Attachment: CAPA Submission
The services provided by all student organisations, and in particular by postgraduate student organisations, have evolved in response to the needs of students. Postgraduate organisations are at the forefront of providing for the needs of today’s students in an environment dramatically changed and changing. The services postgraduate organisations provide vary depending on the pattern of enrolment, the relationship to other student organisations, whether service provision is centralised in one body or distributed amongst several, and also on the level and security of funding.
This submission will address the terms of reference from a broad perspective,
linking the impact at the individual postgraduate student and university level to
the consequences at the higher education sector and international levels.
Attachment: CAPA Submission
The Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations (CAPA) is the national peak body representing Australia’s 257,700 postgraduate students, including 47,300 research students. CAPA welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the discussion on an e-Research strategic framework.
Higher degree by research candidates contribute approximately 70% of the research conducted in universities.1 Postgraduate students are leaders in utilising technology and contributing to innovation. If Australia is to benefit from the e-Research potential, it is imperative that the strategic framework considers the initiatives and needs of these students.
This submission will focus on the broad areas of concern for postgraduate research students.
Attachment: CAPA Submission
The Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations (CAPA) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to Minister Nelson’s debate on Australia’s future higher education governance. We submit the following response to the issues paper Building Better Foundations for Higher Education in Australia: A discussion about re-aligning Commonwealth-State responsibilities on behalf of all students enrolled in Australian postgraduate degrees.
CAPA is the national peak body representing Australia’s 247,000 postgraduate students. It has affiliated postgraduate associations in 34 of Australia’s public higher education institutions and in all States and Territories.
CAPA believes that whilst there are at present concerns with the way State Governments govern universities under the enabling legislation, this is nothing compared to what concerns we would have with Commonwealth governance of universities. The Commonwealth is not in a position to foster, promote, respond timely and have an intimate understanding of the needs, concerns and public interest of the States’ own urban and regional universities.
CAPA is also concerned that even though DEST has commissioned two government reports and one report which involved the in-depth interviewing of most of Australia’s university Vice-Chancellors, the government is still insistent on engaging in a debate on an issue that has previously been canvassed and responded to in submissions to Crossroads with almost unanimous lack of support for such a move.
CAPA believes it is crucial that universities’ mission remains to provide scholarship, teaching and research for the public benefit. CAPA believe the best means of achieving this in the current funding environment is to follow best practice models such as the NSW University Act. CAPA recommends this as the way forward for States and Territories.
CAPA does believe that there is room for improvement to universities’ governing bodies and has previously expressed concern that most universities have not detailed the processes and operations of councils in the modern university world where responding to the commercial realities is paramount to ensure legal, financial and public risks are minimised. There have been a number of commercial deals with universities that have led to impropriety and a lack of transparency and accountability of a publicly funded entity.
Whilst we believe that there are changes that need to be made at the State level, these can be conducted without a change in jurisdiction. Indeed, a number of contributors to this debate have expressed this same view. CAPA have long been favourable to the establishment of a National Universities Ombudsman (NUO). A national ombudsman is needed to ensure that universities’ commercial activities, and other non-traditional practices, meet appropriate auditing standards, and are subject to adequate measures of probity. The NUO could monitor the implementation and / or review of the National Protocols through the Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA) with arrangements regarding the National Protocols remaining as they currently are.
In our submission, we address those consultative questions asked in Building Better Foundations of most relevance to our postgraduate constituents and postgraduate students generally. In the process, we have made some recommendations regarding governance that are consistent with the recommendations made by the Government’s own consultants and other stakeholders.
Attachment: CAPA Submission
CAPA’s concerns about quality in the provision of education for international students onshore have been enumerated in several recent submissions including to the DEST Evaluation of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 and to the DIMIA review of Options for Regulating Migration Agents Overseas and the Immigration Related Activities of Education Agents. These submissions raised the inadequacy of the quality assurance mechanisms that apply onshore, yet even these minimal quality assurance provisions do not exist for offshore students.
CAPA welcomes the release of the discussion paper. Offshore programs of Australian universities have been expanding rapidly without any overall investigation regarding quality assurance. This submission will focus on the issues as they relate to higher education and in particular to postgraduate education.
Attachment: CAPA Submission
The Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations (CAPA) is the national peak body representing Australia’s 247,000 postgraduate students, including 45,659 research students. CAPA welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the discussion on a research quality assessment exercise.
Attachment: CAPA Submission
The Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations (CAPA) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to Minister Nelson’s debate on our future higher education accreditation and approval arrangements. We value this opportunity for public consultation, and believe that this is integral to the process of reviewing the National Protocols. We submit the following response to the issues paper Building University Diversity: Future approval and accreditation processes for Australian higher education on behalf of all students enrolled in Australian postgraduate degrees.
CAPA is the national peak body representing Australia’s 247,000 postgraduate students. It has affiliated postgraduate associations in 34 of Australia’s public universities and in all States and Territories.
