A Senate committee has been told that the ߣߣ��Ƶn government’s proposed higher education funding overhaul risks reducing rather than increasing participation, giving too much power to ministers and undermining diversity by installing a flawed measure of socio-economic disadvantage.

Submissions to the Education and Employment Committee, which is enquiring into the “Open the Doors of Opportunity” bill, warn that the proposals may not open the doors any wider – and may even close them slightly.

The government expects the measures to spawn an extra 200,000 commencing domestic university students over the next decade. But critics say the bill appropriates no new funding to bankroll this growth, and some of its provisions – particularly fines for exceeding “over-enrolment” caps – could have the opposite effect.

The ߣߣ��Ƶn Technology Network of Universities (ATN) highlighted the “uncertainty” surrounding the proposals. “Nothing in the bill requires growth in places,” ATN’s submission says. “The growth allocation is a power the commission may use, not a duty it must meet.”

ߣߣ��Ƶ

Universities ߣߣ��Ƶ (UA) said access to additional places remained dependent on future ministerial decisions with no “guaranteed pathway” for growth. “The bill…largely legislates ceilings without corresponding floors,” UA’s submission says.

“The legislation should do more than give future governments the capacity to increase…places. It should provide a durable guarantee that existing system capacity will be maintained and establish a clear framework for the additional places.”

ߣߣ��Ƶ

The ߣߣ��Ƶn Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) said “managed growth targets” – under which each university would be allocated set numbers of subsidised places for the next year, with estimates for the following two years – could effectively operate as caps.

“Funding settings should support growth and innovation rather than create barriers,” ACCI’s submission says. “We caution against an overly centralised allocation model that constrains institutional responsiveness or limits student choice.”

Interest groups support the bill’s intent and want it passed, but with dozens of amendments – particularly to ministerial discretion over teaching grants. The legislation would allow the education minister to vary any university’s funding for teaching at any time, irrespective of the mission-based compact the university had negotiated with the ߣߣ��Ƶn Tertiary Education Commission.

The ATN said such discretion was “potentially dangerous” unless ministers’ decisions could be “seen, challenged and relied upon. The test is not how the current minister would use them, but what a future government could do with them unchallenged.”

ߣߣ��Ƶ

The Regional Universities Network warned of the impact of “unfettered ministerial powers” on institutional autonomy. “Ministerial involvement should be limited to setting the broad policy framework and determining the overall parameters,” it said.

The 2050 Alliance said that while the “core details” of the proposed funding system were set out in legislation, settings governing the system’s operations would be relegated to “guidelines” which had not even been published yet, and would not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny or disallowance.

“The more discretion parliament confers on future governments, the greater the need for transparency, accountability and legislative clarity,” UA said. “Guidelines [should be] reserved for operational and administrative matters.”

The government proposes extra funding for the teaching of disadvantaged students, with universities to receive at least an extra A$1,535 (£804) for every full-time student from a low socio-economic background. But under the bill, students’ socio-economic status will be measured “at the time the person enrols in the unit” – not when they first enrol in the degree.

ߣߣ��Ƶ

This means a disadvantaged student will no longer be counted as such after moving into a more affluent neighbourhood to study. “A student who relocates from a low socioeconomic area to attend university does not cease to experience the effects of…disadvantage simply because [the] address has changed,” UA noted.

Disadvantage is a particular issue in the ߣߣ��Ƶn Capital Territory (ACT), where no locality is officially classified as low socio-economic – a “product of good urban planning” that “statistically hides disadvantaged individuals”, according to University of Canberra (UC) vice-chancellor Bill Shorten.

ߣߣ��Ƶ

Under the proposals, UC will receive no extra funding for admitting a “large proportion” of disadvantaged students, Shorten complained. “It’s part of our values and mission.”

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com