redirecting the $1.5 billion from "Our Universities: Backing Australia’s Future" (BAF),

reversing the Government’s decision to increase the Diesel Fuel Rebate to mining companies from 90 to 100 per cent, contributing $467 million;

cutting $160 million of tax breaks for foreign executives; and

$159 million from opposing the abolition of the Student Financial Supplement Assistance Scheme.

do not appear to recognise the $100 million repayments foregone each year with the increase in the HECS repayment threshold, and

undercost moving maths and science from HECS band 2 to HECS Band 1 by about $219 million.

Online career information system myfuture.edu.au In its first year there have been 28 million hits on this web site. In addition Job Guide, which provides information on over 1000 occupations, is provided for every Year 10 student.

Vocational education and training in schools and Structured workplace learning

The Real Game, an experiential career education game

Jobs Pathway Programme

Career and Transition (CAT) Pilots

Partnership Outreach Education Model (POEM) pilots

New Apprenticeships Access Programme (NAAP)

The Mentor Marketplace

Reconnect

Youth Activity Services

Job Placement, Employment and Training Program (JPET)

Innovative and Collaborative Youth Servicing Pilots

The Regional Disability Liaison Officer and Disability Coordination Officer networks, to encourage students with disabilities to participate in further education and training.

The Government’s plan to allow for variable student contribution levels between courses and institutions will provide students with a greater range of options to pursue their higher education. Labor’s opposition to fee flexibility, including the freedom to reduce fees, would restrict student choice and prevent them from identifying courses that offer value for money. Labor’s ‘one size fits all’ policy on student contributions would also undermine flexibility and diversity in Australian higher education. By denying institutions the opportunity to differentiate themselves, Labor’s policy would homogenise course offerings and restrict the capacity of institutions to generate additional revenue from quality courses in high demand.

Fee-paying undergraduate places are additional to those places subsidised by the Commonwealth. Removing the 9,500 Australian undergraduate fee-paying students currently in universities would not free up additional taxpayer funded places- it would simply add approximately 6,500 places to those needing to be covered by the proposed new places. Assuming immediate abolition of fee paying places, no phasing of continuing students and provision of same number of places, the cost of converting the current fee-paying undergraduate places to HECS places would be around $190 million over four years. No specific allowance is made for this in the ALP costings. It seems that the total new places promised are intended to cover any impact.

Fee-paying overseas students occupy a significant number of places in Australia's universities. Labor’s policy would deny potential Australian students the opportunity to invest in themselves, while allowing their international counterparts to access such opportunities and to gain a competitive advantage.

Labor has stated that it will abolish full fees for domestic undergraduates "whereby people buy a place, ahead of someone with higher marks". The statement made is that under Labor, merit (achievement and potential) will be the only criteria for getting a university place. Full fee places are not linked to any reduction in university admission standards. University admission practices are based on all entrants meeting the required admission requirements.

Rent Assistance is not available to Austudy as older students are viewed as independent and better able to help themselves through part-time/casual work.

Compared to job seekers, Austudy recipients can earn much higher levels on income before their income support payments are reduced.

Austudy recipients with dependent children may be able to get Rent Assistance with other payments such as Family Tax Benefit.

The Government takes very seriously the concerns of the community when it comes to the system and structure of the current social security system. This is demonstrated through the commitment to the Welfare Reform process started by the commissioning of the McClure Report. Any changes to Austudy payment will be considered within this broader context.

Current arrangements are fair and equitable and in line with community views and expectations. The Final Report of the Youth Allowance Evaluation, released in May 2002, highlighted the broad community support that exists for parental means testing. It ensures that Youth Allowance payments are directed to those young people who are most in need of assistance.

The majority of Youth Allowance recipients over the age of 23 are already assessed as independent young people. Little would be gained from Labor’s proposal. The Youth Allowance independence criteria ensure that those young people who have clearly demonstrated their independence from their families will be paid at the Independent rate.

The Government intends to make the repayment system fairer by raising the minimum threshold from $24,365 in 2002-03 to $30,000 in 2005-06, which will improve the financial position of graduates on lower incomes while ensuring that the average graduate is in a position to meet an affordable rate of repayment. When compared to the Government’s planned reform, Labor’s policy would result in $100 million each year in reduced repayments

Under the Government’s proposal, graduates earning $30,000 per annum would only be required to make weekly HECS repayments of $23.00. That seems reasonable when considering that the lifetime earnings of someone with a bachelor degree are around $622,000 more for males and around $412,000 more for females than for those who do not possess a university education but who still subsidise the university system through their taxes.