CAPA believes that the Australian higher education system should foster quality, equity and diversity in teaching, research and scholarship. For this reason, we feel considerable concern over some of the areas raised in Building University Diversity. We are extremely concerned by the prospect of significant changes to the National Protocols. In particular, we are concerned about possible changes to Protocol 1 that may result in teaching-only universities. CAPA’s position is that universities must have a research focus. Anything less would risk lowering the standard of university education in Australia.
CAPA is also concerned by the suggestion raised several times in Building University Diversity that the National Protocols accommodate specialised institutions. There is already considerable depth and breadth of course offerings in the current higher education system. CAPA’s concern is that the government may wish to concentrate research in a select number of universities, resulting in less funding for other universities to conduct research. Indeed, this has been referred to in Crossroads.
Funding of specialist institutions would pose a threat to the research funding base for many universities and particularly regional universities. The proposition that rural students in regional universities should only have access to a narrow breadth of study options of direct relevance to the regional economy has been proferred in Crossroads. CAPA views such suggestions as serving only to exacerbate the divide between rich and poor, and between the city and the bush.
CAPA acknowledges that the duplication of research infrastructure at every university is not necessarily a desirable outcome of every university maintaining a research base. A solution to this problem would be to encourage collaboration between universities, including arrangements for the sharing of resources between institutions. Such collaboration would need to be encouraged through financial reward incentives for the universities participating in collaborative activity. CAPA believes that institutional collaboration to teach disciplines with smaller student numbers is vastly preferable to the loss of those disciplines.
CAPA also believes that rules governing the operation of private universities must be the same as those required of public universities. CAPA is concerned that private providers are currently not subject to the same accountability mechanisms and quality audits as public universities. The governing bodies of public universities are guided by the requirement to act in the public interest. In contrast to private providers, public universities must conform with government reporting and accountability requirements and are subject to audit by the Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA). CAPA believes that public funding should not be extended to private providers because of the lack of provision to ensure the effective use of this funding.
CAPA is also concerned about the equity implications of providing public funding to private religious institutions that may not operate under the same EEO principles as public universities. In particular, CAPA strongly opposes the re-allocation of funding away from public universities to private providers. Ultimately, if private providers meet the criteria under Protocol 1, only then should they be able to access public funding.
CAPA believes that a non-self accrediting non-university that has successfully operated over a period of five years, should be able to seek authorisation to accredit its own courses. However, this self accreditation should only be for those courses the institution has successfully operated over the five year period. The institution would not be able to use the nomenclature ‘university’ unless they met the criteria for Protocol 1. These institutions should be able to call themselves ‘self accrediting institutions’ or ‘higher education institutions’.
In our submission, we address those consultative questions asked in Building University Diversity of most relevance to our postgraduate constituents, as well as providing additional information on areas of particular importance to postgraduate students.
CAPA’s key concern in this submission is the welfare and rights of international students. CAPA is very concerned about the number of unscrupulous agents (both education agents and migration agents) acting against the welfare of students.
The Migration Act and ESOS Act are designed to both:
There is an essential tension between these two roles which can result in legitimate migrants or visa holders being incorrectly or inappropriately targeted and punished after making honest mistakes, through the same legislative instruments they rely on for protection. CAPA belives that the protective elements of legislation and regulation should be the focus of the current review. Strong regulation of the migration advice industry will weed out both those agents who misinform potential legitimate migrants, as well as those who facilitate illegitimate immigration – indeed it is likely that the same agents undertake both roles.
We also comment here on some issues outside of the scope of the current review relating particularly to the off-shore education advice industry. Believing that the illegitimate migration advice activities of off-shore education agents are likely to go hand in hand with illegitimate education advice activities by the same agents, CAPA recommends a broader review of the offshore education advice industry with input from both DEST and DIMIA.
Attachment: CAPA Paper
The higher education sector’s low expectations of the 2005 Federal Budget were fulfilled last night with the release of a budget that largely ignores universities. In anticipation of this, many key stakeholders such as the NTEU and AVCC did not bother to attend parliament for its release.
This budget contains no surprises, as the few higher education budget measures that were included had been announced previously, either as part of long-term commitments contained in budgets of previous years or as commitments arising out of the federal election of last year. In other words, there is little new money for the sector. A slight increase in ARC funding is all that has been provided for research. Universities will have to cover the shortfalls in the Budget themselves, which leads to concerns that unregulated fees (such as postgraduate coursework fees) could climb higher as a result.
Attachment: CAPA Paper
This briefing paper provides a background to the RQF, outlines the stages in the development process, and highlights particular issues for postgraduates. For a comprehensive discussion of the issues, please refer to the CAPA submissions:
Attachment: CAPA Submission
The Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations (CAPA) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Senate Inquiry into the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2005 Measures No. 4) Bill 2005. We value this opportunity for public consultation, and submit the following response on behalf of all students enrolled in Australian postgraduate degrees. CAPA is the national peak body representing Australia’s 257,000 postgraduate students. It has affiliated postgraduate associations in 34 of Australia’s public higher education institutions and in all States and Territories.
CAPA has a number of concerns about allowing a private foreign university to operate in Australia. Specifically, we have provided a detailed response below about our concerns regarding the proposed operation of a campus of the American University – Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) in Australia:
The awarding of American-only degrees. Whilst most would argue that there is value in an American degree in terms of marketing to overseas students, this is the role of the American Government not the Australian Government. We are concerned that this is effectively devaluing an Australian degree awarded at one of Australia’s numerous quality universities.
