be clearer to read and to use. Finally, the bill is going to improve regulation of the Australian higher education sector through a small number of other measures, including ensuring that student records can be appropriately handled following a provider's ceasing to operate and that the term 'university' as it appears in Australian internet domain names is protected.

Australia's higher education sector has established a reputation globally as an education leader. This position is supported by Australia's higher education quality assurance framework, which comprises a national regulatory body, known as TEQSA, and is underpinned by strong threshold standards and provider category standards. All higher education providers, including universities, must be registered with TEQSA in order to offer higher education courses in Australia. TEQSA was established in 2011 and became operational in 2012. It was a key part of the Bradley review undertaken in 2008 to ensure the quality of the Australian higher education sector and the education it delivers. TEQSA protects the quality of Australia's higher education through its assessment of compliance with the threshold standards. TEQSA is generally well regarded in the sector and internationally, and this was noted in the 2017 impact review, conducted by Deloitte.

The provider category standards actually pre-date the Bradley review. They are based on the earlier national protocols for higher education, which were first adopted by state and territory governments in 2000 and updated in 2007. The national protocols were used by states and territories for the regulation and accreditation of higher education prior to the establishment of TEQSA in 2011. The purpose of the national protocols was to assure students and the community that higher education institutions in Australia met identified criteria and were subject to appropriate government regulation. The national protocols were designed to ensure consistent criteria and standards across Australia for the recognition of new universities, the operation of overseas higher education institutions in Australia and the accreditation of higher education courses to be offered by non-self-accrediting providers. Following the Bradley review and with the establishment of TEQSA came new threshold standards which were tabled in parliament in 2011. As noted before, these initial threshold standards were largely based on the national protocols and were put into four separate standards.

The particular bill that is before us today is focusing on the Higher Education Provider Category Standards. The PCS, or provider category standards, define categories of higher education providers and requirements expected of them for registration by TEQSA. At present, prior to their being amended by this bill, there are six categories for all higher education providers: five for universities and one for other providers. The five university categories are Australian University, Australian University College, Australian University of Specialisation, Overseas University and Overseas University of Specialisation. In actual fact, there are 41 Australian universities, one Australian university of specialisation, two overseas universities, one university college, and zero overseas universities of specialisation. In the other category—the one category for all other providers, which is simply called 'higher education providers' and which is sometimes referred to as 'non-university higher education providers'—there are 135. They vary in size and discipline from very small niche providers to large providers with breadth of offerings. Providers in this category include: not-for-profit providers, including semiautonomous government bodies; for-profit providers; TAFE providers, where they offer higher education qualifications; faith based colleges; providers that specialise in one field of education; and predominantly online providers. Across all of these six categories, in 2019, there were 1.5 million students. Close to 1.4 million of them were enrolled in universities.

The 2017-18 Commonwealth budget included a measure to undertake a review of the provider category standards to ensure that they support the Australian government goal for a diverse, high-quality higher education sector that meets the needs of students, employers, the sector and the wider community. In other words, the essential purpose of the review was to ensure that the names used to describe the variety of providers provided consumer protection to students and potential students, and the broader community. In October 2018, the Minister for Education appointed Professor Coaldrake to lead the review of the provider category standards. The Higher Education Standards Panel provided steering oversight. In December 2018, Professor Coaldrake released a discussion paper, and 67 public submissions were received. In October 2019, the Minister for Education released Professor Coaldrake's final report on the PCS review, and the Australian government released its response to the review in December 2019. In this response, the government accepted the aim of all 10 recommendations put forward by Professor Coaldrake and his committee.

The 10 recommendations contained in the PCS review aim to simplify the provider category standards by removing underutilised categories, providing differentiation, supporting provider innovation and aspiration, and maintaining Australia's reputation for world-class higher education. What is being done through this bill involves reducing the overall number of higher education categories from six to four by merging and rationalising the university related categories from five to two and increasing from one to two the number of categories related to those higher education providers which are not universities. The amendments to provider category standards are designed to drive more diversity in higher education, responding to evolving workforce skills needs and driving belter collaboration in our research efforts, and it is essential that we have this diversity.

It is also essential that we recognise the higher education sector has changed considerably in the last 20 years. Over the last 20 years, there's been almost a doubling of the amount of students of higher education in Australia, with an overwhelming majority of them studying at university. In 2000, fewer than 16 per cent of Australians aged 15 to 64 held at least a bachelor qualification. In 2018, that figure is more than 31 per cent. In 1988, when I was at university, there were only 400,000 domestic students at universities in Australia. Today, when my son is at university, there are now more than one million people studying at Australian universities. Yes, Australia's population increased in that time, but not to the extent that the rate of participation in higher education in Australia has.

I am happy to support these changes and this bill because they will set up a PCS framework that will be fit for purpose and helpful to the sector as it seeks to equip students and communities for a changing future.

See this speech in context