The Government has already announced that a new ‘national priorities’ student contribution band will be used to attract students to teaching, and will ensure that student contribution levels for these students will not increase above the current HECS band 1 rates. Labor’s policy would only act as a financial incentive for students to enrol in lower priced science and maths degrees but it would not address the specific shortage of people with science and maths training who are prepared to teach. This is therefore a poorly targeted initiative unlikely to achieve the desired outcome.

The potential shortage of nurses is serious but cannot be addressed by graduates alone. The National Review of Nursing Education says:

"There needs to be a major investment in retention of the existing workforce, recruitment of nurses not currently employed in nursing, and recruitment from overseas. All the evidence suggests that it will be impossible to meet the demands for nursing services by focusing on new graduates alone. The most crucial factor in ensuring an adequate supply of nurses for the future will be to retain as many of those nurses currently employed as possible, particularly those in the earlier years of their careers. (p. 13)"

For this reason in addition to the places and additional funding announced in Backing Australia's Future, the Commonwealth is working with the States and Territories, nursing organisations and universities to progress recommendations arising from the National Review of Nursing Education.

The 2003 Federal Budget provided 234new medical intake places, which becomes 1404 with pipeline after six years.

BAF has already allocated an increase in Commonwealth funding for existing teaching places which will begin in 2005 with an additional $81.4 million being invested in teaching places over three years and as a National Priority, teaching will remain at HECS Band 1, for the purposes of attracting students to teaching.

The Government committed to increase the number of new APAs awarded each year by 31 by 2007, in BAF.

Through the Higher Education Equity Program (HEEP), universities receive funds to assist with equity initiatives for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Labor promises to increase funding for the Higher Education Equity Program (HEEP) by $2.3 million pa from 2005: this is identical to existing Government policy.

From 2005, in order to receive HEEP universities will be required to meet minimum eligibility criteria: delivery of outreach and support programs, and management of the Commonwealth Learning Scholarships and complementary institutional equity scholarships. In addition, funding allocations will be performance-based. The ALP policy is silent on these initiatives.

Many universities already undertake a range of equity initiatives and provide flexible entry points for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, such as providing additional points for school leavers whose tertiary entrance score may have been higher had they not experienced disadvantage.

The 2003 BAF budget measures include an increase of $10.383 million for Indigenous Support Funding (ISF) over 3 years from 2005. Current annual allocations of ISF are approximately $24 million (in 2003: $24.263 million). The funds are allocated to institutions according to objective indicators of actual performance.

The Government included the establishment of an Indigenous Higher Education Advisory Council in the BAF package, with funding of $260,000 p.a. to be provided from 2004. In 2003, there is to be seed funding of $50,000.

The Government will introduce Indigenous Staff Scholarships from 2004 for Indigenous academic and general staff of universities to undertake full-time study for one year. While the ALP has announced its intention to introduce Indigenous student scholarships, there is no mention of scholarships or other professional development measures for Indigenous higher education staff.

The Labor policy package is silent on any initiative similar to the Commonwealth Learning Scholarships (CLS). By 2007, the Government’s Learning Scholarships will be providing around 25,000 scholarship payments to students. The Learning Scholarships cost $160.2m over the first four years. Aim Higher’s scholarships are limited to Indigenous students ($12 million), whereas CLS will assist rural and regional, low SES and Indigenous students.

It is also silent on scholarships for overseas students. This contrasts with the Government’s commitment to provide an additional $7.9m over four years for 30 new scholarships to attract the best and brightest to Australia, and for Australian teacher overseas fellowships.

Currently the Government provides $3.024m pa under the Additional Support for Students with Disabilities Program which assists universities with the cost of providing educational support and equipment for students with disabilities. This will be increased by $1.1m pa from 2005 – an additional $3.3m over three years.

Universities may also use HEEP funding (see above) for initiatives directed to students with disabilities. The Regional Disability Liaison Officer initiative is also funded through HEEP, totalling $0.817m in 2003. This complements the new Disability Coordination Officer (DCO) programme.

It provides for ICT, partnerships, learning models, domestic and international research collaboration, online courses to address skills shortages, resource sharing, strategies for assets management, credit transfer universities and TAFEs, professional development, new strategies for attracting international students.

This is a very large fund with very few parameters or limits. It is a catch-all for all university activities and lacks any explicit goals, focus or outcomes. It reads as the fund for 'everything else' and is unlikely to provide the Commonwealth with clear benefits and outcomes for its considerable investment.

It contains some elements covered by the Collaboration and Structural Reform Fund, particularly encouraging collaboration between universities (sharing of resources and expertise) and across sectors (specifically creating partnerships with TAFEs).