The introduction of greater competition for funding among the three universities already operating in South Australia. We are especially concerned about the South Australian Government spending public funding to help set up a foreign private university, particularly at a time when federal funding to the university sector is substantially shrinking.
The idea of ‘elite’ universities existing in Australia. CAPA believe all universities should be properly funded to offer both research and teaching across a broad range of areas. Collaboration between institutions should be properly funded to ensure the major areas of study are offered.
The implementation of voluntary student unionism (VSU) that will possibly encourage enrolment at Carnegie Mellon University in South Australia (CMU (SA)). If CMU (SA) bundles a student services fee with tuition fees studying there may appear attractive to local students and over time, this will take students away from the three publicly funded South Australian universities. As CMU (SA) will be a Table C provider and excluded from such commonwealth funding then CMU (SA) may be able to levy a student services fee. CAPA believes that all students are entitled to the broader
experience a university has to offer through properly funded student services.
In our submission, we address the issues that are most relevant to our postgraduate constituents, as well as providing additional information on areas of particular importance to postgraduate students. We have listed our recommendations to the Senate Inquiry as follows:
Attachment: CAPA Submission
The Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations (CAPA) is the national peak body representing Australia’s 257,000 postgraduate students. These students are engaged in both coursework and research programs and include 84,600 international students. CAPA welcomes the invitation to make a submission to this inquiry. We also refer the Committee to our submission to the current Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Legislation Committee Inquiry into the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (2005 Measures No. 4) Bill 2005, for a comprehensive analysis of the issues arising from the operation of a campus of a private foreign university in Australia.
The main objectives of the proposed amendment to the ESOS Act are to:
(1) enable Table C listed foreign owned and operated higher education providers (subject to proposed amendments to the Higher Education Support Act 2003 or HESA) to also be registered as providers under the Education Services for Overseas Students (ESOS) Act 2000. Such providers would therefore be able to enrol international students.
(2) enable providers registered under the ESOS Act to charge international students an amount as part of their tuition fee to meet the provider’s obligations under the National Code of Practice for Registration Authorities
and Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students (National Code). This fee will not breach the ESOS Act or any education related Act.
This submission will address these two objectives.
Attachment: CAPA Submission
The Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations (CAPA) welcomes the opportunity to address the RQF Preferred Model Paper. This submission will focus on our core concerns with the recommendations of the Expert Advisory Group (EAG) as they relate to Higher Degree by Research (HDR) students. We view the resolution of these concerns as paramount if the RQF is to truly improve the overall quality of research conducted at Australian universities.
CAPA is of the view that, should these concerns not be addressed, the exercise of implementation and compliance with the RQF will cease to have any degree of relevance for HDR students, as they will receive no benefit from its implementation, either now or in the future. This is of concern, not only to CAPA, but also to the sector, as the aim of any research support should be to encourage the next generation of researchers. The exclusion of HDR students and other researchers not nominated for inclusion in the RQF will limit the viability and attraction of working and researching within Higher Education in Australia.
As such, CAPA is forced to view this RQF Preferred Model in the same manner as we regard the current Research Training Scheme (RTS); that is, as a scheme to be worked around rather than worked with. This position is partially derived from the fact that key recommendations from not only CAPA, but also other key stakeholders in the sector, have been ignored without explanation or reason in the Preferred Model Paper.
Attachment: CAPA Submission
The Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations is pleased to respond to DEST regarding the development of a set of National Strategic Principles for Higher Education to inform the Australian Government on decisions and investment in higher education provision.
DEST states this paper is an elaboration of the policy framework in “Our Universities – Backing Australia’s Future” (BAF) of which the four key themes of sustainability, quality, equity and diversity have long been CAPA’s own vision for higher education. However, CAPA differs from DEST in that our underlying principles are based on appropriate public funding of universities to achieve these aims and not the principle of ‘user pays’ that is at the heart of the Government’s BAF funding package. Our view has always been that not only the individual student benefits from their university education, but that the community as a whole benefits by:
1. the contribution graduates make to society through the flow-on effects of building
knowledge, and
2. available public funding through the higher taxation contribution made by
graduates because of higher salaries.
DEST mentions in this paper the lack of consistency in the implementation of the National Protocols across Australia. However, we are concerned that the short turnaround time expected of universities to implement changes is unrealistic as we have mentioned in our submission on “Building Better Foundations for Higher Education in Australia: A discussion about re-aligning Commonwealth-State responsibilities (BBF)”. With the review phase of the National Protocols underway and without any final outcome for this review foreseeable in the near future, we believe that this current paper on the National Strategic Principles is untimely. However, CAPA does believe many of the National Strategic Principles, as briefly outlined in the discussion paper, are of merit.
Importantly, CAPA has a major concern about how the introduction of voluntary student unionism (VSU) may impact negatively on many of the initiatives proposed. We have provided responses to National Strategic Principles for Higher Education paper in order of the listed National Strategic Principles detailed…