It revisits Labor's Knowledge Nation initiatives in funding for a national centre for the development of online course content and materials.

The Government’s BAF package provides a Learning and Teaching Performance Fund ($54.7million, rising to $83.8million in 2007) plus there will be a National Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, to be funded with $21.9 million from 2006.

The Opposition has not provided full details of what the composite index will be to index university grants. They have only stated that the Wage Cost Index (Education) will be one component. The Opposition needs to state the other components and the importance of each in the composite index that is proposed.

While the Wage Cost Index (Education) may be appropriate for compensating universities for rising salary costs, it is less clear that this is an appropriate means for compensating universities for increases in non-salary costs. Currently, non-salary costs comprise around 40 per cent of total university costs. A more appropriate indexation mechanism for compensating for rises in non-salary costs, would be a broad measure of price rises such as the CPI or the non-farm GDP deflator.

There remain doubts about the efficacy of using the specific Wage Cost Index (Education) to compensate for rising salary costs. This runs the danger of merely validating past salary increases, and would give the NTEU encouragement to pursue wage claims that would then be validated through subsequent indexation. A more appropriate indexation mechanism would be a community wide movement in salaries just as the broad level Wage Cost Index. If there were concerns about ‘brain drain’ and adequate compensation if high performers, these could be more appropriately addressed through industrial relations arrangements and instituting performance managements systems for university staff.

The Opposition states that its index would be used to increase university grants over and above existing increases. A more sensible approach would be to remove existing indexation arrangements and replace them with an alternative indexation regime with appropriate arguments in support of the new arrangements.

BAF did not change the existing indexation, but provides for a 7.5% increase after existing indexation arrangements, contingent on workplace and governance reforms.

The Government's policy acknowledges that it is important that Australia invests in assessment as a tool to enhance teaching and learning.

BAF establishes a National Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, which will look at a range of issues including the best way to improve assessment practices throughout the sector, and consultation with the sector about options for attracting and monitoring academic standards.

Audits by the AUQA already check that appropriate policies and procedures for assessment are in place in universities and being practised by academics.

Labor’s approach appears to add a new and unnecessary layer of bureaucracy in academic life.

BAF already provides a more comprehensive initiative, at a similar cost ($590,000 per year starting in 2005, against Labor's $600,000 per year starting in 2004).

Much offshore provision by Australian universities is through partnerships with other providers, not through offshore campuses of universities. The BAF initiative will ensure comprehensive auditing of Australian offshore provision in whatever form it occurs.

Australian higher education is already supported by a strong quality assurance framework, which includes a national framework for our higher education qualifications (the AQF), an independent national body which audits the quality of universities onshore and offshore (AUQA); and National Protocols for Higher Education Approval Processes which ensure consistent accreditation standards are applied whenever bodies are approved as Australian higher education providers.

Our quality assurance framework is emulated by other countries and is seen as providing an appropriate balance between government and institutional responsibility for quality assurance. No other country has such comprehensive mechanisms for quality assurance as Australia. These mechanisms undergo continual development to ensure that they best protect the high quality of our higher education system.

BAF has already proposed a new quality and accountability framework for higher education providers in receipt of Commonwealth funds.

Among new requirements which will positively impact on domestic students will be the need for private providers to be audited by the AUQA and to have in place appropriate tuition assurance arrangements (to protect course fees and course delivery).

Labor makes various claims about falling standards in higher education, referring to degrees being "dumbed down" and a decline in staff student ratios. They fail to mention that in the report Changes in Academic Work, the views of academics surveyed were evenly divided, with no evidence or measures given to support either view (52% thought academic standards to graduate had decreased, but 48% said they had increased or not changed).

The Government ceased providing loans through the SFSS because it is not delivering good outcomes for either students or Australian taxpayers. Under the scheme students could trade in their income support for an income contingent loan on a $1 for $2 basis. This arrangement resulted in effective interest rates that were significantly higher than market interest rates. Since 1998 the take-up of the loan has declined by one third.

The SFSS is fundamentally flawed as it created high levels of student debt and was most attractive to students who did not expect to reach the income level where the loan becomes repayable. It is estimated that more than 50% of loans will never be repaid.

The Australian Vice-Chancellor’s Committee and the National Union of Students both support the abolition of the Scheme.

The short term cost to the Budget of $159 million reflects the fact that students will no longer trade in their income support entitlements for the loan. This "saving" that Labor has identified is the income support foregone by students in exchange for the loan and cannot be regarded as true savings. Furthermore, it is a short sighted "saving" as the SFSS is estimated to eventually cost the taxpayer $1.4 billion in accrued debt that is unlikely to ever be repaid.